Sign in to follow this  
Timbermen

Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

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. 

Fair enough, not everyone, regardless of what they agree or disagree with, can offer up their thoughts in a constructive way. I guess I just haven't read anyone who supports JP who gets upset when someone doesn't worship the ground he walks on. I could be wrong, were I to start reading the thread from the beginning, but I think I'll pass on that haha.

 

And FTR, I support JPs willingness to participate in the dialectic. He's genuinely interested in some very deep and important issues, and he brings a very interesting perspective to the discussion(s). I particularly don't agree with his oftentimes lack of clarity, his obfuscation, his superfluous provocative language, his overall mannerisms as an orator, and many of his ideas, but I do respect him for not going 100% nut bar and peeling back from a dangerous edge that I think he was likely intentionally going down early on in his fame and instead started to venture back to a moderate space after he started surrounding himself with some reasonable voices in discussions with guys like Harris, Shapiro, or Rubin. 

 

If there's anyone I personally "worship" it's Sam Harris. His brand is intellectual honesty. He's someone who will change his mind on the spot if he's shown some new information or idea that updates any position he currently holds, if it's shown to be warranted. I find myself disagreeing with Sam very little on issues. His intentions are worthy and admirable and honest, and any of his his provocative language is almost always benign and light hearted, yet poignant. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

download.jpg.7d1cdceb4d45ec2e81e8bfb0b9f016e5.jpg

 

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. 

Man, you got to do better than that, all you can come up with is Preston, Pearson, Paulson. Not creative at all, you could have said Peter Pockiington, Paddington Bear, Peter, Paul&Mary, Pistol Pete, St. Petersburgh, The Peterborough Pete, St.Peters Basilica, Petr Nedved. C'mon man, you can do better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

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.

Here’s the issue though: nothing said in the video was particularly complex. Most of it wouldn’t be out of place in a cultural anthropology 101 class and it was quite easy to understand. However, because I don’t agree with the arguments, and also believe they display a fair amount of insecurity in the process, I’m being accused of not understanding or deliberately misrepresenting them. Hell, it’s three pages later and I’m still being asked if I think enforced monogamy means forcing people into relationships against their will :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

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.

Edited by HerrDrFunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Master Mind Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you keep making that face, it’ll stick that way? 
 

Nah, just kidding, it’s all good. To be honest, the confused emoji reminds me of the face Preggler made when he was talking about the most optimal environment for successfully raising kids and Rogan interrupted to ask “what about people who don’t want kids?” and he reacted like Rogan had reached over and flicked him in the forehead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Here’s the issue though: nothing said in the video was particularly complex. Most of it wouldn’t be out of place in a cultural anthropology 101 class and it was quite easy to understand. However, because I don’t agree with the arguments, and also believe they display a fair amount of insecurity in the process, I’m being accused of not understanding or deliberately misrepresenting them. Hell, it’s three pages later and I’m still being asked if I think enforced monogamy means forcing people into relationships against their will :lol:

It's not that you merely disagree with his arguments (no one cares if you agree or not) but rather your either inability or conscious defiance towards steel manning his arguments. 

 

Let's put it this way, either your interpretation of his arguments is off and you're misrepresenting them, or, say, me and aGENT are interpreting and misrepresenting his arguments.

 

Which is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

It's not that you merely disagree with his arguments (no one cares if you agree or not) but rather your either inability or conscious defiance towards steel manning his arguments. 

 

Let's put it this way, either your interpretation of his arguments is off and you're misrepresenting them, or, say, me and aGENT are interpreting and misrepresenting his arguments.

 

Which is it? 

It’s neither. It’s a matter of you and aGent hearing what he’s had to say and thinking there’s truth there while I heard what was being said and think it’s a crock. Both can be true. 
 

Also, I thought you were done responding to me? 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread used to be an interesting read.

 

I stress used to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

It’s neither. It’s a matter of you and aGent hearing what he’s had to say and thinking there’s truth there while I heard what was being said and think it’s a crock. Both can be true. 
 

Also, I thought you were done responding to me? 

I should be, but I'm watching golf and decided, why not.

 

You're using "thinking there's truth there" in place of agreement. 

 

Again, it's not a matter of agreeing, disagreeing, thinking there's truth there, or not thinking there's truth there. It's about the ability to objectively understand what his ideas are, whether you agree or disagree with it. That's it. 

 

You should be able to see that it's possible to understand someone's idea(s) and either agree, disagree, or even be undecided, but in order to be able to do any of those things, you first have to be able to steel man the person's idea(s) so that you clearly understand what the idea(s) are, which you have not been able to do. You have incorrect interpretations at every turn and have been shown so at every turn, but your rebuttal is disagreeing yada yada. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Lock said:

This thread used to be an interesting read.

 

I stress used to...

Agree. Back to watching golf. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I should be, but I'm watching golf and decided, why not.

 

You're using "thinking there's truth there" in place of agreement. 

 

Again, it's not a matter of agreeing, disagreeing, thinking there's truth there, or not thinking there's truth there. It's about the ability to objectively understand what his ideas are, whether you agree or disagree with it. That's it. 

 

You should be able to see that it's possible to understand someone's idea(s) and either agree, disagree, or even be undecided, but in order to be able to do any of those things, you first have to be able to steel man the person's idea(s) so that you clearly understand what the idea(s) are, which you have not been able to do. You have incorrect interpretations at every turn and have been shown so at every turn, but your rebuttal is disagreeing yada yada. 

Fine. Jeb Presley is truly an intellectual titan, on par with Socrates, Luther or Kant, and I just can’t wrap my head around the profound truths he preaches.

 

Enjoy watching other people play golf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Thanks for helping me show others reading this thread what intellectual honesty and good and bad faith discussion looks like. 

You could always just say the whole thing was an experiment. ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/11/2020 at 10:01 PM, Smashian Kassian said:

Okay so if its not the government that 'governs' over the means of production than who does? People instituted by the government? Its the same thing. Or should it be an equal share of the responsibility for every person in the state? How does that work? Lets say your putting people in charge of the responsibility, if they are working harder & have the same lot in life as someone with less responsibility then they are just going to become corrupt. Which happened in the Soviet Union.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1982/10/24/ussr-corruption-an-insiders-view/a9aa8a7a-2442-4e88-8004-4cd1567c8362/

 

"Russia... Nothing like Marx had in mind"

 

So when Marx said:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

He didn't mean that? and/or the Soviets didn't act that out in what they did to the Ukrainian farmers? 

Give me a break. Obviously there is more to it then that, it's like you think people are just going to just take off their belt and not have to worry if their pants will stay in place:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

 

A worker cooperative is a cooperative that is owned and self-managed by its workers. This control may mean a firm where every worker-owner participates in decision-making in a democratic fashion, or it may refer to one in which management is elected by every worker-owner who each have one vote.

 

In other words a perfectly valid business model where workers are actually involved in a meaningful way rather then having everything relegated to someone who makes decisions for them.

 

We already have these in North America, but they are far more popular in Europe because they are not terrified of Socialism.

 

However, you definitely have a good point. It's certainly possible the system is not realistic,. I'll admit, something like the abolition of the state sounds rather pie in the sky-ish. 

 

But rest assured, you don't have worry about a Marxist takeover anyways. Pretty much no one has ever heard of the CPC (Communist Party of Canada) who obviously have no significant power or influence. 

 

I don't understand how you guys get so worked up about something that is practically nonexistent. You'd think Peterson would at the very least be able to produce an extensive list of names belonging to influential people who actually identify as Cultural Marxists, along with the kind of evidence that justifies his paranoia as to their apparent mustache twirling agendae, but no of course not that's never going to happen

 

My main problem with people getting pissy about this kind of thing is that it creates a resistance to adopting programs that are hugely beneficial.

 

Quote

 

So when Marx said:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

He didn't mean that? and/or the Soviets didn't act that out in what they did to the Ukrainian farmers? 

 

Did Marx say  "Make sure you seize farmlands to ensure tens of millions of people starve to death"

 

"Have the Government seize temporary control over the means of production, but if they don't feel like giving it to the people ever, then that's okay"

 

"By, the way, about 15 years in you can go ahead and abolish labor unions, because it turns out those don't really matter. Ignore what I said about them before"

 

"Make a sure a totalitarian seizes control and creates a cult of personality which creates an environment where no one is allowed to speak in opposition for fear of death or perhaps even worse, decades of brutal slavery"

 

I don't understand why you think you can have it both ways. You seem to admit this is something that can't be done, and you may well be correct, and yet you're like "Oh, and by the way all the terrible things Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot etc did, those are actually Marx' fault." Again, this an absurd post-hoc way of looking at it. These despots were purely selective about how they wanted to proceed and largely filled in the gaps with a blatant disregard for human life. Worst of all, it totally ignores countries that exist today that were and are far more faithful to Marxist principles and enjoy some of the best quality of life on the planet.

 

Imagine the blueprints for a car, lets call it Marxism. It has the potential to run perfectly fine, but must be built methodically. Dudes like Stalin come along and forcefully take the blueprints, then either switch out many of the important parts or remove them altogether.

 

This car is of course nothing like the original plan but it still runs fairly well. Among other things it kills a lot of people because, for example, you've removed many of the safety features.

 

 

Edited by Red Light Racicot
  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

Give me a break. Obviously there is more to it then that, it's like you think people are just going to just take off their belt and not have to worry if their pants will stay in place:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

 

A worker cooperative is a cooperative that is owned and self-managed by its workers. This control may mean a firm where every worker-owner participates in decision-making in a democratic fashion, or it may refer to one in which management is elected by every worker-owner who each have one vote.

 

In other words a perfectly valid business model where workers are actually involved in a meaningful way rather then having everything relegated to someone who makes decisions for them.

 

We already have these in North America, but they are far more popular in Europe because they are not terrified of Socialism.

 

However, you definitely have a good point. It's certainly possible the system is not realistic,. I'll admit, something like the abolition of the state sounds rather pie in the sky-ish. 

 

But rest assured, you don't have worry about a Marxist takeover anyways. Pretty much no one has ever heard of the CPC (Communist Party of Canada) who obviously have no significant power or influence. 

 

I don't understand how you guys get so worked up about something that is practically nonexistent. You'd think Peterson would at the very least be able to produce an extensive list of names belonging to influential people who actually identify as Cultural Marxists, along with the kind of evidence that justifies his paranoia as to their apparent mustache twirling agendae, but no of course not that's never going to happen

 

My main problem with people getting pissy about this kind of thing is that it creates a resistance to adopting programs that are hugely beneficial.

 

Did Marx say  "Make sure you seize farmlands to ensure tens of millions of people starve to death"

 

"Have the Government seize temporary control over the means of production, but if they don't feel like giving it to the people ever, then that's okay"

 

"By, the way, about 15 years in you can go ahead and abolish labor unions, because it turns out those don't really matter. Ignore what I said about them before"

 

"Make a sure a totalitarian seizes control and creates a cult of personality which creates an environment where no one is allowed to speak in opposition for fear of death or perhaps even worse, decades of brutal slavery"

 

I don't understand why you think you can have it both ways. You seem to admit this is something that can't be done, and you may well be correct, and yet you're like "Oh, and by the way all the terrible things Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot etc did, those are actually Marx' fault." Again, this an absurd post-hoc way of looking at it. These despots were purely selective about how they wanted to proceed and largely filled in the gaps with a blatant disregard for human life. Worst of all, it totally ignores countries that exist today that were and are far more faithful to Marxist principles and enjoy some of the best quality of life on the planet.

 

Imagine the blueprints for a car, lets call it Marxism. It has the potential to run perfectly fine, but must be built methodically. Dudes like Stalin come along and forcefully take the blueprints, then either switch out many of the important parts or remove them altogether.

 

This car is of course nothing like the original plan but it still runs fairly well. Among other things it kills a lot of people because, for example, you've removed many of the safety features.

 

 

I dunno, It sounds like something a grass smoking, free-loving hippie pinko would say. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

"Oh, and by the way all the terrible things Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot etc did, those are actually Marx' fault." 

I don't mind putting it all on Marx but I think we should also blame Jesus, gave us a vision incomprehensible and incompatible to the nature of the average human being. Loads of human beings appropriated his ideas to commit all kinds of atrocities which are of course Jesus' fault.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey here's Peterson on the Jocko podcast. Bishop mentioned him earlier in this thread, never heard of him before this. Lets watch this, hope they don't bring up Marxism.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 7:27 PM, Toews said:

I don't mind putting it all on Marx but I think we should also blame Jesus, gave us a vision incomprehensible and incompatible to the nature of the average human being. Loads of human beings appropriated his ideas to commit all kinds of atrocities which are of course Jesus' fault.

Why stop at Jesus?

 

Classical Liberalism was the dominant political theory of the British Empire, which between the early 19th century and outbreak of WWI, was responsible for around 50 million deaths worldwide. 
 

Time to cancel John Locke.

 

And somebody really should build a website that tracks any form of Classical Liberal content in university courses.

 

Gotta save today’s students from these terrifying “indoctrination cult” classes.

 

Never mind the neo-Marxists. We should really go after anyone who dares to call themselves a “classic British liberal.” After all, these monsters are promoting a “murderous doctrine” that wiped out an equal or larger percentage of the world population than Communism did. ;) 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/11/2020 at 11:34 AM, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Except anyone with more money / social status than working class people. 

 

"..the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. ......

........

Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society

 

 

Aren't we all appreciative of someone like Dr.Bonnie Henry right now?

Wealth inequality comes not from something someone wrote 2 centuries ago, but in the form of a couple thousand billionaires owning the same amount of wealth as about 4 and a half billion people, or if you prefer 26 people owning half the wealth on the planet.

 

These people are either born into it and/or have the luxury to enrich themselves based purely on the fact they have a massive bulk of wealth. You never need incur any kind of overall risk when you have your tentacles into everything, along with the power to influence the market. 

 

Does this sound like a meritocracy? Or... anything close to an ideal situation?

 

Those "Intellectual Dark Web" echo chambers are typically funded by billionaires. If you stick up for the status quo like Peterson does, well... in my opinion it would be more accurate to say you;re actually defending the guys who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

 

 

Edited by Red Light Racicot
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Red Light Racicot said:

Wealth inequality comes not from something someone wrote 2 centuries ago, but in the form of a couple thousand billionaires owning the same amount of wealth as about 4 and a half billion people, or if you prefer 26 people owning half the wealth on the planet.

 

These people are either born into it and/or have the luxury to enrich themselves based purely on the fact they have a massive bulk of wealth. You never need incur any kind of overall risk when you have your tentacles into everything, along with the power to influence the market. 

 

Does this sound like a meritocracy? Or... anything close to an ideal situation?

 

Those "Intellectual Dark Web" echo chambers are typically funded by billionaires. If you stick up for the status quo like Peterson does, well... in my opinion it would be more accurate to say you;re defending the guys who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

I guess my question is is this actually the problem or is the problem more of the fact that there's not enough money in the lower and middle class? They may seem like the same problem, but are they?

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.