Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles


Timbermen

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

And to be fair, regardless of what the addiction is, people in general deserve our sympathy when dealing their respective illness IMO.

I should remember this when I make comments about people that are overweight or the people I used to care for but also refer to as crackheads in the DTES. Heck there is even those famous meme's from the SNL skits about crackheads. 'Fat' people and 'addicts' have been fodder for comedians forever. 

I agree with Toews about personal responsibility, I mentioned Jocko earlier in this thread. That doesn't mean I can't have empathy for peoples struggles. 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

It is definitely an interesting phenomenon, the group use of emojis to express displeasure or control over a person, and I think it directly relates to this thread. It's why I asked a poster how pointing it out is a threat of control over someone's freedom of expression, as it seems to me like the use of the group emoji is more of a threat of control over Jimmy's freedom of expression in this context, same as it is in the context of the Beyhive. 

No one is saying Beyerstein shouldn't have the right to write that article or Jimmy's freedom of expression to defend it. I don't think Jimmy is bad, just wrong and you'll get people that disagree because, perhaps................you're wrong.

Jimmy and others think he's a bigot and oppressing minority's such as feminism and trans. What he was doing was waving a red flag at the absurdity of bill C-16. Why, because it was marxism coming from the extreme left. Now he became a easy target of mindless virtue signaling. You can't label someone thats a centrist as 'alt right' or 'fascist 'based only on a figment of your imagination and a picture of a guy wearing a islmaphobe shirt. all it does is proves your own extreme ideology.   

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

 

That's easy to say until you're on the receiving end of all of it. Sure, some people have thicker skin than others, but the empathy that people are asking for towards JP can go both ways, no? 

 

I've had my fair share. I was a big supporter of keeping Luongo and trading Schneider. Back then, there was an actual minus button, and plenty of name-calling. I certainly held the unpopular belief at the time and got plenty of flak for it.

 

Here's the difference on JP vs in thread. Nobody that's using the confuse emoji is celebrating a personal hardship nor considering it deserved.

 

It's using an emoji to show displeasure for someone's idea, not the poster themself.

 

Getting reactions on a post changes nothing. It doesn't hide or delete the post, and doesn't affect the poster's ability to continue posting. Heck, you can even turn off the notification for someone reacting to your post. Under notification settings:

 

Quote

Someone gives reputation to something I posted

Not too different than how people use the ignore user feature.

 

If you post an idea that many people disagree with, that's within your right. It's also within other poster's rights to react based on their viewpoint. Should a poster continue to make similar posts with the same idea, it's seems pretty natural that the reactions will also be the same.

 

But again, the reactions mean nothing at all in the grand scheme of things. It's just a quick way to show your opinion of a post. If someone is overly concerned with the exact emojis they get on a forum, I'd say they need to re-think their priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

I should remember this when I make comments about people that are overweight or the people I used to care for but also refer to as crackheads in the DTES. Heck there is even those famous meme's from the SNL skits about crackheads. 'Fat' people and 'addicts' have been fodder for comedians forever. 

I agree with Toews about personal responsibility, I mentioned Jocko earlier in this thread. That doesn't mean I can't have empathy for peoples struggles. 

 

Absolutely, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

I'm also a huge proponent of personal responsibility. But even the best of us occasionally succumb to our own demons and need a hand (and some empathy). Biggest problem there is they need to also want to help themselves, not all do.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Fwiw, the addiction AFAIK, was from prescribed, pharmaceutical anxiety meds. Anxiety caused by his wife having terminal cancer (no doubt also compounded by the stresses of his recent notoriety etc as well).

 

And to be fair, regardless of what the addiction is, people in general deserve our sympathy when dealing their respective illness IMO.

Regardless of circumstance Jordan Peterson has always advocated for personal responsibility. Based upon his own intellectualizing I don't believe he wants nor does is he deserving of my empathy for the choices he has made in his life. 

Edited by Toews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Toews said:

Regardless of circumstance Jordan Peterson has always advocated for personal responsibility. Based upon his own intellectualizing I don't believe he wants nor does is he deserving of my empathy for the choices he has made in his life. 

I don't think he 'chose' to become addicted to prescribed medication for anxiety over his wife's terminal illness.

 

As I wrote above, the two need not be mutually exclusive.

 

Though I would question the wisdom/prudence of the doctor who prescribed them to someone with known history of alcohol addiction and depression. That's a whole other thread though :lol:

 

 

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

I don't think he 'chose' to become addicted to prescribed medication for anxiety over his wife's terminal illness.

 

As I wrote above, the two need not be mutually exclusive.

 

Though I would question the wisdom/prudence of the doctor who prescribed them to someone with known history of alcohol addiction and depression. That's a whole other thread though :lol:

 

 

Shall we get into a discussion of free will now? 

 

Ok, I'll stop :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

In it, an oracle says that Socrates is the wisest man of them all. Socrates thinks to himself that surely there are men wiser than he, so he begins to walk around Athens to find these wiser men. He subsequently asks them questions such as 'what is justice', and with each answer he's given he then asks another question to dig deeper, as he can see there is more to it than the answer given. So he gets more answers, and he gives more questions, and gets more answers, etc., to the point where people reach an end to their beliefs and they realize that they don't actually know as much about the question that they thought they knew. 

 

Socrates is then charged with corrupting the people/youth of Athens because they get annoyed with him for showing each of them that they don't know as much as they think they do, that their opinions are untenable. He is sentenced to either leave Athens and stop philosophizing or drink hemlock and die. His response is "The unexamined life is not worth living", so he drinks the hemlock and dies.

 

This story is thousands of years old, yet here we are with a bunch of opinions on very important issues in society and there are hardly any Socrates around who want to actually practice the true dialectic to get to the truth of issues rather than just sit on untenable opinions. Ok, so Jimmy has an opinion on JP that most of us disagree with. So let's talk to him like he's willing to talk to us. Or, let's discuss JP, SJWs, Cherry, Trump, the journalist, etc., in a way that continues to dig deeper into the root issues rather than stay silent, or use emojis to express ourselves (which doesn't really add much), or shout, or hit ignore, you get the idea. 


Why do people have to be so married to their opinions? Why can't instead the search for truth be the end goal? 

I enjoyed your Socrates anecdote. I have always wondered if the internet having a record of every opinion you have ever expressed on a public platform makes people dig in even more. To avoid appearing as a flip flopper people often double down. I find that conversations in person (strangers) generally seem to result in compromise a lot more often than on the internet.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Maybe, or maybe not. Maybe I'm attempting to provoke thought in others within a contentious and divisive discussion. 

 

I see the war all the time going on between the journalist-type and the Cherry-type, and I see a way to bridge the gap between the two. I prefer to try and be part of the solution rather than the problem. 

 

And I'd bet that @Jimmy McGill has likely, in some way at least, updated his opinion on his original statement. I've encountered him before and he's shown the ability to have opinions, strong ones as well, and learn from the discussion. This has only happened because he's willing to talk and learn rather than just hold opinions, stay silent, and use emojis in place of words.

1st paragraph - not maybe...you are. I know most of the posters who confused his posts. Has nothing to do with Jordan Peterson’s work, Peterson himself, or even Jimmy, but rather his early content. We can agree to disagree, but the complete lack of moral compass undermines every post he makes about this subject and puts his personal biases and beliefs front and center.

 

Not that he is out of bounds or overstepping his rights of this forum with comments like his...just like none of us are overstepping our bounds confusing his posts. I think both examples are different illustrations of freedom of speech. 

 

Quite frankly however, I think this conversation was intended to shift the narrative and paint Jimmy as a victim, when he is far from it. It has nothing to do with his opinions of Jordan Peterson’s work or Jimmy’s work, but rather his absolutely distasteful comments. If he doesn’t understand that, then there is really nothing to debate or engage him about.

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I don't think he 'chose' to become addicted to prescribed medication for anxiety over his wife's terminal illness.

 

As I wrote above, the two need not be mutually exclusive.

 

Though I would question the wisdom/prudence of the doctor who prescribed them to someone with known history of alcohol addiction and depression. That's a whole other thread though :lol:

 

 

I don't believe an intellectual like Peterson was unaware of the risks of prescription medication. This left him with a choice, take the drugs or not to take the drugs. This is what Peterson has always advocated for, personal accountability. Why should we not hold JP to the standard that he himself advocates instead of casting blame on his doctor?

Edited by Toews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Jimmy McGill go to McGill University? Funny, youtube took down the video of McGill University students shouting down Peterson with airhorns and chants of Transphobic POS. It's still in the 1st Rogan/Peterson podcast though. Congrats McGill students, Rogan showed the footage to his millions of viewers and called you a bunch of lunatics. This did come up though, Jimmy McGill sounds a bit like Peterson explaining Breaking Bad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Toews said:

I enjoyed your Socrates anecdote. I have always wondered if the internet having a record of every opinion you have ever expressed on a public platform makes people dig in even more. To avoid appearing as a flip flopper people often double down. I find that conversations in person (strangers) generally seem to result in compromise a lot more often than on the internet.

It's interesting to read something like the Trial and Death of Socrates and see how little we've come as a society. It's a psychological aspect of human nature that prevents us from having intellectual humility. People's ego get in the way of not wanting to be viewed as wrong, or stupid, or whatever, when really there has never been one person in history who has always been right all the time, and every single one of us is ignorant in some way, so why do we care so much about being wrong or "stupid"? Doubling down and all that is merely a sign of a defense mechanism kicking in, and the irony is that doubling down or something similar has the opposite effect, in that then such a person is actually suddenly can be in the wrong and can often make themselves look pretty foolish. That's the beauty of never caring whether you're going to be wrong when discussing something to get to the heart of the matter, how can you be wrong when truth is what you seek.

 

2 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said:

1st paragraph - not maybe...you are. I know most of the posters who confused his posts. Has nothing to do with Jordan Peterson’s work, Peterson himself, or even Jimmy, but rather his early content. We can agree to disagree, but the complete lack of moral compass undermines every post he makes about this subject and puts his personal biases and beliefs front and center.

I don't believe I am overthinking this. I'm merely seeing how most of us disagree with Jimmy's original stance in this thread and instead of not debating him or hiding behind a group confused emoji, I chose to discuss it with him. You and others are confused with his stance and have expressed it through a digital face. I don't find his stance that confusing. I disagree with it, tho, and like I said, I chose to discuss it, but it's not terribly confusing. 

 

2 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said:

 

Not that he is out of bounds or overstepping his rights of this forum with comments like his...just like none of us are overstepping our bounds confusing his posts. I think both examples are different illustrations of freedom of speech. 

I can't agree more. Your expression is that of an emoji whereas mine and others is that of words with ideas. One tactic is arguably more effective than the other. I'll let you decide which one you think is which.

 

2 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said:

 

Quite frankly however, I think this conversation was intended to shift the narrative and paint Jimmy as a victim, when he is far from it. It has nothing to do with his opinions of Jordan Peterson’s work or Jimmy’s work, but rather his absolutely distasteful comments. If he doesn’t understand that, then there is really nothing to debate or engage him about.

I would argue instead that both Jimmy and others who disagree with him and decide not to engage and debate constructively are both to blame to a degree, and both their actions are distasteful in a sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Toews said:

I don't believe an intellectual like Peterson was unaware of the risks of prescription medication. This left him with a choice, take the drugs or not to take the drugs. This is what Peterson has always advocated for, personal accountability. Why should we not hold JP to the standard that he himself advocates instead of casting blame on his doctor?

He's a fellow human being with the same capacity for good or evil, flaws and merits as the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zfetch said:

What's your problem?

a shameless self promoter and inciter of many extreist followers, who harrass, abuse and threaten people they disagree with.........all while being slimy enough to evade the blame himself?  yeah, super guy

  • Wat 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stawns said:

a shameless self promoter and inciter of many extreist followers, who harrass, abuse and threaten people they disagree with.........all while being slimy enough to evade the blame himself?  yeah, super guy

Oh, Stawns, always a provocateur :lol:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...