Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles

[GLASSJAW]

17 hours ago, Timbermen said:

There's nothing obvious about him, the only way to not misconstrue his words is to get them right from the horses mouth. If you go on a quick google search you'll likely get hit pieces from misinformed journalists like the one in the first post of this thread. She did not read his books or listen to any of his pod casts but was going on what others had said, they don't know what they're talking about either.

sounds a lot like peterson when he discusses Marx lol

[NewbieCanuckFan]

3 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

sounds a lot like peterson when he discusses Marx lol

What's wrong with Groucho Marx? 

[Timbermen]

5 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

sounds a lot like peterson when he discusses Marx lol

Peterson definitely read the communist manifesto but more importantly the Gulag Archipelago.

 Guess who did the forward for the 50th anniversary edition......JBP, so i think your assumption that he hasn't read anything about communism is very misguided.

The Gulag Archipelago was written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and covers life in the Gulags. The narrative was constructed through various sources including legal documents and Solzhenitsyn's own experiences as a prisoner in the Soviet forced labour camps. He fought in WW2 and the authorities got a hold of a letter he wrote to a friend criticizing Stalin. After fighting in horrible conditions on the front lines, he was sent to the Gulags when he returned from the war.

He won a Nobel Peace Prize and his books were instrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

2 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

What's wrong with Groucho Marx? 

He's too grouchy. 

[GLASSJAW]

18 hours ago, Timbermen said:

Peterson definitely read the communist manifesto but more importantly the Gulag Archipelago.

 Guess who did the forward for the 50th anniversary edition......JBP, so i think your assumption that he hasn't read anything about communism is very misguided.

The Gulag Archipelago was written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and covers life in the Gulags. The narrative was constructed through various sources including legal documents and Solzhenitsyn's own experiences as a prisoner in the Soviet forced labour camps. He fought in WW2 and the authorities got a hold of a letter he wrote to a friend criticizing Stalin. After fighting in horrible conditions on the front lines, he was sent to the Gulags when he returned from the war.

He won a Nobel Peace Prize and his books were instrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

You were saying the only way to understand something (or I guess someone) is to read their work

 

While it might be true that Peterson has read the Communist Manifesto (which you could read in about an hour on any given afternoon due to it being incredibly short and simple), it is very painfully clear Peterson has little to no familiarity with Marx's work that is actually substantive -- again, in the Zizek "debate" this is pointed out repeatedly where Zizek is basically just giving JP a reading list, and JP doesn't even try to correct the insinuation that he hasn't read sh-t

 

JP gets around this sometimes by saying his problem isn't with Marx per se (but of course it is), and instead it's more about CuLTuraL MarXisTs and POsTMoDeRn MArXiSts or whatever the hell, but in these cases he's using loaded language without ever qualifying it (again, as Zizek begs: WHERE ARE ALL THESE MARXISTS?)

 

On top of this, I have never seen JP give any indication that he's thoroughly read the other liberal arts "postmodern" boogeymen he's always trying to protect children from: foucault, derrida, etc.

 

I recognize that JP's entire resume is based in psychology and bible camp, so there's no reason for him to have a thorough understanding of economics and philosophy, but it's just baffling to me how he wades into that domain with his jittery rage so often, without, again, showing he's done the legwork

 

The argument shouldn't be wether or not communism can be used for good or bad, after all this nerd is a hardline right wing christian and we're not sitting here using the inquisition to judge christianity's values, are we? The argument that I'm interested in is whether JP even has a basic understanding of the things he's rallying against, or if he's simply spooked by an idea

 

 

[Angry Goose]

On 8/11/2020 at 7:13 PM, Timbermen said:

There's nothing obvious about him, the only way to not misconstrue his words is to get them right from the horses mouth. If you go on a quick google search you'll likely get hit pieces from misinformed journalists like the one in the first post of this thread. She did not read his books or listen to any of his pod casts but was going on what others had said, they don't know what they're talking about either. That would be a good one to start with but it isn't everyones cup of tea, If you do feel like it some time though, that first video speaks volumes as well as the Joe Rogan podcasts. Also someone else in this thread did a 'quick google search' and concluded his millions of followers on youtube and twitter are a religious cult. He does lectures on religious myths as well as a wide variety of other subjects.

He only became hated when he opposed bill c-16 so he was labeled a transphobic, he was also labeled a racist by some because he said white privileged isn't what they say it is. Pretty ignorant but doesn't surprise me in this day and age. If these people were going after someone on the left, they would have been banned from every social media format from FB to twitter. 

Don't bother with the interview with the Vice idiots, it was a 2 hour interview where they baited him into being angry, then cut it into a 15 minute interview. they chopped it up in such a way that he contradicted himself, he just doesn't do that. This is a tactic of the daily show, they invite conservative guests and chop the clips to make them look stupid. That show is a dumpster fire. (i don't mind Trevor Know-it-all but can't stand Menage A Trios, he's one of the phoney interviewer dummy's.)    

The reason why these tactics are used in identity politics is because all they are concerned with is power, so lying through their teeth is an accepted tactic. Then you have people that don't realize the dishonesties and form harsh, vitriolic opinions based on straight up lies. 

Thank you for not taking the vitriolic road and gracefully bowing out. just isn't everyones cup-o-tea.

I just took a quick look on Wiki.  

 

Gender identity/politics just isnt an area Im familiar with, and TBH not something Im that interested.  That being said, Im not dismissive of it as a topic for discussion as well.

[BoKnows]

5 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

I just took a quick look on Wiki.  

 

Gender identity/politics just isnt an area Im familiar with, and TBH not something Im that interested.  That being said, Im not dismissive of it as a topic for discussion as well.

That's the whole controversial side of JP.  It's pretty political.  I'd recommend the lectures he posted on his youtube where he's teaching actual Psych (maybe philosophy too) at UofT.  Those are great.

[JM_]

@canucks since 77 where were you 6 weeks ago? 

[Junkyard Dog]

5 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

@canucks since 77 where were you 6 weeks ago? 

Jimmy welcome back to the

 

 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Jimmy welcome back to the

 

 

[bishopshodan]

How did JP get Covid?

I read some stuff that people are blaming his daughter Mikhaila. She was apparently  going to hookah bars and nightclubs while he was in a coma. She is saying that the whole fam was in lock down due to JP's health and is blaming her toddler daughter for getting it on the playground. Needless to say some on the random website I was reading are turning on  Mikhaila. 

[Junkyard Dog]

13 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

How did JP get Covid?

I read some stuff that people are blaming his daughter Mikhaila. She was apparently  going to hookah bars and nightclubs while he was in a coma. She is saying that the whole fam was in lock down due to JP's health and is blaming her toddler daughter for getting it on the playground. Needless to say some on the random website I was reading are turning on  Mikhaila. 

Oh yeah the super devotees aren't gonna like that.

 

Also does she have Covid?

 

News reports I have read said he got it from the hospital.

[bishopshodan]

4 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Oh yeah the super devotees aren't gonna like that.

 

Also does she have Covid?

 

News reports I have read said he got it from the hospital.

I think she did/does

 

Some where saying she was loving the attention she was getting while pops was in the coma. Going as far as claiming munchausen by daughter!

[Junkyard Dog]

23 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

I think she did/does

 

Some where saying she was loving the attention she was getting while pops was in the coma. Going as far as claiming munchausen by daughter!

Her entire IG post

 

Quote

I had covid-19. This is what I looked like during it (although there we’re definitely rougher looking puffier days).

As if this year couldn’t get any weirder, my family caught coronavirus in Belgrade.

Long story short, we got to Belgrade and the country was COMPLETELY open, no masks necessary. A month later everything shut down again after elections. Politics... We all went back into quarantine because we’re with my dad and he’s high risk. He already had pneumonia this year. 10 days into the strict quarantine - and I mean strict, we didn’t go outside of the property - my toddler got symptoms of a flu - swiftly followed by the rest of us. Turns out a lot of people in Belgrade caught it, she must have caught it at the playground.

Dad’s doctor immediately told us it was covid and I full on didn’t believe him for 2 weeks. It was too mild for me, I thought. During that two week period I had symptoms like nausea, bloating, diarrhea, stuffy nose, puffy face, skin breakouts, muscle weakness, a few days of a slight temperature and a very very slight wheeze for two days. Not the worst virus I’ve had in the last year, although the symptoms lasted longer - off and on for 18 days and there’s still lingering bloating.

My dad caught it too and he didn’t have many symptoms either. When they did a CT scan they said 40 percent of his lungs were affected, however his breathing was fine. They treated him just incase. The meds dad was put on to treat it seemed to be harsher than the actual virus, he’s okay now too.

I used to be an “at risk person”. I was on immune suppressants, I’ve had bronchitis at least 12 times, pneumonia 3x and I’ve been hospitalized for it once. I still stand by my previous complaints about locking down countries.

I’m sorry to anyone who has experienced a worse case of the virus or who has lost anyone to it. That’s miserable. So is suicide from lockdown anxiety and lifelong neuroticism from children growing up in a lockdown though .

Perhaps if we focused on making people healthier the world wouldn’t be so screwed up by a virus that doesn’t really kill healthy people... yikes, I went there. Video of the experience on YouTube.

A lot of ups and downs in that IG post

Edited August 16, 2020 by Junkyard Dog

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

A lot of ups and downs in that IG post

Yeah, I wonder if there is any truth to her nightclubbing etc... I get suspicious of her commitment to lock down when she has to reference 'suicide from lockdown anxiety and life time neuroticiism'

 

It's strange to read that some JP supporters are turning on his own daughter. When I said his followers were defensive, I think I was right.

[Junkyard Dog]

11 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Yeah, I wonder if there is any truth to her nightclubbing etc... I get suspicious of her commitment to lock down when she has to reference 'suicide from lockdown anxiety and life time neuroticiism'

 

It's strange to read that some JP supporters are turning on his own daughter. When I said his followers were defensive, I think I was right.

There's an IG video of her at a club of sorts I looked it up and saw it.

 

She can have those opinions but she was pretty ruthless in delivering it. Everyone knows the lock-down is a lose-lose situation.

 

Being a JP fan, having listened to multiple lectures and interviews, I don't think he'd approve of some of these things his daughter's doing. That's probably the same sentiment a lot of his followers feel. Some of them will probably take it a step further and ridicule her. JP tends to show compassion to people in dire/severe situations. He's teared up and has gotten emotional in interviews talking about some of the people he's helped. Doesn't seem like a trait his daughter shares.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Junkyard Dog

[BoKnows]

8 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Yeah, I wonder if there is any truth to her nightclubbing etc... I get suspicious of her commitment to lock down when she has to reference 'suicide from lockdown anxiety and life time neuroticiism'

 

It's strange to read that some JP supporters are turning on his own daughter. When I said his followers were defensive, I think I was right.

JP and his daughter should be treated separately as they are different people.

[Timbermen]

 

[Smashian Kassian]

I don't follow the ins & outs of what goes on with this family. I'm more interested in JP's podcast (lectures) than anything. Lots of interesting ideas, mostly centered around responsibility & psychology, that I find valuable. (The biblical series is interesting too) 

 

From the bit I gather I'd agree with @Junkyard Dog on his daughter. Part of me thinks shes intentionally capitalizing on his popularity (And as she should to a degree). Whether she lives by some of the ideas he espouses, I'm not totally sure either. But at the same times shes young & living life - I'm young & make mistakes all the time. Realistically I don't know these people, nor do I care to dig much into their background. Its just my gut feel, could be wrong. 

 

[Guest]

I only heard about this Jordan dude recently because a woman was telling me about his criticism of gender equality and how it's being implemented.  

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but his view is that it should be equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome, meaning that everyone should be considered for potential employment/position but that it should still be given out on merit as opposed to having a goal of hiring 50% men, 50% women.  

 

Anyways, quite liked that idea and I come here to find out there's a 30 page thread on the dude...  so I have a question, why would you all spend so much of your time on this type of entertainment?  It leads to a lot of arguing, negative feelings and can be quite polarizing.  I suppose it's better then just pure politics, but I still look at these talking heads and see nothing but "I'm right, you're wrong" type of flaunting that doesn't accomplish anything. 

 

I've also noticed a lot of character assassination that is becoming more prevalent.  Like whoever posted that picture of Jordan with that dude wearing an Islamophobia shirt, without giving Jordan's quote about not being happy about the picture but being for freedom of speech.  It's kind of disingenuous and really the reason that the common man gets turned off of news and all this stupid talk going on.  You never hear the complete picture, just what one side wants you to see/think.  

 

Rant over, carry on this debate for the next 30 pages, I'll be in the Canucks section. 

[GLASSJAW]

21 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

so I have a question, why would you all spend so much of your time on this type of entertainment?  It leads to a lot of arguing, negative feelings and can be quite polarizing.  I suppose it's better then just pure politics, but I still look at these talking heads and see nothing but "I'm right, you're wrong" type of flaunting that doesn't accomplish anything. 

 

I've also noticed a lot of character assassination that is becoming more prevalent.  Like whoever posted that picture of Jordan with that dude wearing an Islamophobia shirt, without giving Jordan's quote about not being happy about the picture but being for freedom of speech.  It's kind of disingenuous and really the reason that the common man gets turned off of news and all this stupid talk going on.  You never hear the complete picture, just what one side wants you to see/think.  

 

Rant over, carry on this debate for the next 30 pages, I'll be in the Canucks section. 

 

[Audience laughs]

 

Quote

 

QUESTION: You write in Manufacturing Consent [(Pantheon, 1988)] that it’s the primary function of the mass media in the United States to mobilize public support for the special interests that dominate the government and the private sector. What are those interests?

 

CHOMSKY: Well, if you want to understand the way any society works, ours or any other, the first place to look is who is in a position to make the decisions that determine the way the society functions. Societies differ, but in ours, the major decisions over what happens in the society — decisions over investment and production and distribution and so on — are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network of major corporations and conglomerates and investment firms. They are also the ones who staff the major executive positions in the government. They’re the ones who own the media and they’re the ones who have to be in a position to make the decisions. They have an overwhelmingly dominant role in the way life happens. You know, what’s done in the society. Within the economic system, by law and in principle, they dominate. The control over resources and the need to satisfy their interests imposes very sharp constraints on the political system and on the ideological system.

 

QUESTION: When we talk about manufacturing of consent, whose consent is being manufactured?

 

CHOMSKY: To start with, there are two different groups, we can get into more detail, but at the first level of approximation, there’s two targets for propaganda. One is what’s sometimes called the political class. There’s maybe twenty percent of the population which is relatively educated, more or less articulate, plays some kind of role in decision-making. They’re supposed to sort of participate in social life — either as managers, or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They’re supposed to vote, they’re supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Now their consent is crucial. So that’s one group that has to be deeply indoctrinated. Then there’s maybe eighty percent of the population whose main function is to follow orders and not think, and not to pay attention to anything — and they’re the ones who usually pay the costs.

 

QUESTION: … You outlined a model — filters that propaganda is sent through, on its way to the public. Can you briefly outline those?

 

CHOMSKY: It’s basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model. We’re talking primarily about the national media, those media that sort of set a general agenda that others more or less adhere to, to the extent that they even pay much attention to national or international affairs.

 

Now the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media. That means The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major television channels, and so on. They set the general framework. Local media more or less adapt to their structure.

And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.

 

The New York Times is certainly the most important newspaper in the United States, and one could argue the most important newspaper in the world. The New York Times plays an enormous role in shaping the perception of the current world on the part of the politically active, educated classes. Also The New York Times has a special role, and I believe its editors probably feel that they bear a heavy burden, in the sense that The New York Times creates history.

 

That is, history is what appears in The New York Times archives; the place where people will go to find out what happened is The New York Times. Therefore it’s extremely important if history is going to be shaped in an appropriate way, that certain things appear, certain things not appear, certain questions be asked, other questions be ignored, and that issues be framed in a particular fashion. Now in whose interests is history being so shaped? Well, I think that’s not very difficult to answer.

 

Now, to eliminate confusion, all of this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias. According to the propaganda model, both liberal and conservative wings of the media — whatever those terms are supposed to mean — fall within the same framework of assumptions.

 

In fact, if the system functions well, it ought to have a liberal bias, or at least appear to. Because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve to bound thought even more effectively.

 

In other words, if the press is indeed adversarial and liberal and all these bad things, then how can I go beyond it? They’re already so extreme in their opposition to power that to go beyond it would be to take off from the planet. So therefore it must be that the presuppositions that are accepted in the liberal media are sacrosanct — can’t go beyond them. And a well-functioning system would in fact have a bias of that kind. The media would then serve to say in effect: Thus far and no further.

 

We ask what would you expect of those media on just relatively uncontroversial, guided-free market assumptions? And when you look at them you find a number of major factors determining what their products are. These are what we call the filters, so one of them, for example, is ownership. Who owns them?

 

The major agenda-setting media — after all, what are they? As institutions in the society, what are they? Well, in the first place they are major corporations, in fact huge corporations. Furthermore, they are integrated with and sometimes owned by even larger corporations, conglomerates — so, for example, by Westinghouse and G.E. and so on.

 

So what we have in the first place is major corporations which are parts of even bigger conglomerates. Now, like any other corporation, they have a product which they sell to a market. The market is advertisers — that is, other businesses. What keeps the media functioning is not the audience. They make money from their advertisers. And remember, we’re talking about the elite media. So they’re trying to sell a good product, a product which raises advertising rates. And ask your friends in the advertising industry. That means that they want to adjust their audience to the more elite and affluent audience. That raises advertising rates. So what you have is institutions, corporations, big corporations, that are selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses.

 

Well, what point of view would you expect to come out of this? I mean without any further assumptions, what you’d predict is that what comes out is a picture of the world, a perception of the world, that satisfies the needs and the interests and the perceptions of the sellers, the buyers and the product.

 

Now there are many other factors that press in the same direction. If people try to enter the system who don’t have that point of view they’re likely to be excluded somewhere along the way. After all, no institution is going to happily design a mechanism to self-destruct. It’s not the way institutions function. So they’ll work to exclude or marginalize or eliminate dissenting voices or alternative perspectives and so on because they’re dysfunctional, they’re dysfunctional to the institution itself.

 

Now there are other media too whose basic social role is quite different: it’s diversion. There’s the real mass media-the kinds that are aimed at, you know, Joe Six Pack — that kind. The purpose of those media is just to dull people’s brains.

This is an oversimplification, but for the eighty percent or whatever they are, the main thing is to divert them. To get them to watch National Football League. And to worry about “Mother With Child With Six Heads,” or whatever you pick up on the supermarket stands and so on. Or look at astrology. Or get involved in fundamentalist stuff or something or other. Just get them away. Get them away from things that matter. And for that it’s important to reduce their capacity to think.

 

Take, say, sports — that’s another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it — you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that’s of no importance. [audience laughs] That keeps them from worrying about — [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it’s striking to see the intelligence that’s used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in — they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.

 

You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don’t know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn’t mean any — it doesn’t make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it’s a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements — in fact, it’s training in irrational jingoism. That’s also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that’s why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on.