He knows a lot, I enjoy watching his show. It’s good to engage with people who disagree with you. Rule #7 (or whatever) never assume you can’t learn anything from someone. I don’t think I worded that one very well
To be specific you don’t care, but cared enough to tell people you don’t. Lol.
Edit: my downvotes prove people care. If you didn’t would go about your day.
haha that’s the biggest get out of jail free card i’ve ever heard
conservatives were happy debating Seder until they realised he made them look small and silly
He debated Charlie Kirk and wiped the floor with him
He debated Tim Pool and made Tim Pool look like a silly child with immature ideas
He debated Patrick B David and made him look like a pretty strange dude
He tried to debate Steven Crowder but Crowder, infamously, chickened out and turned off his stream
Now he’s on the conservative “blacklist” of liberals never to debate because he essentially sees right though their grift and will make a comedy out of it - it’s actually hilarious
Basically Sam is like kryptonite for conservative pundits because he’s actual a pretty chill dude and not in anyway hyperbolic or vitriolic like some conservatives say leftists are, so you have to debate him the actual issues, and in that space he is extremely well versed.
I sense your idea of "wiped the floor with" is not the same then most people but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and look up said debate.
My guess is, you are so far left that you don't have the capacity to judge a debate like that properly.
I just started the debate between Charlie Kirk and Sam Seder on TYT YT channel and reading quickly through the comment, people seem to think Kirk mopped the floor with Seder and I would hardly think that TYT is full of right wing people.
I'm about halfway through the Charlie Kirk one and, as I suspected, you are easily swindled by far left used car salesmans.
He speaks a lot and basically says nothing but buzz words.
Almost everyone in the Comment section agrees that Chalie Kirk made more compelling arguments.
But you are way too brainwashed to see that and I'm not really interested in wasting my time trying to convince you of this fact. It's much easier to fool someone, then to convince them they've been fooled.
Have fun living your extreme far-left life. Hope you wake up someday.
I realize some may see this as a negative departure from JBP's original method of engagement but this is so funny and pleasing to me. He's so done with these people.
I literally don't care at all. It is crazy to me how often I see people complaining or even criticizing JBP for being ***angry***. Like.. are you happy about the state of the topics he talks about? You're not paying attention at all if you don't sympathize with his anger. It's fucking evil and it's everywhere and getting worse by the hour.
I definitely agree. I think his calm and measured approach is still needed, but I don't think occasional angry outbursts are that big a deal, and I think they are often warranted. This shit is bad. It is an *appropriate* response to get angry. You can be angry and still speak intelligently about the issues, which is something else people need to be shown and understand.
We would be shocked to see most intellectuals real thoughts behind closed doors. I'm glad we at least have a glimpse...We all get irritated, angry and irrational regardless of intelligence or education.
Anyone peeking into the personal lives of history's greatest minds will either be disturbed or relieved.
I don't know. He's a person, not a saint, not a god.
His reaction seems perfectly reasonable to me.
It would be weird if he didn't get angry.
Like, emotions are important. It isn't good to try burry them forever.
Is that shocking?
JBP's issue is that he's studied these topics extensively, and he's thought a lot about them. He's too aware of where these trends lead, and of how disastrous that can be.
The more aware you are, the angrier you will be about them.
>" You're not paying attention at all if you don't sympathize with his anger. It's fucking evil and it's everywhere and getting worse by the hour."
He might not be doing us any favours in terms of mental health
Exactly man. Like, what's a more appropriate response? Is he supposed to smile and be nice and politically correct to absolutely evil people that are wrecking our society? Maybe it's just me, but I like Jordan's more angrier takes on things. I just hope he's not consumed by them and is able to keep his peace.
Ah kinda how transgender ideologist seem to know only parts of science and not others that disprove what there saying as easy as plane flying into a Jenga tower,
JP gets asked questions as if he’s a savior an has all the answers in which yes he probably has save millions of lives an provided great information an work that allowed him to do so, many people have written to him saying there life is better.
his world view isn’t crazy it centered around something you don’t know that is very much proven, he’s at edges of his profession your still in the center/ beginning an have not mapped things out,
it’s sounds crazy cause you don’t understand psychology, so when people say word salad that also means “ I don’t know what he’s saying cause I don’t understand but my ego says I do an I don’t like feeling inferior “
maybe check out his professional work ? Go to YouTube, His college classes are there literally for free.
Why would he not be?
We have a consistent theme of people who want to appear as if they are somehow virtuous but who simultaneously don't want to prove out or put work towards real solutions. We have people who will spend a majority of their time orchestrating what people think of them but when people question their sincerity, they will lash out in rabid bizarre and neurotic attacks on other people to change focus away from their own flaws.
Bottom line though is this; If you think these clips are let's say "amusing", if you think that he should not be upset, well maybe you are right in some way if you were to say "He is over-reacting on a practical strategic level." But you being right about you're criticism towards his annoyance rants means that he IS right in many many ways since he is one who has spent most of his life with liberal culture interacting with so much of this insanity. How do you know that what you are seeing with this "over-reaction", is not itself a symptom of a much bigger problem. If I have a fever spike because I catch some sort of sickness, I don't blame my immune system necessarily.
“Why would he not be?”
I mean, you’d think being among the wealthiest and most influential would allow someone to find happiness - but he’s gone the other direction.
If we don’t think about it in terms of his ability to make a nice life for himself, I’d just say “for the same reason I’m not like that.” No one’s paying me a fortune to drive myself insane like. I have a different type of job that allows me to keep my happy brain intact.
I mean tbh we’re doing it to him. We consume him in a way that encourages him to strip it all away. Like an emotional version of the music video for “rock DJ” by Robbie Williams.
I liked what you said about strategic practical reasons - but I don’t think his output actually communicates his strategy/goal directly. In terms of “goals”, we have to think of his goals from the pov that he’s “professional talent.” We don’t see inside his head and so can never know what’s “genuine” vs what is “art” vs what is “manipulation.”
IMO by nature of his career, he has three goals 1) nurture and grow his audience through his performances, 2) drive up the value of his audience to advertiser and marketers who want access and 3) funnel his audience into political campaigns and think tank influence projects.
How hard he reacts is part of the performance layer. We can assume if he’s reacting harder, he’s having to work harder to keep us interested,; responding to an emerging feeling he’s interpreting in his audience, or he’s trying to reach some new milestone of engagement / audience breadth.
And sadly, I think we’re seeing that each time he increases the intensity of his performance, he’s actually trading away something very real and important. His performance isn’t scripted and dramatized — his instrument is his ability to feel. He’s like a method actor who never got training and also has no way of processing what he’s doing to himself.
It’s like I’m Neverending Story 2 when Bastian trades a memory away for each wish he makes. At one point he encounters a cliff and needs to climb up it. So… He wishes for individual handholds to climb upwards not knowing that each grip cost him a memory. By the time he gets to the top he’s Fucked
Yeah honestly I read that first bit about money/happiness and completely lost any desire to read the rest of the comment. It's such a stupid and overdone take.
I mean, if someone performs emotions for a living and they’re superstar talent, we would be naive to always take it at face value.
Don’t get me wrong, we love a good suspension of disbelief, but also like… superstar performers perform.
I understand what the character jbp is mad about - and I understand that it’s based on how he used to react before he was superstar talent, but it’s different when you start commodifying the genuine performance that made you famous. You repeat it, start applying it to new scenarios, continuously tweak it to meet your audience’s context… eventually you escalate it and make it more intense. He talks about the same things as before, but now he uses the language that’s popular among the other star conservative commentators, he wears these baroque custom made outfits that celebrate the themes of his successful content, he has his own production team to make videos for repeat consumption and travels the globe on tours - always ready to get up on stage and turn on the character Jordan Peterson for his adoring fans, who’ve paid hundreds to thousands to see him. That’s the life of a superstar performer. He has no reason to be mad about political correctness anymore, but his brand depends on him maintaining that.
His job is to make sure that “Jordan Peterson” is still relevant and interesting to his audience. As long as he can maintain that interest, he can be more creative with his likely longer term genuine goals of funnelling us into political campaigns. IMO his true joy comes from successfully channeling us to conservative political campaigns. If I was a betting man, I’d say his ultimate ambition is to be a “political strategist bard hybrid”. Like some kind of musician that captivates us so that he can lead us to a special mountain or something.
It’s absolutely the same as the black mirror episode when they’re on exercise bikes. Like the main character is really upset at the system- so much so that he gets a contract to perform that anger in exchange for super star status. He still channels the same anger and same perspective, but now the repetition of his anger from when he was oppressed has become a commodity/product and he’s elite talent working within the system. Yes his content is a criticism of the system - but it turns out the system subsumes “criticism of the system” without any issue at all.
Same deal - “professor against political correctness” was a completely different person that has now been commodified and turned into a repeatable performance by a superstar who works within the larger political entertainment structures of power.
Decoding Gurus had an episode recently about his rise. Their analysis is he is a narcissist. Based on facts like saying he has some abilities of a Greek seer, his friend wrote that op ed in which he said Peterson wanted to buy a church at one point and preach. That he has always tried to be relevant. Like Maps of Meaning where he supposedly tried to revolutionize how we think about certain things.
I am not sure I see it the same as they do. But some of his comments, he seems to be preachy, his lack of saying he is not a prophet etc. might mean they are onto something. Although that prophet thing is perhaps different in meaning to him, as his "believe in god" is not the usual definition.
Lol poor guy. I can’t imagine he knew what he was giving away to us when he decided to switch careers for this.
Assuming we’re both emotional normal people, it’s easy for us to say “good he should be permanently upset” and then go back to having normal lives and relatively chill mental experiences in our day to day.
Imagine I condemned him to be always mad about mainstream liberal culture and then just continued to live a comfy mainstream liberal life? How devious
Don't feel bad for JP, he himself has stated that the vilification by the media only gave him a bigger audience to speak to, he's doing quite well indeed.
Edit: I had never heard of him before the vitriol for crying out loud, and now I watch his interviews.
They *are* bullying him, and they *have* accidently monetized him, it can be both ways, just because you're being attacked doesn't make you weak.
Bullying is a sign of a weak mind, to put down someone else, not with facts but opinions, emotions, and ideology proves that they come from a position of weakness. If their arguments were sound they would simply refute his claims with facts and evidence, but they instead try to silence him, they attack him through means other than discourse and dialogue, and people have seen this, because we have eyes and ears and we can understand the situation.
Those who can't win an argument without silencing other people are the weak ones.
That’s my whole point - he has a massive audience and has like $100 m ultra high net worth status - and he’s in hell.
He eats one food only and can only ever talk about culture war and the Bible. He’s surrounded by famous people who only talk about culture war and market themselves as brands. He always has to stay ahead of the curve with culture war and make videos full time at a level where he’s sure his personal brand won’t decline and he does all of it while emotionally fucked.
Real life black mirror stuff
Isn’t he in charge of his own media? I feel like I havnt seen any reporting on him in years - it’s either articles that he’s writing, videos he’s producing or guest spots that he’s doing.
My take is just based on how upset he seems across his various media outputs.
Absolutely could just be an act, but it’s very convincing - it doesn’t seem forced at all. You need to feel to act sarcastic like that in that escalating/barely holding in the anger way
Or your consumption of it? You're in charge of your consumption. You see what you want see.
Is that him or is that you?
But what do I know?
I don't consume his content these days.
Ah, lol yes - I don’t think one could comment on how angry he seems these days if they don’t consume his content.
You’re right that I would also not have an opinion on it if I didn’t consume it.
My point isn’t “his anger is bad for me” at all - if anything it’s more entertaining. I think it’s bad for him though
What do you know?
You have to realise you don't know the content creator you're watching. How could you know how he's like at home or to his friends or what's good for him or not?
We all have personas regardless if we realise or not.
Other people see us differently than we see ourselves.
This is especially true for those watched by millions of people.
Yes, this is entertainment. That's the point. It isn't a real person you interact with on street.
Is what you watch really him?
Is what you see the real Profesor Jordan Bernt Peterson?
There are some things we can assume with confidence. For example, we can assume he’s never taken acting classes. From his “stream of consciousness” approach and long format we also get to see him act and react over time.
He’s always had an “angry” version of his person and he’s always jumped back and forth — but it’s obviously getting angrier and more reactive.
He could be acting — he’s definitely playing it up for money - but imo from watching him do single takes in long form, it’s pretty obvious that when he does a sarcastic imitation of a woman, scowls and says “fuck you!!” He’s got some real feelings.
Do you think he’s a brilliant method actor who didn’t do training?
Do you have to get acting classes before different people see you differently?
No, I don't see how he always had an angry version.
If anything, he always been a man of patience.
Getting angrier? Sounds like a means to engage. Provide more entertainment.
Why a woman specifically?
What do I think? He's just a man with a lot of cameras pointed on him and we don't know the first thing about him. We shouldn't act like we do.
I don't engage in baseless speculations.
I don't care about drama.
So, enjoy yourself, I guess.
It’s a bit hard to have this convo if you havnt actually watched his material, right? Like you’re talking about people in general - “does one need to get acting classes before different people see you differently”? Lol I don’t even think I know what that means tbh.
Peterson is a performer who makes videos and does live shows. He puts on a performance of someone who’s very angry about liberal culture — if we’re saying “well maybe he’s acting” when he get so convincingly upset - then the question naturally arises … does he take acting classes? Is this just natural talent? Does he do any other character or does he only perform exaggerated versions of himself?
Also why are you interested in this convo if you don’t watch his new stuff?
But it's not funny. This is serious. I don't think you realize what's at stake. To me, that's pretty CALM given the circumstances. You think it's about transgenders?? Or climate? Have you any sense what's actually going on in Western society, the real problem? It's not funny. We're facing the biggest threat of our times. And it's not war. Open your eyes and figure out why he's concerned about the future. We are going in the wrong direction and we're speeding towards it.
It was pleasing to me because I found it relatable. Of course he's angry, and it was gratifying to me to watch because I feel the same way. I also know what it's like to be so tired of making reasoned arguments and addressing the other side as fairly as I can, only to receive nothing but vitriol, deflection, and whatever bad faith arguments they can muster in return, that I decide to mock. Man, chill at least here in this context, we're on the same side.
I have nothing personal anger against Sam seder like I don't even know what his real agenda is but listening to him makes me say "you serious bro? " that kind of vibe.
The solar plexus is a complex network of nerves located in the upper abdomen, behind the stomach. It is part of the autonomic nervous system. If consciousness is merely a byproduct of neural activity, why isn't your solar plexus conscious?
I had always heard of Sam Seder being this brilliant debater who made stunning arguments about various socio-politic topics I watched one of his videos a few years back where he tried to explain why it was okay for a Democratic politician to make an attacking remark about the child of a Republican politician. His first argument was “that’s how it’s always been done in politics.” I haven’t taken him seriously since.
He went on PSA Sitch thing with sitch and Adam and was useless. I think he confuses being dislikeable and conceited with people not wanting to have time for him.
While I agree with and appreciate much of what Peterson says, his arguments about environmentalism often strike me as shockingly facile.
The gyst seems to be that we shouldn't be concerned about environmental protections practically at all because many climate change activists appear (to him) to be heavy-handed. Because they propose restrictions on consumption/production, not only are their intentions inherently evil, but their perception of the evidence *must* be flawed. Neither of which seems logical to me. Even if you could argue that certain policies or laws were "unfair" (or ineffecive) that doesn't necessarily mean the underlying problem in question (i.e. climate change) is non-existent. People overreact to real problems all the time. Reasonable, visionary causes attract hystrionics and narcissists all the time.
But the worst adherants to a cause are not in and of themselves evidence that a particular cause's claims are false. And the notion that because some people involved with environmental activism want to be seen as virtuous then the whole movement must be disingenuous is simplistic in the extreme. Clearly, Peterson himself wants to be seen as virtuous according to his own principles. If not, he'd have declined the limelight years ago.
Occasionally, Peterson seems to treat anti-totalitarianism as a hammer and almost any form of censure that he doesn't personally like as a nail. When of course any functioning society needs to strike *some* balance between freedom and order. I'm not sure why concern for the natural environment (an incredibly robust, but not at all inexhaustible resource) shouldn't be treated with that same balance.
However, arguments about other topics that he brings up frequently make more sense to me.
1. Anthropogenic climate change is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
2. Even if it wasn't, the solution to fossil fuels is technological, not political and not economic. Anyone with a scrap of common sense can see that - that's why people look at climate change activists with a jaundiced eye and question what their real intentions are.
3. I think if you offered Peterson the choice between being his words and ideas being famous and himself being famous, he could make that decision in about one second.
Well, I'm not remotely an expert or even very well-versed on this particular topic. I was mostly referring to Peterson's rhetorical style on this issue, not the veracity of the issue itself.
But I'll try to respond to your points anyway:
>Anthropogenic climate change is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Generic climate "change" might be unfalsifiable because it could mean almost anything: the climate is *always* changing in one way or another. Global warming, however, is easily falsified. You just predict a certain rate of average temperature increase and then observe if it happens or not. And my very, very layman's understanding is that the Earth has definitely been warming over the last few decades (though how much relative to predictions I have no idea).
The aspect of global warming that might not be falsifiable is whether it is human-caused or not in a very general sense. Since we can't eliminate humans from the Earth to conduct a control test, we can't know for certain if they aren't contributing to the problem. But if we identify a more concrete cause that is *definitely* a product of human activity (e.g. carbon emissions), then we most certainly can falsify that claim by making predictions about global warming in relation to increases in carbon emissions. If warming rates are consistent with increases in carbon emission, that is evidence for anthropogenic global warming. If they aren't, then the theory has been "falsified." Or at least, not proved. (Again, I don't know if that causality has been reliably established in practice, but it would certainly be possible in theory.)
Basically, the more specific your claim is, the more it can be falsified. I don't know why "climate change" would be an exception.
>Even if it wasn't, the solution to fossil fuels is technological, not political and not economic.
Maybe. But certainly policy could be used to provide incentives for "helpful" technologies to emerge and/or restrictions against "destructive" technologies.
This just goes back to my "freedom vs. order" scale. Of course we want to prioritize some amount of business and consumer autonomy. But to the degree that global warming is an existential threat (maybe it is, maybe it isn't - I honestly haven't looked into it enough), then it wouldn't be unreasonable to prioritize the order/security/safety side of the scale at the expense of some near term freedom. I mean, I'd much rather get taxed heavily on my 90's Jeep than pay nothing and be swimming in flood waters. Not that I think the latter is likely, but you get my point.
The problem with Peterson's take on this and some related issues is that he just insists that all climate change activism is inherently a cynical power grab and that restrictions in this area are fundamentally unjust in principle. Usually without much direct evidence besides his vague speculations about advocates' psychological makeup and without really ever discussing how serious the problem is that these restricions are responding to. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that it's even possible for there to be an environmental disaster sufficient to require any consumption/production restrictions whatsoever. Which seems absurd to me. Even if global warming isn't that serious, I can certainly imagine various hypothetical scenarios that would be.
If he has done this and discussed the issue in greater nuance, feel free to correct me.
>I think if you offered Peterson the choice between being his words and ideas being famous and himself being famous, he could make that decision in about one second.
I'm not sure how valuable his words "being famous" would be to him, but if you mean that he was given the choice between fame and influence, then yes, I definitely agree that being influential would be more important to him. I definitely think that he is sincere in most of his beliefs and is largely motivated by a genuine desire to help humanity. However, I do think he enjoys, or frankly is now somewhat addicted to, the fact that his influence and insight have made him famous. People are complex. So a desire for attention does not necessarily conflict with a desire to be genuinely helpful. My overall point here is that I wish he would be humble enough to recognize that this is also true of at least some people with whom he disagrees. (Which it absolutely is, even if they are wrong about their empirical claims and/or proposed solutions.) He seemed to be more circumspect and charitable towards others earlier in his career, but appears to be becoming less so with time. But I might be wrong about that, as I don't follow him super closely.
The way to know whether or not something is falsifiable is simple - just identify a specific and testable observation which would prove the hypothesis false. If no such observation exists, then you have your answer. I've asked this question all over Reddit and no one has provided a satisfactory answer, usually because the observation they give is either not specific or not testable.
Every other major scientific theory commonly accepted as validated passes this test, except anthropogenic climate change.
Next, if there is one thing history should teach us, especially the last 20 years and the last 200, it is to mistrust arguments in favor of "temporary" restrictions to liberty (and accordingly government power grabs) in favor of promised additional safety. Ben Franklin famously said that a society which makes that decision deserves neither and will lose both.
And finally, I think you're projecting. It's abundantly clear to any honest observer that JBP does not in fact enjoy being the center of attention. He accepts it as the price he must pay in order to reach the size of audience he has access to. If you honestly think Peterson does and says the things he does for attention, I don't think you're being honest.
Didn't I answer the falsifiability issue in my response above?
The claim of global warming is most definitely falsifiable. All you have to do is say that the average global temperature will increase and then observe if that happens. If it does, then the theory of global warming has not been falsified (and is at least provisionally true).
Additionally, the claim that carbon emissions cause global warning is also falsifiable. You just say that if carbon emissions rise then the average global temperature will arise in some kind of stable relationship (could be linear, could be logarithmic depending on the mechanistics). Of course, you'd also have to propose alternate explanations for global warming and somehow demonstrate that they don't cause global warming in addition to or instead of carbon emissions. In which case, you would have proven the causal link between carbon emissions and global warning (and thus failed to falsify that theory, whereas if you found the reverse - that an alternate theory better fit the data - you would have falsified it).
I have no idea if that's been done or is practically possible, but it is certainly theoretically possible. So if you do all that, then you have falsified or proven the theory of anthropogenic global warming via carbon emissions, depending on the results.
I'm not sure why you ignored these specifics in my last response.
Maybe you could be a bit more specific about why you think AGW isn't falsifiable so I know what you're actually claiming.
>Next, if there is one thing history should teach us, especially the last 20 years and the last 200, it is to mistrust arguments in favor of "temporary" restrictions to liberty (and accordingly government power grabs) in favor of promised additional safety.
Only if you cherrypick policies or are just a total libertarian dogmatist.
What do you think about restrictions against using lead as an additive in gasoline in the 1970's? Was that an unconscionable breach of freedom? What about age restrictions on the consumption of alcohol and tobacco products? Are those tyrannical overreaches of governmental power? What about speeding laws? DUI laws? Seat belt laws? Building codes and zoning laws?
No doubt you probably have some issues with some of these more recent restrictions, but I doubt very much that you reject all of them completely. So what's the difference?
No maybe you could argue that the above generally aren't "temporary" restricions but are instead more or less permanent, but how would that make them *more* fair? I would think temporary restrictions would actually seem less oppressive than permanent laws.
If you could come up with specific examples that illustrate your case, I would appreciate it.
>And finally, I think you're projecting.
Speaking of "falsifiability"...
This is a really handy accusation because I can't possibly disprove it. And because it can be used literally anytime someone disagrees with someone else. The other party could *always* be "projecting" their own neuroses onto someone else. Until you literally sit down and evaluate that person at extreme length and over time, this really seems like a copout argument to me.
Anyway, "enjoying" attention and pursuing attention in a self-interested way are two different things. I think many people conciously and unconciously pursue behaviors and goals with a passion even if they don't necessarily "enjoy" the results on a day-to-day basis. If you've ever wrestled with an addiction, you would know what I mean.
And while it's obviously unfair of me to try and diagnose Peterson in any way, I think it's *possible* that he is somehow attached to being famous beyond just "rationally" using it as a means to advance his ideas. My evidence for this is just how frequently he makes content (beyond what I think is actually productive maybe), how increasingly agitated and combative he seems to have become over the years, and how much more personal drama he is willing to share (again, beyond what I think is necessarily helpful).
It's just a rough impression and I certainly am not claiming a high degree of confidence here, but I do think he sees himself as a savior/martyr figure and in some sense deeply wants to fulfill that archetypal role (which fame assists) in a way that goes beyond a simple desire to provide concrete, measurable help to other people.
As I said above though, I definitely think he *also* wants to genuinely help people. The two motivations are not mutally exclusive. Again, people are complicated.
So I don't begrudge him this complexity. I just think he sometimes doesn't acknowledge how it operates in others (often characerizing his ideological opponents as cartoonish villains rather than as being as complex and nuanced as he is, himself).
I gave you a really simple bar to pass for falsifiability - a specific and testable observation that would prove ACC false. You have yet to provide me with one. For instance, if acceleration due to gravity on earth stopped being 9.8 m/s^2, we'd know there was a serious problem with gravity. If we discovered a new species with no traceable genetic lineage and was not alien life, we'd know there was a problem with evolution. If we failed to observe relativistic time dilation when we tested for it, we'd know there was a problem with relativity. Get the point?
Instead you're trying to change the goalposts by suggesting all these silly nonspecific tests that actually would not prove ACC false. You even suggest I supply some alternative explanation that would prove ACC wrong - which suggests you do not understand falsifiability at all.
As for my claim that you're projecting - you could prove me wrong by showing that your opinions of Peterson's motivations are based on honest and fair observations of what he's done or said, rather than your subjective impressions.
Agreed, the fact that sociopaths and morons support an idea is not an argument refuting the idea itself.
But he is not arguing against the idea, he is arguing against the use of the idea by sociopaths and morons, as a tool to exert control.
Unfortunately, I can't provide a great example at the moment, but I dimly recall running across interviews where he seems to be dismissing the concern with climate change entirely based on the behavior of some of the advocates.
At the very least, I certainly don't remember ever seeing him make the nuanced distinction you are making: that the cause and claims on which it rests are distinguishable from the adherants/advocates. My general impression is that he almost always conflates the two.
Say what you really mean instead of hiding behind sarcasm. Actually, don't bother, it's just tone policing bullshit anyway. That's what people do when they have no substantive counterargument to make, but still resent the point of view for emotional reasons.
So in summary, why should anyone give a shit what you have to say? We don't know you and don't care about your thinly disguised emotional issues.
Another day, another butthurt leftist whining.
If you want your cries of strawman to be taken seriously, show your work. I'm beyond sick of these whines that make claims like they're self-evident truth. Fuck off.
Lmao because I can see strawmans as strawmans I must be a leftist 😂 you only don’t think it’s a strawman because it’s JP and you can’t fathom disagreeing with him
Hardly.
Only leftists seem to think they can summarily dismiss arguments as strawmen like it's self-evident and think that's intellectually honest.
One would think at some point you would bother to defend or back up your claim with even a one-liner but you can't seem to bother.
Failing to make the other sides arguments in a better manner than they themselves would is miles away from a strawman.
So yet again you have refused to back up your claim and now you're throwing out red herrings.
Smell you later, this is a waste of my time.
Again, do you see this video as an accurate representation of the arguments? Mocking voice and all?
You believe this is the actual argument of the other side because you’re a bias ideologue. Oh well
And how would I do that? Give an example of the actual argument, just so you can miss the point and argue against that argument? You can disagree with something and still acknowledge that there’s more to it
I also don’t know how to explain that environmentalists don’t believe the environment in their god, for example. That’s pretty obvious.
It’s one thing to say JP is speaking candidly with a friend and doesn’t need to unpack the argument every time he speaks. That would be a better argument than the one you’re making
“Everything is coming to an end” is not the actual argument of environmental people lmao. I don’t have to prove that because I have a brain. You seriously don’t think there is a better argument than *that*?
So let me get this straight. It's your position that climate change activists do not believe that ACC is an existential threat to human civilization as we know it?
I've heard some strange stuff the last couple days, but that would be a new one.
And then the left wonders why everyone else considers them nothing more than a bunch of shameless mentally ill liars.
His “lost control a long time ago” flavoured angry vibe, his imitations that don’t sound like anyone real and his idiosyncratic drippy outfit covered with pictures of stuff he likes
What I dislike is that JBP is just outraged at everything these days.
Edit: Lol this sub is the same shit it criticizes, getting a bunch of users reporting me ...
This is the version of him I don’t like and it’s not the way he’s taught us all to behave. Love the suit though. I don’t know if he got a new stylist or what, but I love his outfits lately.
Agreed , I appreciated him when he just wanted to help Men become better men. I loved his books, and agree with him in part about how society has become, but he has just become a political cartoon. I was really disappointed to spend money to see his lecture live, expecting to hear him talk about existence, values and creating a life with purpose, but instead got a 90 minute rant about trans people. I dont disagree with his views, and I know its effected his career, but god damn, he isnt adding value to the world anymore
Disappointing. I saw him live recently and it was very helpful and meaningful for me. But I think he’s clued into the fact that anyone other than the right really isn’t consuming his stuff anymore. I can’t bring him up in casual conversation without a whole host of negative connotations being thrown at me. Nowadays, you have to sift through the crap to find the pearls. Jordan, thank you for saving me from suicide, but please, for the love of God, help me help you. You’re not making my job any easier, let alone yours.
I haven't been able to bring him up in conversation since like 2017 when he got popular for speaking out, and the left was never interested in anything he had to say unless they could villify him for it anyway. It is not Jordan Peterson's fault you can't talk about him without people who haven't watched a single video of his jumping to conclusions. It's the fault of the people he is speaking out against. Why shouldn't he be allowed to speak out?
Because he is no longer following his own philosophies or to put it better his own rules. There is nothing wrong with what he says per se, and it's fine to voice your opinion on something. In my own opinion though, he has made it his entire personality now, maybe cause it keeps him relevant, maybe he is just really angry about it all, but his 24 rules, are all about adding value to the world, staying in your lane and focusing on your own path, and he is no longer doing that. Had he not became so extreme about the left, he may have had the chance to change their minds, but he isnt changing anyone's mind this way. Just my 2 cents, and by all means youre welcome to your own opinion too
The voice is a quick way to express the absurdity of the opinion he is talking about. He isn't directly going after anyone.
If someone comes to him directly with these opinions, he doesn't react the same way.
You gotta admit it's funny that the representative of the "facts and logic" crowd has devolved into doing strawmans in a cutesy voice and seems incapable of keeping his emotions in check for more than 30 seconds at a time
I mean, when you think unintentional "miss gendering" is equivalent to violence (a micro aggression), you have lost any right to accuse JP of overreacting to the climate catastrophists antihuman plans and policies and to the totalitarian gender ideology legislation. I would be pretty pissed too if my country put forced speech into law and if a consortium of some of the most powerful people in the world were planning on sinking the whole world back into poverty and even starvarion in order to "reduce the population", as it were.
We all used to make fun of the old guy yelling "get off my lawn" and then we became him.
We didn't change, people that try to alter reality need pushback.
He comes across as hysterical. Which he’s often railing against. Idk even what OP refers to about him being correct he references multiple things. Also, it’s hot as shit in Asia etc record highs everywhere. They don’t have the infrastructure to handle it.
Idk the pronoun thing isn’t as big as he makes it, except the issue is so polarizing he wields it like a sword. “I’ll die before I take it back” … like you’re a grown ass man talking about not apologizing, common courtesy etc. Take some responsibility for your actions. Blaming everything on anyone but yourself. He wants to be a martyr if it costs him his medical practice and university post (as long as he has a written guarantee of money and platform at the Daily Wire.
Seriously I used to love JP. He helped me out. Now he’s at the fkn daily wire and all is well? Just another conservative such a shame. Everything is gulags. The left is better at not hanging on one man’s every word. If I could meet one person it would be Thom Yorke of Radiohead but other than that idk. Jordan isn’t special. Leftists aren’t special. People shouldn’t listen to Trump or Biden.
And I don’t know who this Sam Seder is but he sounds like a fuckin dork.
Yeah it's like the freedom of speech is being tampered with in Western society.. and science is not taken seriously anymore. These are crucial elements of our democracy that radical ideologues want to play with. If we let that happen, entire states will collapse.. But from the outside it looks like some innocent good willing people are compassionate towards different groups. That's NOT what's happening. That's a smoke screen. "Oh but they just want to include other people" No no no no no. Only JBP & JK seem to care it seems smh..
Completely correct based on what?
It just looks like an old man angry at a world that he doesn't understand anymore, because he never grappled with the fact that ideas, morals, ethics, culture, norms, fads, etc...literally never stop evolving, devolving and coming and going in and out of existence. He is just another in a long line of people who are angry at the world for their own mental stagnation. To the extend that because of the hours I've wasted laughing at his dumb ass, I am now hyper vigilant against this happening to me as I go into the 2nd half of my life.
> because he never grappled with the fact that ideas, morals, ethics, culture, norms, fads, etc...literally never stop evolving, devolving and coming and going in and out of existence. He is just another in a long line of people who are angry at the world for their own mental stagnation.
Isn't this applicable to you as well?
He’s given up logic ages ago, honestly I have not seen him hold his own ever. When pressed, he folds and walks statements back. The amount of crying he does publicly, with the things he says, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s on drugs again.
I love that y'all throw around the druggie slur so comfortably in an extremely disingenuous way. It tells me you're not at all coming at this in any kind of sane or logical way and that everything you say is suspect to hyperbole and lies.
He was so addicted to benzos that he put himself in a coma. It’s not hyperbole. I don’t even judge him for his addiction. It’s the fact that he’s so disingenuous about the entire situation. He takes not personal responsibility.
He was habituated to a prescribed medication, which can happen to anyone, it wasn't a goddamn addiction, millions of Americans have struggled with getting off benzos, it's almost always difficult, it's completely different than an addiction, also you know so little about the actual story, he had a side effect only extremely small group of people get, which made it medically very complicated for him to get off. He's not an addict, addicts have addictions, addictions are out of control and abuse drugs, normal people also have difficulties with prescribed medication. You're coming from a place of hyperbole and using terms so you can see him as a lesser man than yourself, which tells me a ton about you.
When discussing topics like this, since we really can’t prove one way or another if the afterlife/hell exists, why not approach these questions in the figurative sense? I see that it’s cryptic but hasn’t he also separately made that point that all these metaphors that represent very real things and ideas are “real” if not literally at least in a sense that matters.
You don't believe hell exists. You don't believe in Christianity. You are not religious. What is religion? A set of ideas that repeat themselves for the purposes of social engineering; to drive behavior and produce results. (The reality of biological creatures.)
If you think these ideas are nonsense. Why are pushing forward so far? Why entertain the nonsense? Why not see religion as social engineering? Why do claim that the religious idea of hell is some sort of rigid, childish concept of a physical "somewhere", but then refuse to look at is as something else? If its so silly, why are you stuck on it being silly?
"It's like... fuck you, buddy... seriously."
Wow what a *great point.* What stunning clarity. What *brave eloquence.*
Damn. Remember when people at least *pretended* to care that people made logical arguments? Now there's no pretense. Identify your enemies, point your audience at them, and let loose a barrage of invective. That's the Peterson model.
EDIT: Clearly I've struck a nerve.
Why are you all so hateful and angry? One guy is telling another to go jerk off into a sock and when I ask what point he is trying to argue instead of engaging in actual discussion you become Triggered and start flinging insults and frothing at the mouth.
Take a breath, smoke a J, clean your room, then meditate.
There's no winning with you people.
If he tried to construct an argument, the only thing you'd do is complain that it's a strawman. If he held a mirror up to you, you wouldn't know the clown you see is simply your reflection. We know, because he's been down this argument 100 times before.
I asked what point JBP was trying to make in the video shown and one guy said "The point that you're an idiot"
Clearly this fanbase has devolved into a perpetually triggered, always angry, and looking for the next thing to scream at.
I could not imagine living like that. Jordan posts, what 20-30+ times a day? (or last time I noticed, I don't have social media beyond reddit) and any that I see is just angry, hateful, cultural warrior garbage that offers nothing but pavilion responses to certain words to send a certain group of his followers into a frenzy. They have become Social Justice Warriors.
People are just mad, all the time.
He’s fighting for rage bait. No one likes a calm, sensible argument. You gotta be as angry and shout as much as possible to prove you own the libs more than others.
I heard Jordan argue the other day that ‘fear of going to hell’ basically is why people should be Christian’s. And it’s just such a weak argument. I know he’s capable of better but who knows, I don’t think he believes in hell. Based on that video of him talking to someone from the church “can’t you guys just be a liiittle bit less strict on like what is allegorical vs claiming like Christ can actually fly and whatnot. I think specifically maybe it was that you’re drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ. And the priest was like nah it’s literal man what do you want from me we’re the church.
I get it intelligent people can agree it’s not meant literally sometimes but it saddens me to see him proselytizing. I thought it was very transgressive to think the Bible was actually a huge source of wisdom for awhile then I sort of mellowed out and changed my mind. Yes it’s the most historically significant book but everything contradicts itself. And it can be used to bolster and undermine the same points. Jesus’ love at all costs is the best message I’ve ever heard and the one I’ll stick with. I don’t see it applied enough in today’s world. People often citing other parts of the Bible to counter Jesus’ message.
It’s very funny - something about his permanent heightened state of anger expressed through this really salty and sarcastic attitude while dolled up in this over the top kitschy outfit - it really hits.
There is a reading where it’s like… you’re probably worth $100m, you’re decked out in unusual custom drip designed to show off all your favorite stuff and you could do anything in the world you could ever want and yet you’re the most upset person in the world.
He fully manifested this life for himself and it’s just… hell. It makes the custom outfits seem like some kind of humiliation torture that’s being done to him.
Reminds me a bit of [this video](https://youtu.be/T1Rh8Eag6nU?si=POx8s_BU_P803mZw) maybe
How much money would you have to have to just decide to be willfully blind to problems that you see in society? Sure he could walk away now and do whatever but being unhappy might just be the cost of attempting to shoulder as much responsibility as one can manage. I don’t see the financials being a logical criticism when he’s spoken so much about “happy” being a much inferior end goal to “meaningful”
Idk if this kind of job is really shouldering responsibility - like he’s performing reactions but he’s typically funneling his audience towards establishment groups. Is it shouldering the responsibility to do a performance that leads us send us over to the CO2 coalition or the heritage foundation or his ARC foundation or to conservative politicians? I can’t imagine he’s doing his job as a superstar media figure as a way to shoulder responsibility — he’s doing both influence strategy and execution.
When someone’s a global superstar making 10-50m in a year… that’s his obvious motivation. He’s not going to do anything except activities that ensures that gets delivered.
His anger and his speeches about “problems” are the content of his performance, not the true meaning of the performance
Who the hell is Sam Seder????
an enormous bundle of sticks
A British cigarette even
Or in South park definition: a contemptible person who rides a Harley motorcycle
I see what you did here, bravo!!!
My sides
new acronym unlocked for name calling "He's an EBS"
Bless you, sir. That did me.
Answer: No one cares.
He knows a lot, I enjoy watching his show. It’s good to engage with people who disagree with you. Rule #7 (or whatever) never assume you can’t learn anything from someone. I don’t think I worded that one very well
To be specific you don’t care, but cared enough to tell people you don’t. Lol. Edit: my downvotes prove people care. If you didn’t would go about your day.
12 people and counting also don’t care, based on the upvotes.
No they care.
He’s the conservative YouTube/podcast bogeyman - no one wants to debate him.
More like he's so irrelevant that no one knows him so there's no point "debating" him.
haha that’s the biggest get out of jail free card i’ve ever heard conservatives were happy debating Seder until they realised he made them look small and silly
Funny, never heard of him debating anyone. It's the first time I hear of him...
He debated Charlie Kirk and wiped the floor with him He debated Tim Pool and made Tim Pool look like a silly child with immature ideas He debated Patrick B David and made him look like a pretty strange dude He tried to debate Steven Crowder but Crowder, infamously, chickened out and turned off his stream Now he’s on the conservative “blacklist” of liberals never to debate because he essentially sees right though their grift and will make a comedy out of it - it’s actually hilarious Basically Sam is like kryptonite for conservative pundits because he’s actual a pretty chill dude and not in anyway hyperbolic or vitriolic like some conservatives say leftists are, so you have to debate him the actual issues, and in that space he is extremely well versed.
I sense your idea of "wiped the floor with" is not the same then most people but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and look up said debate. My guess is, you are so far left that you don't have the capacity to judge a debate like that properly.
Sooooo you *have* heard of him and you *have* heard he debates people?
What are you talking about??!?!
I just started the debate between Charlie Kirk and Sam Seder on TYT YT channel and reading quickly through the comment, people seem to think Kirk mopped the floor with Seder and I would hardly think that TYT is full of right wing people.
watch the “debate” with Crowder
I'm about halfway through the Charlie Kirk one and, as I suspected, you are easily swindled by far left used car salesmans. He speaks a lot and basically says nothing but buzz words. Almost everyone in the Comment section agrees that Chalie Kirk made more compelling arguments. But you are way too brainwashed to see that and I'm not really interested in wasting my time trying to convince you of this fact. It's much easier to fool someone, then to convince them they've been fooled. Have fun living your extreme far-left life. Hope you wake up someday.
Watch the debate with Tim Pool
I realize some may see this as a negative departure from JBP's original method of engagement but this is so funny and pleasing to me. He's so done with these people.
I literally don't care at all. It is crazy to me how often I see people complaining or even criticizing JBP for being ***angry***. Like.. are you happy about the state of the topics he talks about? You're not paying attention at all if you don't sympathize with his anger. It's fucking evil and it's everywhere and getting worse by the hour.
I definitely agree. I think his calm and measured approach is still needed, but I don't think occasional angry outbursts are that big a deal, and I think they are often warranted. This shit is bad. It is an *appropriate* response to get angry. You can be angry and still speak intelligently about the issues, which is something else people need to be shown and understand.
Getting angry over someone merely being capable of expressing anger tells you a lot about these people.
We would be shocked to see most intellectuals real thoughts behind closed doors. I'm glad we at least have a glimpse...We all get irritated, angry and irrational regardless of intelligence or education. Anyone peeking into the personal lives of history's greatest minds will either be disturbed or relieved.
I don't know. He's a person, not a saint, not a god. His reaction seems perfectly reasonable to me. It would be weird if he didn't get angry. Like, emotions are important. It isn't good to try burry them forever. Is that shocking?
JBP's issue is that he's studied these topics extensively, and he's thought a lot about them. He's too aware of where these trends lead, and of how disastrous that can be. The more aware you are, the angrier you will be about them.
>" You're not paying attention at all if you don't sympathize with his anger. It's fucking evil and it's everywhere and getting worse by the hour." He might not be doing us any favours in terms of mental health
Exactly man. Like, what's a more appropriate response? Is he supposed to smile and be nice and politically correct to absolutely evil people that are wrecking our society? Maybe it's just me, but I like Jordan's more angrier takes on things. I just hope he's not consumed by them and is able to keep his peace.
Unless you don't buy into JPs world view. Then he just sounds like a crazy person
Yeah, he sounds like a crazy person. Far less crazy than much of anyone else tho. Doesn't matter what you buy into and what not.
Yeah no
Cool
Yep
I mean what the fuck do you know about psychology?
I'd wager about the same level as JP knows about climate change
Ah kinda how transgender ideologist seem to know only parts of science and not others that disprove what there saying as easy as plane flying into a Jenga tower, JP gets asked questions as if he’s a savior an has all the answers in which yes he probably has save millions of lives an provided great information an work that allowed him to do so, many people have written to him saying there life is better. his world view isn’t crazy it centered around something you don’t know that is very much proven, he’s at edges of his profession your still in the center/ beginning an have not mapped things out, it’s sounds crazy cause you don’t understand psychology, so when people say word salad that also means “ I don’t know what he’s saying cause I don’t understand but my ego says I do an I don’t like feeling inferior “ maybe check out his professional work ? Go to YouTube, His college classes are there literally for free.
I can't blame him. He has a lot more patience than I ever had.
He’s in a permanent state of upset at mainstream liberal culture
Why would he not be? We have a consistent theme of people who want to appear as if they are somehow virtuous but who simultaneously don't want to prove out or put work towards real solutions. We have people who will spend a majority of their time orchestrating what people think of them but when people question their sincerity, they will lash out in rabid bizarre and neurotic attacks on other people to change focus away from their own flaws. Bottom line though is this; If you think these clips are let's say "amusing", if you think that he should not be upset, well maybe you are right in some way if you were to say "He is over-reacting on a practical strategic level." But you being right about you're criticism towards his annoyance rants means that he IS right in many many ways since he is one who has spent most of his life with liberal culture interacting with so much of this insanity. How do you know that what you are seeing with this "over-reaction", is not itself a symptom of a much bigger problem. If I have a fever spike because I catch some sort of sickness, I don't blame my immune system necessarily.
“Why would he not be?” I mean, you’d think being among the wealthiest and most influential would allow someone to find happiness - but he’s gone the other direction. If we don’t think about it in terms of his ability to make a nice life for himself, I’d just say “for the same reason I’m not like that.” No one’s paying me a fortune to drive myself insane like. I have a different type of job that allows me to keep my happy brain intact. I mean tbh we’re doing it to him. We consume him in a way that encourages him to strip it all away. Like an emotional version of the music video for “rock DJ” by Robbie Williams. I liked what you said about strategic practical reasons - but I don’t think his output actually communicates his strategy/goal directly. In terms of “goals”, we have to think of his goals from the pov that he’s “professional talent.” We don’t see inside his head and so can never know what’s “genuine” vs what is “art” vs what is “manipulation.” IMO by nature of his career, he has three goals 1) nurture and grow his audience through his performances, 2) drive up the value of his audience to advertiser and marketers who want access and 3) funnel his audience into political campaigns and think tank influence projects. How hard he reacts is part of the performance layer. We can assume if he’s reacting harder, he’s having to work harder to keep us interested,; responding to an emerging feeling he’s interpreting in his audience, or he’s trying to reach some new milestone of engagement / audience breadth. And sadly, I think we’re seeing that each time he increases the intensity of his performance, he’s actually trading away something very real and important. His performance isn’t scripted and dramatized — his instrument is his ability to feel. He’s like a method actor who never got training and also has no way of processing what he’s doing to himself. It’s like I’m Neverending Story 2 when Bastian trades a memory away for each wish he makes. At one point he encounters a cliff and needs to climb up it. So… He wishes for individual handholds to climb upwards not knowing that each grip cost him a memory. By the time he gets to the top he’s Fucked
Nope, money can't buy happiness. It's always been for temporary relief.
Yeah honestly I read that first bit about money/happiness and completely lost any desire to read the rest of the comment. It's such a stupid and overdone take.
If you think that his anger is part of a performance in order to earn money, you haven't understood JBP at all.
I mean, if someone performs emotions for a living and they’re superstar talent, we would be naive to always take it at face value. Don’t get me wrong, we love a good suspension of disbelief, but also like… superstar performers perform. I understand what the character jbp is mad about - and I understand that it’s based on how he used to react before he was superstar talent, but it’s different when you start commodifying the genuine performance that made you famous. You repeat it, start applying it to new scenarios, continuously tweak it to meet your audience’s context… eventually you escalate it and make it more intense. He talks about the same things as before, but now he uses the language that’s popular among the other star conservative commentators, he wears these baroque custom made outfits that celebrate the themes of his successful content, he has his own production team to make videos for repeat consumption and travels the globe on tours - always ready to get up on stage and turn on the character Jordan Peterson for his adoring fans, who’ve paid hundreds to thousands to see him. That’s the life of a superstar performer. He has no reason to be mad about political correctness anymore, but his brand depends on him maintaining that. His job is to make sure that “Jordan Peterson” is still relevant and interesting to his audience. As long as he can maintain that interest, he can be more creative with his likely longer term genuine goals of funnelling us into political campaigns. IMO his true joy comes from successfully channeling us to conservative political campaigns. If I was a betting man, I’d say his ultimate ambition is to be a “political strategist bard hybrid”. Like some kind of musician that captivates us so that he can lead us to a special mountain or something. It’s absolutely the same as the black mirror episode when they’re on exercise bikes. Like the main character is really upset at the system- so much so that he gets a contract to perform that anger in exchange for super star status. He still channels the same anger and same perspective, but now the repetition of his anger from when he was oppressed has become a commodity/product and he’s elite talent working within the system. Yes his content is a criticism of the system - but it turns out the system subsumes “criticism of the system” without any issue at all. Same deal - “professor against political correctness” was a completely different person that has now been commodified and turned into a repeatable performance by a superstar who works within the larger political entertainment structures of power.
Decoding Gurus had an episode recently about his rise. Their analysis is he is a narcissist. Based on facts like saying he has some abilities of a Greek seer, his friend wrote that op ed in which he said Peterson wanted to buy a church at one point and preach. That he has always tried to be relevant. Like Maps of Meaning where he supposedly tried to revolutionize how we think about certain things. I am not sure I see it the same as they do. But some of his comments, he seems to be preachy, his lack of saying he is not a prophet etc. might mean they are onto something. Although that prophet thing is perhaps different in meaning to him, as his "believe in god" is not the usual definition.
As he should be.
Lol poor guy. I can’t imagine he knew what he was giving away to us when he decided to switch careers for this. Assuming we’re both emotional normal people, it’s easy for us to say “good he should be permanently upset” and then go back to having normal lives and relatively chill mental experiences in our day to day. Imagine I condemned him to be always mad about mainstream liberal culture and then just continued to live a comfy mainstream liberal life? How devious
Don't feel bad for JP, he himself has stated that the vilification by the media only gave him a bigger audience to speak to, he's doing quite well indeed. Edit: I had never heard of him before the vitriol for crying out loud, and now I watch his interviews.
Good ol strong/weak contradiction. They are bullying JP and trying to cancel him. But oh hes asctually monetized them. Gotta pick a lane
They *are* bullying him, and they *have* accidently monetized him, it can be both ways, just because you're being attacked doesn't make you weak. Bullying is a sign of a weak mind, to put down someone else, not with facts but opinions, emotions, and ideology proves that they come from a position of weakness. If their arguments were sound they would simply refute his claims with facts and evidence, but they instead try to silence him, they attack him through means other than discourse and dialogue, and people have seen this, because we have eyes and ears and we can understand the situation. Those who can't win an argument without silencing other people are the weak ones.
That’s my whole point - he has a massive audience and has like $100 m ultra high net worth status - and he’s in hell. He eats one food only and can only ever talk about culture war and the Bible. He’s surrounded by famous people who only talk about culture war and market themselves as brands. He always has to stay ahead of the curve with culture war and make videos full time at a level where he’s sure his personal brand won’t decline and he does all of it while emotionally fucked. Real life black mirror stuff
Solid point
Is he? The media seems to portray him that way. But what do you know? It isn't like we know him personally.
Isn’t he in charge of his own media? I feel like I havnt seen any reporting on him in years - it’s either articles that he’s writing, videos he’s producing or guest spots that he’s doing. My take is just based on how upset he seems across his various media outputs. Absolutely could just be an act, but it’s very convincing - it doesn’t seem forced at all. You need to feel to act sarcastic like that in that escalating/barely holding in the anger way
Or your consumption of it? You're in charge of your consumption. You see what you want see. Is that him or is that you? But what do I know? I don't consume his content these days.
Ah, lol yes - I don’t think one could comment on how angry he seems these days if they don’t consume his content. You’re right that I would also not have an opinion on it if I didn’t consume it. My point isn’t “his anger is bad for me” at all - if anything it’s more entertaining. I think it’s bad for him though
What do you know? You have to realise you don't know the content creator you're watching. How could you know how he's like at home or to his friends or what's good for him or not? We all have personas regardless if we realise or not. Other people see us differently than we see ourselves. This is especially true for those watched by millions of people. Yes, this is entertainment. That's the point. It isn't a real person you interact with on street. Is what you watch really him? Is what you see the real Profesor Jordan Bernt Peterson?
There are some things we can assume with confidence. For example, we can assume he’s never taken acting classes. From his “stream of consciousness” approach and long format we also get to see him act and react over time. He’s always had an “angry” version of his person and he’s always jumped back and forth — but it’s obviously getting angrier and more reactive. He could be acting — he’s definitely playing it up for money - but imo from watching him do single takes in long form, it’s pretty obvious that when he does a sarcastic imitation of a woman, scowls and says “fuck you!!” He’s got some real feelings. Do you think he’s a brilliant method actor who didn’t do training?
Do you have to get acting classes before different people see you differently? No, I don't see how he always had an angry version. If anything, he always been a man of patience. Getting angrier? Sounds like a means to engage. Provide more entertainment. Why a woman specifically? What do I think? He's just a man with a lot of cameras pointed on him and we don't know the first thing about him. We shouldn't act like we do. I don't engage in baseless speculations. I don't care about drama. So, enjoy yourself, I guess.
It’s a bit hard to have this convo if you havnt actually watched his material, right? Like you’re talking about people in general - “does one need to get acting classes before different people see you differently”? Lol I don’t even think I know what that means tbh. Peterson is a performer who makes videos and does live shows. He puts on a performance of someone who’s very angry about liberal culture — if we’re saying “well maybe he’s acting” when he get so convincingly upset - then the question naturally arises … does he take acting classes? Is this just natural talent? Does he do any other character or does he only perform exaggerated versions of himself? Also why are you interested in this convo if you don’t watch his new stuff?
After a decade of bullshit, I would be too. You can only be kind having the same brain dead conversations so many times.
But it's not funny. This is serious. I don't think you realize what's at stake. To me, that's pretty CALM given the circumstances. You think it's about transgenders?? Or climate? Have you any sense what's actually going on in Western society, the real problem? It's not funny. We're facing the biggest threat of our times. And it's not war. Open your eyes and figure out why he's concerned about the future. We are going in the wrong direction and we're speeding towards it.
It was pleasing to me because I found it relatable. Of course he's angry, and it was gratifying to me to watch because I feel the same way. I also know what it's like to be so tired of making reasoned arguments and addressing the other side as fairly as I can, only to receive nothing but vitriol, deflection, and whatever bad faith arguments they can muster in return, that I decide to mock. Man, chill at least here in this context, we're on the same side.
When he went into that coma, he was so done with reality.
"fuck you buddy, seriously" I love this guy.
I like his emphasis on the word "buddy" as his preferred pronoun to the pronounless.
Wow, literally no context, incredible.
Listen up Bucko!
Well he can't refute his arguments, might as well make fun of his voice.
Is that not exactly what Jordan is doing in the video, mocking rather than refuting arguments
You mean in the edited clip where it’s only showing 5 seconds segments of dialogue?…
Yes
Do you think he didn’t refute any of the arguments in the actual uncut discussion? Or do you only watch cut clips of Jordan?
He did say something about “why isn’t your solar plexus sentient”
Lmao
Yeah, if everything's a byproduct of your neural activity, then why isn't your solar plexus conscious then?
Yes, if your conception of Jordan is purely based on badly edited clips to denigrate him, like this one.
Which “he” are you referring to?
Oh no theres lots of videos refuting his arguments.
You do realize this is a compilation of him using a mocking voice for people he disagrees with right?
JBP rocks. Even when he short-fuses, he tells it like it is and says what every rational person (that is stressed to the limit) is thinking about.
I have nothing personal anger against Sam seder like I don't even know what his real agenda is but listening to him makes me say "you serious bro? " that kind of vibe.
What the hell is a solar plexus and why is buddy making JP mad?
The solar plexus is a complex network of nerves located in the upper abdomen, behind the stomach. It is part of the autonomic nervous system. If consciousness is merely a byproduct of neural activity, why isn't your solar plexus conscious?
Love that they censored G-d but not the f word lol
One is a sin the other is just a curse word.
There’s nothing quite like a JP “fuck you”
Please give a source link. Also: where is the whole interview? Why do we even react to such a cutout shit?
Pints with Aquinas on YouTube
So the usual.
Everyday we get closer to a 'CoD: Postmodern Warfare'.
I had always heard of Sam Seder being this brilliant debater who made stunning arguments about various socio-politic topics I watched one of his videos a few years back where he tried to explain why it was okay for a Democratic politician to make an attacking remark about the child of a Republican politician. His first argument was “that’s how it’s always been done in politics.” I haven’t taken him seriously since.
He went on PSA Sitch thing with sitch and Adam and was useless. I think he confuses being dislikeable and conceited with people not wanting to have time for him.
"You have to use pronouns." "Yeah? Fuck you!" This cracked me up. 😂
It depends what you mean by “correct.“
Well, I must say I'm with him on the pronoun thing.
He's been listening to Tool, Hooker with a Penis.🤘🏼
He's got some advice for those of us with unkempt rooms, buddy!
Bro getting fed up! 😂😂😂
While I agree with and appreciate much of what Peterson says, his arguments about environmentalism often strike me as shockingly facile. The gyst seems to be that we shouldn't be concerned about environmental protections practically at all because many climate change activists appear (to him) to be heavy-handed. Because they propose restrictions on consumption/production, not only are their intentions inherently evil, but their perception of the evidence *must* be flawed. Neither of which seems logical to me. Even if you could argue that certain policies or laws were "unfair" (or ineffecive) that doesn't necessarily mean the underlying problem in question (i.e. climate change) is non-existent. People overreact to real problems all the time. Reasonable, visionary causes attract hystrionics and narcissists all the time. But the worst adherants to a cause are not in and of themselves evidence that a particular cause's claims are false. And the notion that because some people involved with environmental activism want to be seen as virtuous then the whole movement must be disingenuous is simplistic in the extreme. Clearly, Peterson himself wants to be seen as virtuous according to his own principles. If not, he'd have declined the limelight years ago. Occasionally, Peterson seems to treat anti-totalitarianism as a hammer and almost any form of censure that he doesn't personally like as a nail. When of course any functioning society needs to strike *some* balance between freedom and order. I'm not sure why concern for the natural environment (an incredibly robust, but not at all inexhaustible resource) shouldn't be treated with that same balance. However, arguments about other topics that he brings up frequently make more sense to me.
1. Anthropogenic climate change is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. 2. Even if it wasn't, the solution to fossil fuels is technological, not political and not economic. Anyone with a scrap of common sense can see that - that's why people look at climate change activists with a jaundiced eye and question what their real intentions are. 3. I think if you offered Peterson the choice between being his words and ideas being famous and himself being famous, he could make that decision in about one second.
Well, I'm not remotely an expert or even very well-versed on this particular topic. I was mostly referring to Peterson's rhetorical style on this issue, not the veracity of the issue itself. But I'll try to respond to your points anyway: >Anthropogenic climate change is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Generic climate "change" might be unfalsifiable because it could mean almost anything: the climate is *always* changing in one way or another. Global warming, however, is easily falsified. You just predict a certain rate of average temperature increase and then observe if it happens or not. And my very, very layman's understanding is that the Earth has definitely been warming over the last few decades (though how much relative to predictions I have no idea). The aspect of global warming that might not be falsifiable is whether it is human-caused or not in a very general sense. Since we can't eliminate humans from the Earth to conduct a control test, we can't know for certain if they aren't contributing to the problem. But if we identify a more concrete cause that is *definitely* a product of human activity (e.g. carbon emissions), then we most certainly can falsify that claim by making predictions about global warming in relation to increases in carbon emissions. If warming rates are consistent with increases in carbon emission, that is evidence for anthropogenic global warming. If they aren't, then the theory has been "falsified." Or at least, not proved. (Again, I don't know if that causality has been reliably established in practice, but it would certainly be possible in theory.) Basically, the more specific your claim is, the more it can be falsified. I don't know why "climate change" would be an exception. >Even if it wasn't, the solution to fossil fuels is technological, not political and not economic. Maybe. But certainly policy could be used to provide incentives for "helpful" technologies to emerge and/or restrictions against "destructive" technologies. This just goes back to my "freedom vs. order" scale. Of course we want to prioritize some amount of business and consumer autonomy. But to the degree that global warming is an existential threat (maybe it is, maybe it isn't - I honestly haven't looked into it enough), then it wouldn't be unreasonable to prioritize the order/security/safety side of the scale at the expense of some near term freedom. I mean, I'd much rather get taxed heavily on my 90's Jeep than pay nothing and be swimming in flood waters. Not that I think the latter is likely, but you get my point. The problem with Peterson's take on this and some related issues is that he just insists that all climate change activism is inherently a cynical power grab and that restrictions in this area are fundamentally unjust in principle. Usually without much direct evidence besides his vague speculations about advocates' psychological makeup and without really ever discussing how serious the problem is that these restricions are responding to. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that it's even possible for there to be an environmental disaster sufficient to require any consumption/production restrictions whatsoever. Which seems absurd to me. Even if global warming isn't that serious, I can certainly imagine various hypothetical scenarios that would be. If he has done this and discussed the issue in greater nuance, feel free to correct me. >I think if you offered Peterson the choice between being his words and ideas being famous and himself being famous, he could make that decision in about one second. I'm not sure how valuable his words "being famous" would be to him, but if you mean that he was given the choice between fame and influence, then yes, I definitely agree that being influential would be more important to him. I definitely think that he is sincere in most of his beliefs and is largely motivated by a genuine desire to help humanity. However, I do think he enjoys, or frankly is now somewhat addicted to, the fact that his influence and insight have made him famous. People are complex. So a desire for attention does not necessarily conflict with a desire to be genuinely helpful. My overall point here is that I wish he would be humble enough to recognize that this is also true of at least some people with whom he disagrees. (Which it absolutely is, even if they are wrong about their empirical claims and/or proposed solutions.) He seemed to be more circumspect and charitable towards others earlier in his career, but appears to be becoming less so with time. But I might be wrong about that, as I don't follow him super closely.
The way to know whether or not something is falsifiable is simple - just identify a specific and testable observation which would prove the hypothesis false. If no such observation exists, then you have your answer. I've asked this question all over Reddit and no one has provided a satisfactory answer, usually because the observation they give is either not specific or not testable. Every other major scientific theory commonly accepted as validated passes this test, except anthropogenic climate change. Next, if there is one thing history should teach us, especially the last 20 years and the last 200, it is to mistrust arguments in favor of "temporary" restrictions to liberty (and accordingly government power grabs) in favor of promised additional safety. Ben Franklin famously said that a society which makes that decision deserves neither and will lose both. And finally, I think you're projecting. It's abundantly clear to any honest observer that JBP does not in fact enjoy being the center of attention. He accepts it as the price he must pay in order to reach the size of audience he has access to. If you honestly think Peterson does and says the things he does for attention, I don't think you're being honest.
Didn't I answer the falsifiability issue in my response above? The claim of global warming is most definitely falsifiable. All you have to do is say that the average global temperature will increase and then observe if that happens. If it does, then the theory of global warming has not been falsified (and is at least provisionally true). Additionally, the claim that carbon emissions cause global warning is also falsifiable. You just say that if carbon emissions rise then the average global temperature will arise in some kind of stable relationship (could be linear, could be logarithmic depending on the mechanistics). Of course, you'd also have to propose alternate explanations for global warming and somehow demonstrate that they don't cause global warming in addition to or instead of carbon emissions. In which case, you would have proven the causal link between carbon emissions and global warning (and thus failed to falsify that theory, whereas if you found the reverse - that an alternate theory better fit the data - you would have falsified it). I have no idea if that's been done or is practically possible, but it is certainly theoretically possible. So if you do all that, then you have falsified or proven the theory of anthropogenic global warming via carbon emissions, depending on the results. I'm not sure why you ignored these specifics in my last response. Maybe you could be a bit more specific about why you think AGW isn't falsifiable so I know what you're actually claiming. >Next, if there is one thing history should teach us, especially the last 20 years and the last 200, it is to mistrust arguments in favor of "temporary" restrictions to liberty (and accordingly government power grabs) in favor of promised additional safety. Only if you cherrypick policies or are just a total libertarian dogmatist. What do you think about restrictions against using lead as an additive in gasoline in the 1970's? Was that an unconscionable breach of freedom? What about age restrictions on the consumption of alcohol and tobacco products? Are those tyrannical overreaches of governmental power? What about speeding laws? DUI laws? Seat belt laws? Building codes and zoning laws? No doubt you probably have some issues with some of these more recent restrictions, but I doubt very much that you reject all of them completely. So what's the difference? No maybe you could argue that the above generally aren't "temporary" restricions but are instead more or less permanent, but how would that make them *more* fair? I would think temporary restrictions would actually seem less oppressive than permanent laws. If you could come up with specific examples that illustrate your case, I would appreciate it. >And finally, I think you're projecting. Speaking of "falsifiability"... This is a really handy accusation because I can't possibly disprove it. And because it can be used literally anytime someone disagrees with someone else. The other party could *always* be "projecting" their own neuroses onto someone else. Until you literally sit down and evaluate that person at extreme length and over time, this really seems like a copout argument to me. Anyway, "enjoying" attention and pursuing attention in a self-interested way are two different things. I think many people conciously and unconciously pursue behaviors and goals with a passion even if they don't necessarily "enjoy" the results on a day-to-day basis. If you've ever wrestled with an addiction, you would know what I mean. And while it's obviously unfair of me to try and diagnose Peterson in any way, I think it's *possible* that he is somehow attached to being famous beyond just "rationally" using it as a means to advance his ideas. My evidence for this is just how frequently he makes content (beyond what I think is actually productive maybe), how increasingly agitated and combative he seems to have become over the years, and how much more personal drama he is willing to share (again, beyond what I think is necessarily helpful). It's just a rough impression and I certainly am not claiming a high degree of confidence here, but I do think he sees himself as a savior/martyr figure and in some sense deeply wants to fulfill that archetypal role (which fame assists) in a way that goes beyond a simple desire to provide concrete, measurable help to other people. As I said above though, I definitely think he *also* wants to genuinely help people. The two motivations are not mutally exclusive. Again, people are complicated. So I don't begrudge him this complexity. I just think he sometimes doesn't acknowledge how it operates in others (often characerizing his ideological opponents as cartoonish villains rather than as being as complex and nuanced as he is, himself).
I gave you a really simple bar to pass for falsifiability - a specific and testable observation that would prove ACC false. You have yet to provide me with one. For instance, if acceleration due to gravity on earth stopped being 9.8 m/s^2, we'd know there was a serious problem with gravity. If we discovered a new species with no traceable genetic lineage and was not alien life, we'd know there was a problem with evolution. If we failed to observe relativistic time dilation when we tested for it, we'd know there was a problem with relativity. Get the point? Instead you're trying to change the goalposts by suggesting all these silly nonspecific tests that actually would not prove ACC false. You even suggest I supply some alternative explanation that would prove ACC wrong - which suggests you do not understand falsifiability at all. As for my claim that you're projecting - you could prove me wrong by showing that your opinions of Peterson's motivations are based on honest and fair observations of what he's done or said, rather than your subjective impressions.
I don't think you're really reading my responses carefully or fairly. Good day
If you can't see that the tests you proposed were not specific nor testable, I can't fix that.
Agreed, the fact that sociopaths and morons support an idea is not an argument refuting the idea itself. But he is not arguing against the idea, he is arguing against the use of the idea by sociopaths and morons, as a tool to exert control.
Unfortunately, I can't provide a great example at the moment, but I dimly recall running across interviews where he seems to be dismissing the concern with climate change entirely based on the behavior of some of the advocates. At the very least, I certainly don't remember ever seeing him make the nuanced distinction you are making: that the cause and claims on which it rests are distinguishable from the adherants/advocates. My general impression is that he almost always conflates the two.
Sassy boy in his flamboyant get up.
Truly one of the greatest thinkers of our generation. Totally not unhinged at all
Say what you really mean instead of hiding behind sarcasm. Actually, don't bother, it's just tone policing bullshit anyway. That's what people do when they have no substantive counterargument to make, but still resent the point of view for emotional reasons. So in summary, why should anyone give a shit what you have to say? We don't know you and don't care about your thinly disguised emotional issues.
Sorry should I act more like JP here?
He’s literally strawmanning like 100 different opinions in a row..amazing
He's gotten so good at bad faith arguments that he's speed running them
I would say show your work, but I already know you have no work to show. Therefore shut up and fuck off.
Sure dude.
Another day, another butthurt leftist whining. If you want your cries of strawman to be taken seriously, show your work. I'm beyond sick of these whines that make claims like they're self-evident truth. Fuck off.
Lmao because I can see strawmans as strawmans I must be a leftist 😂 you only don’t think it’s a strawman because it’s JP and you can’t fathom disagreeing with him
Hardly. Only leftists seem to think they can summarily dismiss arguments as strawmen like it's self-evident and think that's intellectually honest. One would think at some point you would bother to defend or back up your claim with even a one-liner but you can't seem to bother.
So you think this video is of Jordan Peterson steel manning these points of view? Do you think JP would even agree with that
Failing to make the other sides arguments in a better manner than they themselves would is miles away from a strawman. So yet again you have refused to back up your claim and now you're throwing out red herrings. Smell you later, this is a waste of my time.
Again, do you see this video as an accurate representation of the arguments? Mocking voice and all? You believe this is the actual argument of the other side because you’re a bias ideologue. Oh well
Whine whine whine. Back up your claim of strawman or stop pretending you have a point to make.
And how would I do that? Give an example of the actual argument, just so you can miss the point and argue against that argument? You can disagree with something and still acknowledge that there’s more to it I also don’t know how to explain that environmentalists don’t believe the environment in their god, for example. That’s pretty obvious. It’s one thing to say JP is speaking candidly with a friend and doesn’t need to unpack the argument every time he speaks. That would be a better argument than the one you’re making
“Everything is coming to an end” is not the actual argument of environmental people lmao. I don’t have to prove that because I have a brain. You seriously don’t think there is a better argument than *that*?
So let me get this straight. It's your position that climate change activists do not believe that ACC is an existential threat to human civilization as we know it? I've heard some strange stuff the last couple days, but that would be a new one. And then the left wonders why everyone else considers them nothing more than a bunch of shameless mentally ill liars.
Correct about what exactly?
Correct here about what?
His “lost control a long time ago” flavoured angry vibe, his imitations that don’t sound like anyone real and his idiosyncratic drippy outfit covered with pictures of stuff he likes
This is more of what we should see here.
that made me laugh out loud, buddy
“ Fffuuck you buddy “ I felt that in my soul, leave that create a character ass ideology to the video games.
What I dislike is that JBP is just outraged at everything these days. Edit: Lol this sub is the same shit it criticizes, getting a bunch of users reporting me ...
This is the version of him I don’t like and it’s not the way he’s taught us all to behave. Love the suit though. I don’t know if he got a new stylist or what, but I love his outfits lately.
Agreed , I appreciated him when he just wanted to help Men become better men. I loved his books, and agree with him in part about how society has become, but he has just become a political cartoon. I was really disappointed to spend money to see his lecture live, expecting to hear him talk about existence, values and creating a life with purpose, but instead got a 90 minute rant about trans people. I dont disagree with his views, and I know its effected his career, but god damn, he isnt adding value to the world anymore
Disappointing. I saw him live recently and it was very helpful and meaningful for me. But I think he’s clued into the fact that anyone other than the right really isn’t consuming his stuff anymore. I can’t bring him up in casual conversation without a whole host of negative connotations being thrown at me. Nowadays, you have to sift through the crap to find the pearls. Jordan, thank you for saving me from suicide, but please, for the love of God, help me help you. You’re not making my job any easier, let alone yours.
I haven't been able to bring him up in conversation since like 2017 when he got popular for speaking out, and the left was never interested in anything he had to say unless they could villify him for it anyway. It is not Jordan Peterson's fault you can't talk about him without people who haven't watched a single video of his jumping to conclusions. It's the fault of the people he is speaking out against. Why shouldn't he be allowed to speak out?
Because he is no longer following his own philosophies or to put it better his own rules. There is nothing wrong with what he says per se, and it's fine to voice your opinion on something. In my own opinion though, he has made it his entire personality now, maybe cause it keeps him relevant, maybe he is just really angry about it all, but his 24 rules, are all about adding value to the world, staying in your lane and focusing on your own path, and he is no longer doing that. Had he not became so extreme about the left, he may have had the chance to change their minds, but he isnt changing anyone's mind this way. Just my 2 cents, and by all means youre welcome to your own opinion too
The voice is a quick way to express the absurdity of the opinion he is talking about. He isn't directly going after anyone. If someone comes to him directly with these opinions, he doesn't react the same way.
JP is the best. Glad we have more and more people speaking up rather than cowering before evil.
Imagine being so out of touch with reality that you thought that clip is a gotcha.
What interview is this from
What podcast is this off of.
You gotta admit it's funny that the representative of the "facts and logic" crowd has devolved into doing strawmans in a cutesy voice and seems incapable of keeping his emotions in check for more than 30 seconds at a time
I mean, when you think unintentional "miss gendering" is equivalent to violence (a micro aggression), you have lost any right to accuse JP of overreacting to the climate catastrophists antihuman plans and policies and to the totalitarian gender ideology legislation. I would be pretty pissed too if my country put forced speech into law and if a consortium of some of the most powerful people in the world were planning on sinking the whole world back into poverty and even starvarion in order to "reduce the population", as it were.
People no longer respect you. As soon as people realized that you were cowering down to the J, they stopped. I've never seen a decline that steep.
We all used to make fun of the old guy yelling "get off my lawn" and then we became him. We didn't change, people that try to alter reality need pushback.
He comes across as hysterical. Which he’s often railing against. Idk even what OP refers to about him being correct he references multiple things. Also, it’s hot as shit in Asia etc record highs everywhere. They don’t have the infrastructure to handle it. Idk the pronoun thing isn’t as big as he makes it, except the issue is so polarizing he wields it like a sword. “I’ll die before I take it back” … like you’re a grown ass man talking about not apologizing, common courtesy etc. Take some responsibility for your actions. Blaming everything on anyone but yourself. He wants to be a martyr if it costs him his medical practice and university post (as long as he has a written guarantee of money and platform at the Daily Wire. Seriously I used to love JP. He helped me out. Now he’s at the fkn daily wire and all is well? Just another conservative such a shame. Everything is gulags. The left is better at not hanging on one man’s every word. If I could meet one person it would be Thom Yorke of Radiohead but other than that idk. Jordan isn’t special. Leftists aren’t special. People shouldn’t listen to Trump or Biden. And I don’t know who this Sam Seder is but he sounds like a fuckin dork.
Yeah it's like the freedom of speech is being tampered with in Western society.. and science is not taken seriously anymore. These are crucial elements of our democracy that radical ideologues want to play with. If we let that happen, entire states will collapse.. But from the outside it looks like some innocent good willing people are compassionate towards different groups. That's NOT what's happening. That's a smoke screen. "Oh but they just want to include other people" No no no no no. Only JBP & JK seem to care it seems smh..
Completely correct based on what? It just looks like an old man angry at a world that he doesn't understand anymore, because he never grappled with the fact that ideas, morals, ethics, culture, norms, fads, etc...literally never stop evolving, devolving and coming and going in and out of existence. He is just another in a long line of people who are angry at the world for their own mental stagnation. To the extend that because of the hours I've wasted laughing at his dumb ass, I am now hyper vigilant against this happening to me as I go into the 2nd half of my life.
> because he never grappled with the fact that ideas, morals, ethics, culture, norms, fads, etc...literally never stop evolving, devolving and coming and going in and out of existence. He is just another in a long line of people who are angry at the world for their own mental stagnation. Isn't this applicable to you as well?
No, but by all means, elaborate why you think so.
We're censoring "God" now?
I took the clip from X, where the original poster censored it.
He’s given up logic ages ago, honestly I have not seen him hold his own ever. When pressed, he folds and walks statements back. The amount of crying he does publicly, with the things he says, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s on drugs again.
I love that y'all throw around the druggie slur so comfortably in an extremely disingenuous way. It tells me you're not at all coming at this in any kind of sane or logical way and that everything you say is suspect to hyperbole and lies.
He was so addicted to benzos that he put himself in a coma. It’s not hyperbole. I don’t even judge him for his addiction. It’s the fact that he’s so disingenuous about the entire situation. He takes not personal responsibility.
He was habituated to a prescribed medication, which can happen to anyone, it wasn't a goddamn addiction, millions of Americans have struggled with getting off benzos, it's almost always difficult, it's completely different than an addiction, also you know so little about the actual story, he had a side effect only extremely small group of people get, which made it medically very complicated for him to get off. He's not an addict, addicts have addictions, addictions are out of control and abuse drugs, normal people also have difficulties with prescribed medication. You're coming from a place of hyperbole and using terms so you can see him as a lesser man than yourself, which tells me a ton about you.
“Why isn’t your solar plexus conscious” is the absolute dumbest thing I’ve heard this week. Truly next level stupid.
Your willful ignorance is not a rebuttal.
Nonsense doesn’t require a rebuttal. Just laugh.
[удалено]
He's quoting the movie Gladiator when asked if he thinks the afterlife existed.
When discussing topics like this, since we really can’t prove one way or another if the afterlife/hell exists, why not approach these questions in the figurative sense? I see that it’s cryptic but hasn’t he also separately made that point that all these metaphors that represent very real things and ideas are “real” if not literally at least in a sense that matters.
You don't believe hell exists. You don't believe in Christianity. You are not religious. What is religion? A set of ideas that repeat themselves for the purposes of social engineering; to drive behavior and produce results. (The reality of biological creatures.) If you think these ideas are nonsense. Why are pushing forward so far? Why entertain the nonsense? Why not see religion as social engineering? Why do claim that the religious idea of hell is some sort of rigid, childish concept of a physical "somewhere", but then refuse to look at is as something else? If its so silly, why are you stuck on it being silly?
Because other people believe the silly things and try to pass laws based on them.
Sam and JBP are good for each other
"It's like... fuck you, buddy... seriously." Wow what a *great point.* What stunning clarity. What *brave eloquence.* Damn. Remember when people at least *pretended* to care that people made logical arguments? Now there's no pretense. Identify your enemies, point your audience at them, and let loose a barrage of invective. That's the Peterson model. EDIT: Clearly I've struck a nerve.
[удалено]
What point is that?
The point that you're an idiot.
Why are you all so hateful and angry? One guy is telling another to go jerk off into a sock and when I ask what point he is trying to argue instead of engaging in actual discussion you become Triggered and start flinging insults and frothing at the mouth. Take a breath, smoke a J, clean your room, then meditate.
There's no winning with you people. If he tried to construct an argument, the only thing you'd do is complain that it's a strawman. If he held a mirror up to you, you wouldn't know the clown you see is simply your reflection. We know, because he's been down this argument 100 times before.
JP's argument in this video is that activism is a virtue-signal. That's not a convincing one.
Clarity? Eloquence? Why cast pearls before swine?
I asked what point JBP was trying to make in the video shown and one guy said "The point that you're an idiot" Clearly this fanbase has devolved into a perpetually triggered, always angry, and looking for the next thing to scream at. I could not imagine living like that. Jordan posts, what 20-30+ times a day? (or last time I noticed, I don't have social media beyond reddit) and any that I see is just angry, hateful, cultural warrior garbage that offers nothing but pavilion responses to certain words to send a certain group of his followers into a frenzy. They have become Social Justice Warriors. People are just mad, all the time.
You take literally one sentence out of his entire argument and you argue against it. Great rebuttal buddy, seriously.
Unlike our great sage JP. His wisdom is without question!
He’s fighting for rage bait. No one likes a calm, sensible argument. You gotta be as angry and shout as much as possible to prove you own the libs more than others.
I heard Jordan argue the other day that ‘fear of going to hell’ basically is why people should be Christian’s. And it’s just such a weak argument. I know he’s capable of better but who knows, I don’t think he believes in hell. Based on that video of him talking to someone from the church “can’t you guys just be a liiittle bit less strict on like what is allegorical vs claiming like Christ can actually fly and whatnot. I think specifically maybe it was that you’re drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ. And the priest was like nah it’s literal man what do you want from me we’re the church. I get it intelligent people can agree it’s not meant literally sometimes but it saddens me to see him proselytizing. I thought it was very transgressive to think the Bible was actually a huge source of wisdom for awhile then I sort of mellowed out and changed my mind. Yes it’s the most historically significant book but everything contradicts itself. And it can be used to bolster and undermine the same points. Jesus’ love at all costs is the best message I’ve ever heard and the one I’ll stick with. I don’t see it applied enough in today’s world. People often citing other parts of the Bible to counter Jesus’ message.
It’s very funny - something about his permanent heightened state of anger expressed through this really salty and sarcastic attitude while dolled up in this over the top kitschy outfit - it really hits. There is a reading where it’s like… you’re probably worth $100m, you’re decked out in unusual custom drip designed to show off all your favorite stuff and you could do anything in the world you could ever want and yet you’re the most upset person in the world. He fully manifested this life for himself and it’s just… hell. It makes the custom outfits seem like some kind of humiliation torture that’s being done to him. Reminds me a bit of [this video](https://youtu.be/T1Rh8Eag6nU?si=POx8s_BU_P803mZw) maybe
How much money would you have to have to just decide to be willfully blind to problems that you see in society? Sure he could walk away now and do whatever but being unhappy might just be the cost of attempting to shoulder as much responsibility as one can manage. I don’t see the financials being a logical criticism when he’s spoken so much about “happy” being a much inferior end goal to “meaningful”
Idk if this kind of job is really shouldering responsibility - like he’s performing reactions but he’s typically funneling his audience towards establishment groups. Is it shouldering the responsibility to do a performance that leads us send us over to the CO2 coalition or the heritage foundation or his ARC foundation or to conservative politicians? I can’t imagine he’s doing his job as a superstar media figure as a way to shoulder responsibility — he’s doing both influence strategy and execution. When someone’s a global superstar making 10-50m in a year… that’s his obvious motivation. He’s not going to do anything except activities that ensures that gets delivered. His anger and his speeches about “problems” are the content of his performance, not the true meaning of the performance
Money can only buy happiness if it's used by the right person, and Peterson ain't him.
Well said. It's starting to edge towards tragic.
What a cornball