Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles

[JM_]

1 hour ago, BoKnows said:

So you're just defending the reporters right to rip on JP?

 

None of us are saying that she can't, but that she's a POS for doing so.

yeah, she's nasty. But he's also been nasty. Now we're getting into semantics of who's gone darker or used more negative techniques. 

 

But you can't hide from negative blowback when thats one of your marketing techniques. Peterson uses dog whistles, or he has in the past to generate attention. Feeling sorry for him that someone is doing some version of that to him is not something i'm going to have any sympathy for. 

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm not supportive of either of them. 

Perhaps you might want to rethink condoning the behaviour then.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Master Mind said:

You're going to double down on this? Look at the number of confuse reacts to your initial post. Perhaps that's an indication you're taking the wrong approach here.

 

You don't have to like the guy or his tactics to feel empathy for him. This isn't just people criticizing his books, speeches, etc. They're celebrating the battling of addiction caused by the stress of his wife's cancer. Big difference.

 

I think the justification of those celebrations is worse than anything Peterson's said. Yet I wouldn't celebrate if this happened to you (or anyone else), and would be disgusted if anyone did.

 

But hey, I guess we're just two very different people. Have a nice day.

double down? what? confused faces are your problem. I don't think you've tried to understand what I'm saying, and thats OK. 

[JM_]

Just now, aGENT said:

Perhaps you might want to rethink condoning the behaviour then.

show me where i condoned it. 

[Smashian Kassian]

47 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Fwiw

 

38 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Thanks, but you add an organised religion tag and I can't. They should be long since hanging out with the dodo bird. I appreciate that he may be just doing a history lesson. But he has started his own 'church' though, right? they are all cults. 

 

I'm pretty much in the same boat as aGENT. Im not religious but its interesting to get a deeper understanding.

 

I've always thought religion had some good things on the surface but was dangerous beyond, I've gained a more of an appreciation for the truisms listening to JP unpack some of the stories. Alot of the old - more 'dangerous' - ideas have been moved on from (& need to be in areas where they haven't been). Other ideas have continued on whether presented religiously or not.

 

I agree with bishop on the dangers but I wouldn't restrict that just to religion, rather ideology in general. Whether it be 'right', 'left', religious or not. Mao persecuted religion & there was no shortage of atrocioities there. 

[aGENT]

21 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

show me where i condoned it. 

I'm not playing that game Jimmy. You're using the exact same playbook as the 'Floyd was no saint/had a criminal record' and 'she was dressed provocatively' crowd.

 

You're better than that.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'm not playing that game Jimmy. You're using the exact same playbook as the 'Floyd was no saint/had a criminal record' and 'she was dressed provocatively' crowd.

 

You're better than that.

no, I am not doing that. I'm saying Peterson is actively complicit in his own atmosphere of 'controversy' that generates attention for him. Thats nothing like what happened to Floyd or what some person gets blamed for wearing. Peterson knows exactly what he's doing. 

 

Let see if we can agree on this: Peterson has used dog whistles in the past, yes or no? 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[bishopshodan]

38 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't think you've tried to understand what I'm saying, and thats OK. 

Uh oh, that's going against one of the rules!

 

9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't

[JM_]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

Uh oh, that's going against one of the rules!

 

9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't

hey if people want to think I'm a jerk for having zero sympathy for JP thats OK, I'll sleep fine tonight.

 

The point I seem to be failing to get across is Peterson is no saint, he's used controversial statements to his advantage, because controversy gets attention, sells books and puts bums in seats. And thats fine, lots of people do that. But don't expect sympathy when that gets done to him. He's playing a certain game for attention, so are they. I don't happen to like or support either side btw. 

 

This is a good article if anyone cares to see it that describes how Peterson has cultivated controversy for attention.

 

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life

 

 

[Chicken.]

Hopefully he gets better. Wishing (celebrating) ill will on controversial people seems to be the norm on here these days so nice to see a bit of pushback in this thread. 

 

He is an interesting fellow, I never knew he had a daughter though. Apple may not fall far from the tree with her aspirations of being an influencer. I dig her beef views. 

 

 

[bishopshodan]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

hey if people want to think I'm a jerk for having zero sympathy for JP thats OK, I'll sleep fine tonight.

 

The point I seem to be failing to get across is Peterson is no saint, he's used controversial statements to his advantage, because controversy gets attention, sells books and puts bums in seats. And thats fine, lots of people do that. But don't expect sympathy when that gets done to him. He's playing a certain game for attention, so are they. I don't happen to like or support either side btw. 

 

This is a good article if anyone cares to see it that describes how Peterson has cultivated controversy for attention.

 

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life

 

 

Thanks for that article.

One of the opening paragraphs..

 

Jordan Peterson is also a right-wing internet celebrity who has claimed that feminists have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination,” referred to developing nations as “pits of catastrophe” in a speech to a Dutch far-right group, and recently told a Times reporter that he supported “enforced monogamy.”

 

No wonder people often give themselves the out "I don't agree with everything..."

 

Thanks for the info in this thread people. If nothing more, I have somethings to ask my buddy when he states.." well, what Jordan Peterson says..."

[bishopshodan]

8 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

I dig her beef views. 

Wait,

Just googled that too.

 

She's into all meat diets?

Yuck. Red meat eaters smell. 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

Thanks for that article.

One of the opening paragraphs..

 

Jordan Peterson is also a right-wing internet celebrity who has claimed that feminists have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination,” referred to developing nations as “pits of catastrophe” in a speech to a Dutch far-right group, and recently told a Times reporter that he supported “enforced monogamy.”

 

No wonder people often give themselves the out "I don't agree with everything..."

 

Thanks for the info in this thread people. If nothing more, I have somethings to ask my buddy when he states.." well, what Jordan Peterson says..."

thanks for not using a confused face in response, or putting words in my mouth. 

[Timbermen]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

no, I am not doing that. I'm saying Peterson is actively complicit in his own atmosphere of 'controversy' that generates attention for him. Thats nothing like what happened to Floyd or what some person gets blamed for wearing. Peterson knows exactly what he's doing. 

 

Let see if we can agree on this: Peterson has used dog whistles in the past, yes or no? 

He did come out to do a lecture to "Who let the dogs out, Roof,Roof" so there's that. (kidding but it is based on hearsay like Bernstein and Weiss's damnations of their targets.  even though i just made it up.) By using the same tactics as Beyerstein and Bari Weiss ( The first two videos of page one, please watch those, thats the premise of the thread.) You can just outrightly caste unfounded and defamatory accusations. The second video i posted was to show how far removed this award winnings so called journalist Beyerstein is from Bari Weiss, a NewYork Times political writer and editor who was calmly and politely dismantled by Joe Rogan. The commentary by Jimmy Dore and those comedians is hilarious too. Watch those two before commenting.

Also if you are accusing him of becoming the new Jim Jones or something, watch those Joe Rogan podcasts i posted to get a clearer idea what his views on religion are. He's incredibly well read in many subjects and the bible happens to be a book, one of myths handed down from 10's of thousands of years. I don't see what sot of relevance his studying these stories from a meta-physical approach has anything to do with his validity. Definatley not, he's a clinical phycologist. It definitely shouldn't formulate an opinion on whether it is professional for a journalist to say what she did in a supposedly respected news outlet. based on hearsay, not far removed of the NYtimes writer in the second vid.

 Anyways, for those dwelling on his religious studies, This is the third appearance on the JRE, in this one he talks about religion a lot so i've only watched the first half hour or so because i'm not into religion. I also know i'm not Christopher Hitchens and don't need  to persecute a clinical phycologist that dares study the meta-physics of the bible. How dare he. I'll watch this one today too. That will be over 8 hours of Rogan/Peterson that will explain all the answers you bring up in this thread. Unfortunately, Rex Murphy was wrong, CBC hasn't been operating under false presumptions for the last three decades. The average attention span IS five minutes for interviews and one minute for editorials. Here it is anyway

 

[Master Mind]

24 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

The point I seem to be failing to get across is Peterson is no saint, he's used controversial statements to his advantage, because controversy gets attention, sells books and puts bums in seats. And thats fine, lots of people do that. But don't expect sympathy when that gets done to him. He's playing a certain game for attention, so are they. I don't happen to like or support either side btw. 

 

You've made that point. It's irrelevant. The tactics he's used doesn't justify people celebrating the hardships he and his family have endured.

 

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thanks for not using a confused face in response, or putting words in my mouth. 

When you make these arguments, don't be surprised when people consider it a confusing stance to take.

 

I suppose one could say:

 

Quote

you reap what you sow. 

 

[Chicken.]

11 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Wait,

Just googled that too.

 

She's into all meat diets?

Yuck. Red meat eaters smell. 

Lol from the sounds of it - but I also feel she is just countering the extremeness of the NYT article with her own extreme take.

 

Or her own sort of political dog whistle which is easy here, who can take this NYT article title seriously;

 

"The End of Meat Is Here" 

 

Either way my point was, JP has a family, and regardless of his views hopefully he gets healthy - mentally. Same with anyone I disagree with on any particular topic.. besides my own anecdotal death wish list (kidding, kind of)

 

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, Timbermen said:

He did come out to do a lecture to "Who let the dogs out, Roof,Roof" so there's that. (kidding but it is based on hearsay like Bernstein and Weiss's damnations of their targets.  even though i just made it up.) By using the same tactics as Beyerstein and Bari Weiss ( The first two videos of page one, please watch those, thats the premise of the thread.) You can just outrightly caste unfounded and defamatory accusations. The second video i posted was to show how far removed this award winnings so called journalist Beyerstein is from Bari Weiss, a NewYork Times political writer and editor who was calmly and politely dismantled by Joe Rogan. The commentary by Jimmy Dore and those comedians is hilarious too. Watch those two before commenting.

Also if you are accusing him of becoming the new Jim Jones or something, watch those Joe Rogan podcasts i posted to get a clearer idea what his views on religion are. He's incredibly well read in many subjects and the bible happens to be a book, one of myths handed down from 10's of thousands of years. I don't see what sot of relevance his studying these stories from a meta-physical approach has anything to do with his validity. Definatley not, he's a clinical phycologist. It definitely shouldn't formulate an opinion on whether it is professional for a journalist to say what she did in a supposedly respected news outlet. based on hearsay, not far removed of the NYtimes writer in the second vid.

 Anyways, for those dwelling on his religious studies, This is the third appearance on the JRE, in this one he talks about religion a lot so i've only watched the first half hour or so because i'm not into religion. I also know i'm not Christopher Hitchens and don't need  to persecute a clinical phycologist that dares study the meta-physics of the bible. How dare he. I'll watch this one today too. That will be over 8 hours of Rogan/Peterson that will explain all the answers you bring up in this thread. Unfortunately, Rex Murphy was wrong, CBC hasn't been operating under false presumptions for the last three decades. The average attention span IS five minutes for interviews and one minute for editorials. Here it is anyway

 

I haven't done any of that. I have seen him on Rogan, I'm a big fan of Rogan's interview style actually. I haven't seen the religion one, I don't really care about that topic, other than don't make me follow yours. 

 

The person in the OP video is using the same kind of techniques Peterson does. Both want to generate controversy and anger within certain groups. On that level, they're the same imo. So for me, someone using the same techniques on Peterson as he's used on others generates no sympathy from me, sorry. 

 

Peterson's a big boy, he can handle it, in fact my guess is he's happy about it. It reminds me of experienced politicians who rip each other to shreds in question period, but can have a beer together after. They all know what game they are playing. 

[JM_]

16 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

You've made that point. It's irrelevant. The tactics he's used doesn't justify people celebrating the hardships he and his family have endured.

 

When you make these arguments, don't be surprised when people consider it a confusing stance to take.

 

I suppose one could say:

 

 

thats your take on it. He's not justified in attacking the groups he goes after either. Why is it OK for him to go on the attack, but not someone else to do the very same thing? 

[BoKnows]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats your take on it. He's not justified in attacking the groups he goes after either. Why is it OK for him to go on the attack, but not someone else to do the very same thing? 

Who is he attacking?  

[JM_]

1 minute ago, BoKnows said:

Who is he attacking?  

he's regularly gone on the attack of feminists and LGBTQ+ folks.