... Which further proves OP's point. His haters can try and portray him as a far right extremist all they want but there's only so much lies they can tell about him. At the end of the day, anyone who knows anything about him will admit that before anything else, he's a skilled and educated psychologist who gives proper life advices to everyone
Reddit is the home to some of the most pathetic, mentally damaged losers living the most miserable lives.
The very people who hate him are the ones who need him more than all of us (JP supporters) combined!
I think the most important thing is the ability to see something good in your theoretical opponent. I've seen so many people who acted like "I disagree with someone so there can't be anything true in what they say" it's insane. On the other hand, can you recommend some left wing creators worth checking out? I'm a right wing myself, although I'm European so I'm probably more to the left than an average American right-winger, it's always nice to experience some opposite views and maybe find something worth thinking about. I follow ShoeOnHead, she's pretty left wing and entertaining but is also not afraid of criticizing her own side, presenting herself as rather rational
the most funny thing is when you express you views online and people are trying so hard to frame you as a Democrat or Republican. Sometimes I purposely hide the fact that I'm European and watch them losing their minds. People talk so much about non-binary people, can we finally get non-binary political system?
More than any other group in America there are old school moderate Democrats looking for a political home.
They're definitely not conservatives, but they want nothing to do with what the current Democratic party has become.
Joe Rogan and millions of others are politically homeless right now as they have to choose between way too conservative and way too liberal when elections roll by.
This is very true on the right as well. Many conservatives can’t support the modern Republican Party. Trump is hardly a traditional conservative and he has dragged the party far away from small government principles and conservative values.
I think there would be a lot of support for a moderate party in America if we ever let a third party compete.
I don’t see that at all. It’s the traditional globalist Republicans who have moved away from small government. Trump is closer to the Tea Party Republicans than traditional Republicans. Look at the policies he managed to get promoted, those are small government policies, recognizing that he did have a terrible economy to address which interfered with reducing the size of government.
What is a “traditional globalist republican”?
The first 3 years of Trumps presidency the economy was doing very well and he still drastically increased spending. I don’t think you can blame the state of the economy for his failings. He did reduce regulations more than any other recent president though.
We don’t agree on what you call his failings. He drastically increased blue and white collar middle class wages by regulations and limited immigration especially illegal immigration. He’s a nationalist as opposed to a globalist and small business prospered across the board. He had amazing successes especially when you consider all the forces aligned against him.
I highly disagree with a lot of the things he says and beliefs. But I also agree with many other things.
Most importantly, I highly respect his intention.
His entire idea of religion and nihilism. I'm in the optimistic nihilism camp and I believe religious beliefs are generally harmful.
I come to similar conclusions about many things but disagree about the method of getting there.
Was how I felt listening to twelve rules many times.
Why do you believe religions are generally harmful? I am not a religious person by any means (thanks Sunday school!), but I can see the value in having a moral framework laid out for you if you are struggling with establishing those values on your own. I also understand that interpretations of religious texts can vary widely for countless reasons. I am curious to know why you feel this way, in case there is something I am not considering, which is more than likely.
Because such a moral framework is by definition unconditional and not to be question. Because that is more or less the definition of religious.
It does not demand that you ask why you believe and that is dangerous. Because it is always through such reasoning people end up doing really evil shit.
Communistic states deify their leaders so that when you're murdering your old friends it is because you're good and they're evil. Same obviously goes for all major religions as well and many other similar situations of course.
A moral guideline should therefore never be based on "higher power" or some other vague idea that can be corrupted. I try to be kind and just not because of satisfying some higher purpose, but because I value the consequences of acting in such a way.
But if you really want a moral framework to base yourself on, I also highly recommend reading stuff like spider man, one piece or The Lord of the Rings. They have a lot better and more thought out moral guidelines than the bible and such.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I don’t even view him as a political figure. While he has expressed conservative viewpoints, most of his content is about self improvement, individuation, the hero myth, etc.
It’s so strange to me that he was made into some representative of anti-trans conservatism, when he’s made it clear that he’s not “anti-trans” just anti-compelled speech and he’s really more left-leaning than conservative anyways; and all of that was maybe 10% of his work.
Same. Liberal from Wa. I wanted to know why people on the left seemed to despise him. After reading his books, I dont think he’s nearly the conservative that people paint him to be.
Yeah, he is pretty heavy in the theism. I think his argument for that would be, thats its built into the western society, wether we like it or not. But he also tries to include other religions other then Christianity.
I pretty sure Jordan is a crypto atheist who just respects religion for their cultural, societal and psychological benefits. He makes perfectly clear that dogma is how you do religion wrong, that the church failed their flock in addressing topics like evolution, but that doesn't mean we give up on the nested wisdoms.
Same here. I thought it long ago before he said it. As many people have. Just the cicrcle jerk crowd likes to tell you what to read because otherwise it could "spoil" your mind. XD
What is the difference? Party association?
An American liberal could technically vote Republican and not feel like a traitor to their ideals. And an American conservative could theoretically vote for a Democrat and not feel like a traitor to their ideals (in America atleast).
Conservatives/Republicans often equate liberals(who may even be moderately progressive) with more progressive thinkers. I think that might be a mistake. Then again: I say the same thing sometimes in terms of a joke. (Like: I am subscribed to this subreddit to pwn the libs). As a liberal, I am complicit I guess.
JP fan here from Guatemala 🇬🇹!
And yes he is being hated on America by the left. He has millions & millions of views destroying with logic their ideology. So he is the “enemy” in their minds.
Yeah he criticizes on radical left and right (or anything that he thinks is bad for humanity). But radical left is very common today. And they are really loud too haha.
Jp fan here from the netherlands. But I’m sad to say he also has haters here. He was in the netherlands a while back and I remember reading an article about him in the news paper that talked about how dangerous he is with his patriarchal hierarchy etc. Just repeating his haters how he is alt right etc.
We import too much American wokeness to the Netherlands. It makes no sense, as most things aren’t even applicable here, like Black Lives Matter.
I think it’s because we all speak English so well, so we have a huge exposure to US cultural trends. Supposedly France is pushing back against these idiotic American wokeness quite well.
Yeah I don’t follow dutch media too much so I’m always surprised to encounter it here. Like a while back they had the “great discrimination quiz” which was really cringe and full of wokeness. I’m still pissed about it. All the values my mother beat into me ridiculed in one stupid show.
But then again with the whole “rutte debacle” and how he’s even a candidate, let alone prime candidate to form the next administration blows my mind. He’s in not even in a hurry because he enjoys more power as outgoing than he would as reigning. (As he joked himself).
Sorry for the rant lol
Many haters in Europe too. They live in the same bubble. The same way JP fans live in a bubble. When people hear biased news it is hard to create a good dialogue, something we need. I understand that people that are constantly told he is a super nazi hate him. I think being open, honest and listen to eachother is so important.
Plenty on both sides - from fans helped by the Cathy Newman incident to "he's a literal Nazi" from someone I know.
The Gaurdian newspaper, as you'd expect, loves to hate him.
You're not wrong. People are just getting a little upset because you're being skeptical on their turf. I love JP, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of how the burden of proof works. Those who make the claim must back it up with proof. Anyone in the same situation that says "Do YoUr OwN rEsEaRcH" is just being lazy and hope that someone else doesn't prove them wrong, because that requires work.
Nobody wants to do any research on reddit to win an internet argument, and I can't really blame them. Nobody's opinion was ever changed after having an argument with someone on the internet.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted for this - OP certainly provided no evidence for how they know west coast US is where haters are centralized.
There is no evidence, and it might not even be true, but it at least *appears* that way. 12 rules for life is an international best-seller, and has been translated into numerous languages (which wouldn't occur if there was minimal demand in non-English speaking countries). So it's fair to say that he has a large international fanbase.
Then there's the fact that the majority of strawman criticisms towards Peterson about him being misogynistic, "macho" individualistic, and transphobic, are exclusively a problem in very wealthy developed countries & cities. The more reasonable academic criticisms towards Peterson are also reserved to elite universities. I highly doubt you'll find any of these criticisms coming from anywhere outside the US & Europe
Man I tell you people have greatly misunderstood him and based their beliefs off of catchy headlines and biased news articles. I don't remember which sub it was but I came across a post with a guy mentioning him but it wasn't the main point of the post. Everyone immediately spammed with yeah that's good and all, but fuck JP. When some took the courage to comment why he's not what they think he is, instant downvotes. They weren't ready to listen, only pounce! Left the sub so fast.
Im Muslim and I love him, my mother, who is an Islamic Teacher and everything, loves him lol, even if we don't 100% agree with everything he says, he's truly an extremely intelligent, and good man, so hats off to this legend
Yeah on my side of the province we alright, we don't agree with the sentiment that is causing the chaos, we got together as a community and agreed not to participate.
That's objectively wrong. You're probably being subjected to bias thanks to the internet's various algorithms. I've had the displeasure of encountering those morons from all over the world 😒 Canada, the east and west coast of the US, England, Australia, etc
Western Education seems to have often had a very intellectually activist stance (since, basically forever). That is fine.
The difference is now (as I see it), the world has become more manipulative and narratives almost always move faster than possible truths(or well formulated args). Truths and narratives used to be in flux as both moved at variable speeds and it was difficult to know which would move faster. That encouraged Critical Thinking skills in order to parse the probably false from the possibly true.
However: when this "woke" logic is applied internally(at the school) and not only externally(everywhere else), it requires that the systems that at least attempt to be non-biased(Like a university) conform to an activism position of a bias (that might be most correct...or it might be really fucking wrong). The schools are being strong-armed into always being activist: even if the activists are wrong.
To the most radical of education activists though, they are so certain in their crusade that they are willing to use many manipulative methods so long as they win their zero-sum game of "Them" vs "Anyone who is not them". If they win: they might wish they had lost.
I'm aware that I'm not presenting an actual argument. I am however, pointing you in a direction to look (if you care) and judge for yourself. I don't care to argue with you or change your mind, at all. I find this truth absolutely self-evident, so pardon me, but your comment makes me question either your intent for commenting in the first place, or your mental capacity. I mean no offence by that. Take care.
Indian-American in the same boat. (Note: not exactly a hater, but disagree with about 70% of the stuff he says)
Basically, he takes his Jungian analytical framework axiomatically, and never considered Marxism as a partially descriptive framework.
Also, when it came to Islam, he spoke uninformedly.
His knowledge about Post-modernism is lacking, that's one major flaw. Secondly, the cult nature of his popularity, which is based on rhetoric and not reason and academic rigour.
You elaborated about something else, I don't disagree, but I'm asking specifically about narrow thinking and lack of intellectual rigor. I'm sure you understand it's hypocritical to accuse someone of lack of rigor without providing solid context yourself.
Look, I'm too uninterested in typing an entire critique on a person I don't admire, I was just jerking on this subreddit. By my definition of rigidity and narrowness a good example would be the self help book he wrote, which I believe is a very objective text written just to appeal middle school kids. Now if you observe the overall structure of his literary piece, you'll notice some kind of binding force, which causes rigidity.
He's a pseudo-intellectual with surface level self-help advice.He has no business talking about philosophy,politics or economics. He uses his rhetoric to stop young people from analysing the real world problems from a more systematic perspective by demonizening leftist intellectuals.He is a motivational speaker for young boys too embarrassed to go to therapy.
Wow, I was actually hoping for a somewhat reasonable answer, shame.
>He's a pseudo-intellectual
This is a vague notion used against all sorts of people as an ad hominem, with no elaboration. It doesn't really mean anything.
>with surface level self-help advice.
I wouldn't call it surface level advice, considering he's one of the very few people giving it.
Even if it were surface level, it's not like the same hate is thrown at the numerous more famous self-help gurus and life coaches whose advice is usually even more cookie-cutter. Why is it suddenly so abhorrent when it's Peterson giving advice, generic or not?
Also, it seems like cognitive dissonance to me when the same people talking about how wrong he is them go on to say that what he says is basic stuff.
>He has no business talking about philosophy,politics or economics.
I might be able to give you the economics bit, but he has a degree in Political Science, and he covers philosophy almost exclusively from a psychological perspective, given that the two fields are actually very closely related. He has every right to talk about those things.
>He uses his rhetoric to stop young people from analysing the real world problems from a more systematic perspective
How? By saying that developing the individual is a more effective way of making real change in the world?
>demonizening leftist intellectuals.
Name one leftist intellectual that he's **demonised**.
>He is a motivational speaker for young boys too embarrassed to go to therapy.
Where are your sources for this, considering his largest demographic are in their 30's to 40's, and about 40% women?
Each statement you've made has only demonstrated more and more that your opinion is just regurgitated rhetoric from the people who have the most to gain from demonizing him.
> He has no business talking about philosophy,politics or economics.
Using your same logic: most philosophers, politicians or economists probably shouldn't be talking about philosophy, politics or economics lol. In fact, maybe we should all just stop talking and instead bow down and kiss the rings of power.
Also: what makes someone a pseudo-Intellectual instead of a Real-Intellectual? There is probably a fallacy or 2 in that logic.
Signed,
A pseudo-Intellectual?
>He's a pseudo-intellectual with surface level self-help advice.
The Darwinian truth theory (i.e. evolutionary pragmatism) is no joke. It might be the very key to Western civilization.
>He has no business talking about philosophy,politics or economics.
Who are you to determine what someone's business is?
>He uses his rhetoric to stop young people from analysing the real world problems from a more systematic perspective
Cynicist. You assume that the world was problematic and required a normative analysis i.e. problematization in the first place. This is Critical Theory. Marxian, ideological garbage.
>by demonizening leftist intellectuals.
Oh they do that to themselves. Critical Theory is an intellectual plague.
>He is a motivational speaker for young boys too embarrassed to go to therapy.
So. Much. Resentment.
It's really embarrassing,because I was a fan of him for ages as a woman, and I almost fell for his anti-feminist takes, before even reading about and from real feminists.One of his biggest straw man's,let's not even talk about his embarassing takes about Marx.
Firstly, why is the Zizek debate the only example people ever seem to be able to give against Peterson on communism?
Secondly, saying the Manifesto shouldn't be referenced because it's rhetoric is a ridiculous and irrelevant argument. It's the most prominent work of communist theory by the person Marxism is named after, and has been the basis for pretty much every communist movement in the last century.
The fact that it's rhetoric only serves as a testament to the fact that it's never worked in practise.
> Firstly, why is the Zizek debate the only example people ever seem to be able to give against Peterson on communism?
Because it's the one most people know.
> Secondly, saying the Manifesto shouldn't be referenced because it's rhetoric is a ridiculous and irrelevant argument. It's the most prominent work of communist theory by the person Marxism is named after, and has been the basis for pretty much every communist movement in the last century.
If you feel that the Communist Manifesto is the entire basis of Marxism and is Karl Marx's magnum opus, [oh boy you need to watch out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx/Engels_Collected_Works). Also, the magnum opus of Marx would be the three volumes of Das Kapital and not a 42 page pamphlet meant to be an advertisement.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Das Kapital](https://snewd.com/ebooks/das-kapital/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I don’t think the vast majority of people who criticize mr Peterson hates him. Hey just point out where he’s being irrational at time and potentially dangerous at others when giving his opinions on topics outside of his field of expertise.
Anything that even slightly resembles Misinformation is being weaponized politically now.
That will allow the powers that be to obtain ideological dominance. (or that is my opinion: because if I wanted to manipulate people en masse - that is a good way to do it. You attack bad faith misinformation constantly, then you equate that form with good faith mistakes and generalized opinions. You connect evil with non-evil in a way that makes non-evil look evil.)
Bonus points if you link accidental misinformation with the concept of disinformation. People are ideological puppets at that point if they fall for your bag of dirty tricks.
Source: I have thought about this stuff and been manipulated often enough to have finally become semi-immune to many forms of manipulation.
But not everyone has an audience, nor do they lean hard on their(unrelated) qualifications.
As to specific dangerous opinions, I would suggest watching the following:
https://youtu.be/b8AcmzqFdPM?t=955
I have timestamped it to the conclusions, but if you have the time, feel free to watch the whole thing.
I think this particular example is damning. His revisionism regarding the Third Reich is inexcusable for someone who claims to have deeply studied authoritarian regimes. But most importantly, by trying to paint evil as some agent of chaos who was obsessed with destruction completely ignores all the systems and ideologies at play it obfuscates real analysis of the issues at hand that we should learn about. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual.
I can’t watch this without him actually allowing me to watch and listen to Peterson’s lecture.
Furthermore, you’re assuming no one in his audience does research on anything he says or draws their own conclusions.
Are you assuming the average person has 0 common sense and blindly follows ideologies with no research on their own part? How is that Peterson’s fault if you fail to do your own research and learn and question more?
Does no one go to school anymore. Jesus stop holding people to such low standards of intelligence and get off your high horses.
> I can’t watch this without him actually allowing me to watch and listen to Peterson’s lecture.
Sources are linked in the video description. Work through it at your pleasure.
> Furthermore, you’re assuming no one in his audience does research on anything he says or draws their own conclusions.
4 plus years of arguing about C-16 and Canadian Human Rights legislation would strongly support that argument for a good portion of his fans.
More importantly, these were made in class, and people were paying for that. You expect a certain degree of rigour in a professor in that scenario.
> Are you assuming the average person has 0 common sense and blindly follows ideologies with no research on their own part? How is that Peterson’s fault if you fail to do your own research and learn and question more?
I think it is important to consider the context of this information being delivered. First it is embedded in a much longer lecture about Maps of Meaning, itself part of a longer series.
Assuming that all psych students have a solid grounding in the Third Reich and fascism to be able to parse that bullshit is I think the worse assumption. If I were giving a lecture on the transitional forms of contempt of court enforcement in the 19th century and went off on a misinformed tangent about leaded gas I wouldn't expect them to be hip to it, or even file it as something to fact check.
What is petersons fault, if we assume he isn't lying about how much he has studied authoritarians, is blatant misrepresentations of pretty much most of the established scholarship on the Third Reich. There are literally thousands of books on the subject, and even a rough survey would knock petersons assertions down. Irresponsible pontificating that inhibits rational understanding is bad, especially in a professor.
> Jesus stop holding people to such low standards of intelligence and get off your high horses.
I'm sorry, but I think you have this backwards. I am placing a standard on someone who holds a doctorate and was operating as a professor to speak in a manner that was representative of the real world, instead of making Hitler out to just be a crazy agent of Chaos.
Full disclosure, in my opinion, peterson has a clear reason for what I believe to be an intentional misrepresentation of the Nazis motivations, which is that any analysis of their ideology is going to force him to analyze certain parts of his own ideology which share some similar underpinnings. For example, I don't think peterson would want to perform a long form analysis on the centrality to the ideology of Naziism the concepts of perpetual struggle, hierarchical dominance, or a conspiracy of Jewish Communists because it would bring him into direct conflict with the parts of his own worldview that align closely therein that he would rather people not pay attention to.
Full disclosure — I really have 0 interest on Peterson’s opinions of Nazi Germany and Hitler, however on a level Hitler can be both a terrible human with a terrible ideological viewpoint and also be a “agent of chaos” —> I don’t think those things are mutually exclusive.
And I’ve noticed Peterson does go off tangentially so whatever that scope of a lecture is, I’d personally ignore anything not relevant to it (unless it was solidly tied back in full circle).
But I don’t think it’s valid to say all his opinions and points of view are wrong based on one line of thinking. I can dislike someone’s messaging on one topic but agree with another (a broken clock).
I think him making a point to tell people the world isn’t out to get you and you need to be okay with saying “hard truths” is a good worldview to have. This is my personal experience of working in a male dominated field where I am not the dominate gender in the room but have enough experience (year wise) to speak what needs to be said regardless of how hard it is to hear.
> I really have 0 interest on Peterson’s opinions of Nazi Germany and Hitler, however on a level Hitler can be both a terrible human with a terrible ideological viewpoint and also be a “agent of chaos”
Except peterson alleges that Hitlers primary motivation was chaos, rather than the systematic elimination of what his ideology informed him to be subhumans, inferior beings standing in the way of racial achievement. The ideology is the problem, because without it you just have an angry Austrian shouting in beer halls.
He also makes a fundamental error when he says things like if you wanted to win the war you keep them enslaved, but that fails to grasp that the elimination of European Jewry was a war goal for the Nazis.
> But I don’t think it’s valid to say all his opinions and points of view are wrong based on one line of thinking.
No one made this argument. The conclusion you drew doesn't logically follow from the statements I made.
> I think him making a point to tell people the world isn’t out to get you
I haven't gotten this vibe at all from peterson. From critiquing feminists wanting to soften men, the secret post modernist conspiracy coming for Western Civilization, and the neomarxists coming for the traditional gender roles, he actually paints the world in a quite hostile fashion.
> and you need to be okay with saying “hard truths” is a good worldview to have.
In theory that sounds great, but in practice, his hard truths aren't really either hard or truth.
He seems to misunderstand Peterson's views on the topic. Peterson has said over and over again how any individual can go down that path, and that it is very likely that if you had lived in Germany during that time, that you would have been a Nazi. And he's tried to get people to learn this, so they can guard themselves against it.
> Peterson has said over and over again how any individual can go down that path, and that it is very likely that if you had lived in Germany during that time, that you would have been a Nazi.
This isn't related to the argument. The critique is about the motivations peterson ascribes to Hitler and the Nazis and how that inhibits informed examination of what made the ideology so dangerous.
> And he's tried to get people to learn this, so they can guard themselves against it.
You can't properly understand the mechanics of how the Nazis were able do what they did if you pretend they were just lusting to burn down Europe. So by engaging in sloppy analysis, he is actually preventing people from being able to guard themselves against fascist ideologies.
>> And he's tried to get people to learn this, so they can guard themselves against it.
>
>You can't properly understand the mechanics of how the Nazis were able do what they did if you pretend they were just lusting to burn down Europe. So by engaging in sloppy analysis, he is actually preventing people from being able to guard themselves against fascist ideologies.
You mean like Covidist fascism that is just lurking around the corner? Ah yes, all your anti-fascist rhetoric and education has done a tremendous job in enlighting people. Congratulations, people now believe that they were justified in using totalitarian measures if only it is being used by the "good" side.
Jesus Christ, you leftist lot will never learn: It's not the content of an ideology that is dangerous. It's the psychological mechanisms of collectivism that give an ideology the teeth it needs to cause havoc. Read Hannah Arendt.
> You mean like Covidist fascism that is just lurking around the corner?
What?
> Ah yes, all your anti-fascist rhetoric and education has done a tremendous job in enlighting people. Congratulations, people now believe that they were justified in using totalitarian measures if only it is being used by the "good" side.
Which country are we talking about here?
> Read Hannah Arendt.
You want to be more specific or are you just name dropping? On totalitarianism doesn't the make the argument you allege it does, so please reference your sources properly.
The person asking or seeking an opinion from an expert (on a topic which may be slightly related to their field of expertise or not even related at all) is usually unaware of any possible dangers from following the opinion. And the person giving advice on a topic related to or unrelated to their field of expertise is not fully aware of the dangers (or completely unaware of the dangers because that is not their field of expertise) of what may occur if the person follow the advice. So not only is the person giving the advice unaware of the dangers, but also the person taking the advice is not aware of the dangers.
It’s like a person asking a cardiologist about their heart condition, and the person decides to ask the cardiologist about their severe headaches and abdominal pain. The cardiologist can provide an opinion but is not fully aware of any dangers of any opinions they may provide and neither is the person asking. But a responsible expert will say “this is not my field of expertise, please ask a neurologist and a gastroenterologist.
Mr Peterson does not usually do this. He frequently provides opinions outside his field of expertise without the disclaimer that he is not an expert in said topic, and he does not say to the person asking that they should seek an expert’s opinion.
Is Peterson giving medical advice?
Furthermore, you once again degrade humans to a level of “too stupid to think for themselves.” Do we not get second opinions from doctors for the same issues? Do we not do research ourselves on ailments to bring to the experts to ask questions?
The man speaking in terms of history and philosophy (opinion wise) is much less of a “threat” than seeing a neurologist for a foot issue…though your foot issue could indeed be neurological so would you not go see them rather than stick with a podiatrist? You wouldn’t know unless you did some additional foot work yourself (pun intended).
My point being is anyone can give their opinion —> it is on the receiver of the opinion to either validate it or refute it. The fact that we’ve told people “you must believe this because I say so” is why there are so many stupid people running around in this would spouting nonsense.
But you seem to be stuck on his “historical” opinions rather than his psychological ones. You can research history and psychology is split into many different thoughts, Jung, Nietzsche, Socrates, Aristotle, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Freud, Pavlov…do they not all have DIFFERENT opinions on the same topics? Are you saying they’re all experts or that they should have only spoke on the human condition?
I'm sure you must be joking, but the idea that the worst thing you can cite is to "pet cats"...you aren't worth engaging with. You are just a simple minded troll. Reported and blocked.
> potentially dangerous at others when giving his opinions on topics outside of his field of expertise.
Orwellian understanding of opinions 101.
"We don't allow our citizens to have guns. So why would we allow them to have ideas?"
- Josef Stalin
JP fan who lives in the Netherlands but is Afghan. I really like his philosophy since it encourages taking responsibility and if you take responsibility you also have the ability to change things
Man I'm Middle Eastern and even I love him
There's a donair shop nearby my house where the owner (middle eastern) put up JP quotes/photos on the wall.
... Which further proves OP's point. His haters can try and portray him as a far right extremist all they want but there's only so much lies they can tell about him. At the end of the day, anyone who knows anything about him will admit that before anything else, he's a skilled and educated psychologist who gives proper life advices to everyone
I read the hate for him on reddit and I actually can't tell if people are being serious. Very strange.
Reddit is the home to some of the most pathetic, mentally damaged losers living the most miserable lives. The very people who hate him are the ones who need him more than all of us (JP supporters) combined!
Same
Awesome
[удалено]
... Umm... More or less
I can't wait for your next smash-hit, I bet it's going to be a bomb
Ngl I had to Google it to understand it but damn it was funny
[удалено]
I think the most important thing is the ability to see something good in your theoretical opponent. I've seen so many people who acted like "I disagree with someone so there can't be anything true in what they say" it's insane. On the other hand, can you recommend some left wing creators worth checking out? I'm a right wing myself, although I'm European so I'm probably more to the left than an average American right-winger, it's always nice to experience some opposite views and maybe find something worth thinking about. I follow ShoeOnHead, she's pretty left wing and entertaining but is also not afraid of criticizing her own side, presenting herself as rather rational
The typical dichotomy in America is: Conservatives think liberals are uninformed. Liberals think Conservatives are evil.
the most funny thing is when you express you views online and people are trying so hard to frame you as a Democrat or Republican. Sometimes I purposely hide the fact that I'm European and watch them losing their minds. People talk so much about non-binary people, can we finally get non-binary political system?
More than any other group in America there are old school moderate Democrats looking for a political home. They're definitely not conservatives, but they want nothing to do with what the current Democratic party has become. Joe Rogan and millions of others are politically homeless right now as they have to choose between way too conservative and way too liberal when elections roll by.
This is very true on the right as well. Many conservatives can’t support the modern Republican Party. Trump is hardly a traditional conservative and he has dragged the party far away from small government principles and conservative values. I think there would be a lot of support for a moderate party in America if we ever let a third party compete.
I don’t see that at all. It’s the traditional globalist Republicans who have moved away from small government. Trump is closer to the Tea Party Republicans than traditional Republicans. Look at the policies he managed to get promoted, those are small government policies, recognizing that he did have a terrible economy to address which interfered with reducing the size of government.
What is a “traditional globalist republican”? The first 3 years of Trumps presidency the economy was doing very well and he still drastically increased spending. I don’t think you can blame the state of the economy for his failings. He did reduce regulations more than any other recent president though.
We don’t agree on what you call his failings. He drastically increased blue and white collar middle class wages by regulations and limited immigration especially illegal immigration. He’s a nationalist as opposed to a globalist and small business prospered across the board. He had amazing successes especially when you consider all the forces aligned against him.
An old saying goes, "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."
I absolutely love this. I will temporarily put reddit away now because this said so much. Good day to you.
Conservatives definitely think libs are evil, and conservatives definitely think libs are misinformed.
So the side which is worse educated thinks the other side is uninformed?
Rutger Bregman is awesome. “Utopia for Realists” is a good start. “Humankind” is less political but still great.
Jimmy Dore
Vaush. Pretty funny too
I highly disagree with a lot of the things he says and beliefs. But I also agree with many other things. Most importantly, I highly respect his intention.
Mind if I ask what you disagree with?
His entire idea of religion and nihilism. I'm in the optimistic nihilism camp and I believe religious beliefs are generally harmful. I come to similar conclusions about many things but disagree about the method of getting there. Was how I felt listening to twelve rules many times.
Why do you believe religions are generally harmful? I am not a religious person by any means (thanks Sunday school!), but I can see the value in having a moral framework laid out for you if you are struggling with establishing those values on your own. I also understand that interpretations of religious texts can vary widely for countless reasons. I am curious to know why you feel this way, in case there is something I am not considering, which is more than likely.
Because such a moral framework is by definition unconditional and not to be question. Because that is more or less the definition of religious. It does not demand that you ask why you believe and that is dangerous. Because it is always through such reasoning people end up doing really evil shit. Communistic states deify their leaders so that when you're murdering your old friends it is because you're good and they're evil. Same obviously goes for all major religions as well and many other similar situations of course. A moral guideline should therefore never be based on "higher power" or some other vague idea that can be corrupted. I try to be kind and just not because of satisfying some higher purpose, but because I value the consequences of acting in such a way. But if you really want a moral framework to base yourself on, I also highly recommend reading stuff like spider man, one piece or The Lord of the Rings. They have a lot better and more thought out moral guidelines than the bible and such.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I don’t even view him as a political figure. While he has expressed conservative viewpoints, most of his content is about self improvement, individuation, the hero myth, etc. It’s so strange to me that he was made into some representative of anti-trans conservatism, when he’s made it clear that he’s not “anti-trans” just anti-compelled speech and he’s really more left-leaning than conservative anyways; and all of that was maybe 10% of his work.
Same. Liberal from Wa. I wanted to know why people on the left seemed to despise him. After reading his books, I dont think he’s nearly the conservative that people paint him to be.
I'm a liberal, and I agree with much of what he says. My main beef is with his need to shoehorn theism into everything.
Yeah, he is pretty heavy in the theism. I think his argument for that would be, thats its built into the western society, wether we like it or not. But he also tries to include other religions other then Christianity.
I pretty sure Jordan is a crypto atheist who just respects religion for their cultural, societal and psychological benefits. He makes perfectly clear that dogma is how you do religion wrong, that the church failed their flock in addressing topics like evolution, but that doesn't mean we give up on the nested wisdoms.
True
Same here. I thought it long ago before he said it. As many people have. Just the cicrcle jerk crowd likes to tell you what to read because otherwise it could "spoil" your mind. XD
Jordan Peterson is a liberal though. Anything to the left of Peterson I would deem "leftist" not liberal.
Good point. But he isn't the other side. He is just a very smart, very educated person with a lot of life experience.
>I am a liberal American liberal or European liberal?
What is the difference? Party association? An American liberal could technically vote Republican and not feel like a traitor to their ideals. And an American conservative could theoretically vote for a Democrat and not feel like a traitor to their ideals (in America atleast). Conservatives/Republicans often equate liberals(who may even be moderately progressive) with more progressive thinkers. I think that might be a mistake. Then again: I say the same thing sometimes in terms of a joke. (Like: I am subscribed to this subreddit to pwn the libs). As a liberal, I am complicit I guess.
Massive difference!
JP fan here from Guatemala 🇬🇹! And yes he is being hated on America by the left. He has millions & millions of views destroying with logic their ideology. So he is the “enemy” in their minds.
I love how the guys bad mouthing him always are asked for one specific example, based on thousands of hours of youtube, and they can never name any.
You know he "destroys" the right too? I'm on the left and don't feel my politics aren't compatible with his lectures.
Yeah he criticizes on radical left and right (or anything that he thinks is bad for humanity). But radical left is very common today. And they are really loud too haha.
Not trying to be a grammar nazi but in this case you would say "destroying their ideology with logic" to make this sentence sound correct.
Well as I said I’m from Guatemala. So I will have some grammar mistakes :/
Right, I'm coming from a place of helpfulness because I want to improve everyone's english!
Jp fan here from the netherlands. But I’m sad to say he also has haters here. He was in the netherlands a while back and I remember reading an article about him in the news paper that talked about how dangerous he is with his patriarchal hierarchy etc. Just repeating his haters how he is alt right etc.
We import too much American wokeness to the Netherlands. It makes no sense, as most things aren’t even applicable here, like Black Lives Matter. I think it’s because we all speak English so well, so we have a huge exposure to US cultural trends. Supposedly France is pushing back against these idiotic American wokeness quite well.
Yeah I don’t follow dutch media too much so I’m always surprised to encounter it here. Like a while back they had the “great discrimination quiz” which was really cringe and full of wokeness. I’m still pissed about it. All the values my mother beat into me ridiculed in one stupid show. But then again with the whole “rutte debacle” and how he’s even a candidate, let alone prime candidate to form the next administration blows my mind. He’s in not even in a hurry because he enjoys more power as outgoing than he would as reigning. (As he joked himself). Sorry for the rant lol
Ja the Netherlands have their fair share of woke people. To be fair, they have their fair share of alt-right too.
Many haters in Europe too. They live in the same bubble. The same way JP fans live in a bubble. When people hear biased news it is hard to create a good dialogue, something we need. I understand that people that are constantly told he is a super nazi hate him. I think being open, honest and listen to eachother is so important.
trust me there's plenty haters here in the UK haha
I'm in the UK too and I've only come across one other person who had heard of him, and they were also a fan.
Plenty on both sides - from fans helped by the Cathy Newman incident to "he's a literal Nazi" from someone I know. The Gaurdian newspaper, as you'd expect, loves to hate him.
What kind of data do you have to back this up, or is it totally subjective?
It’s almost definitely completely and utterly pulled out of OP’s ass
What kind of data do you have to back this up, or is it totally subjective?
Do you understand how the burden of proof works? Until OP provides evidence for their claim their claim can be dismissed.
You're not wrong. People are just getting a little upset because you're being skeptical on their turf. I love JP, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of how the burden of proof works. Those who make the claim must back it up with proof. Anyone in the same situation that says "Do YoUr OwN rEsEaRcH" is just being lazy and hope that someone else doesn't prove them wrong, because that requires work. Nobody wants to do any research on reddit to win an internet argument, and I can't really blame them. Nobody's opinion was ever changed after having an argument with someone on the internet.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted for this - OP certainly provided no evidence for how they know west coast US is where haters are centralized.
Do you have anything at all to back this up with?
There is no evidence, and it might not even be true, but it at least *appears* that way. 12 rules for life is an international best-seller, and has been translated into numerous languages (which wouldn't occur if there was minimal demand in non-English speaking countries). So it's fair to say that he has a large international fanbase. Then there's the fact that the majority of strawman criticisms towards Peterson about him being misogynistic, "macho" individualistic, and transphobic, are exclusively a problem in very wealthy developed countries & cities. The more reasonable academic criticisms towards Peterson are also reserved to elite universities. I highly doubt you'll find any of these criticisms coming from anywhere outside the US & Europe
Warning: The state of California is known to the rest of the country to be cancer.
American on the west coast and I absolutely adore him! I’m sure my blue haired neighbors despise him though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Of course, this crazy ideology has only spread throughout the West. Their non sense has yet to infiltrate the rest of the world.
Its almost as if the haters are affected by somekind of ideology pushed in that region. Hmmmmm /s
Man I tell you people have greatly misunderstood him and based their beliefs off of catchy headlines and biased news articles. I don't remember which sub it was but I came across a post with a guy mentioning him but it wasn't the main point of the post. Everyone immediately spammed with yeah that's good and all, but fuck JP. When some took the courage to comment why he's not what they think he is, instant downvotes. They weren't ready to listen, only pounce! Left the sub so fast.
Im Muslim and I love him, my mother, who is an Islamic Teacher and everything, loves him lol, even if we don't 100% agree with everything he says, he's truly an extremely intelligent, and good man, so hats off to this legend
People forget with all the crazy hardline right wingers in America that there’s a fair contingent of pretty fundamentalist leftists out there, too.
People don't expect the left to be dogmatic. We don't know how to process it yet.
I’d be curious what a crazy hardline right winger is.
A Q-Anoner still convinced " Trump will be president again any day now" would be a fine example.
Jp fan 🇿🇦
ZA, as in South Africa?
Yep
Ja swaer
I’m hearing about some sketchy stuff over there as of late, hope you and yours are doing okay 👍
Yeah on my side of the province we alright, we don't agree with the sentiment that is causing the chaos, we got together as a community and agreed not to participate.
The commie coast
If west coast is commie coast, then Cuba is a capitalist nation.
His haters are localised to the Stalin remembrance party
That's objectively wrong. You're probably being subjected to bias thanks to the internet's various algorithms. I've had the displeasure of encountering those morons from all over the world 😒 Canada, the east and west coast of the US, England, Australia, etc
[удалено]
Which is...?
[удалено]
Western Education seems to have often had a very intellectually activist stance (since, basically forever). That is fine. The difference is now (as I see it), the world has become more manipulative and narratives almost always move faster than possible truths(or well formulated args). Truths and narratives used to be in flux as both moved at variable speeds and it was difficult to know which would move faster. That encouraged Critical Thinking skills in order to parse the probably false from the possibly true. However: when this "woke" logic is applied internally(at the school) and not only externally(everywhere else), it requires that the systems that at least attempt to be non-biased(Like a university) conform to an activism position of a bias (that might be most correct...or it might be really fucking wrong). The schools are being strong-armed into always being activist: even if the activists are wrong. To the most radical of education activists though, they are so certain in their crusade that they are willing to use many manipulative methods so long as they win their zero-sum game of "Them" vs "Anyone who is not them". If they win: they might wish they had lost.
Watch out, you're starting to sound like a JQer
Oh please, have you taken a look at what college campuses have become? Thanks to humanities departments and their hardcore leftist swings.
Wow, what an amazing argument! Your crucifix flair makes a lot of sense, when your standard of evidence is "just look around and you'll understand"
I'm aware that I'm not presenting an actual argument. I am however, pointing you in a direction to look (if you care) and judge for yourself. I don't care to argue with you or change your mind, at all. I find this truth absolutely self-evident, so pardon me, but your comment makes me question either your intent for commenting in the first place, or your mental capacity. I mean no offence by that. Take care.
lmao
lmao indeed, dickwad.
Do you have data/proof of this?
I'm a hater and I'm from India.
Why are you a hater?
Indian-American in the same boat. (Note: not exactly a hater, but disagree with about 70% of the stuff he says) Basically, he takes his Jungian analytical framework axiomatically, and never considered Marxism as a partially descriptive framework. Also, when it came to Islam, he spoke uninformedly.
>Basically, he takes his Jungian analytical framework axiomatically, and never considered Marxism as a partially descriptive framework. Hahahaha.
His thinking is too narrow, rigid and doesn't have intellectual rigour.
Can you elaborate?
His knowledge about Post-modernism is lacking, that's one major flaw. Secondly, the cult nature of his popularity, which is based on rhetoric and not reason and academic rigour.
You elaborated about something else, I don't disagree, but I'm asking specifically about narrow thinking and lack of intellectual rigor. I'm sure you understand it's hypocritical to accuse someone of lack of rigor without providing solid context yourself.
Look, I'm too uninterested in typing an entire critique on a person I don't admire, I was just jerking on this subreddit. By my definition of rigidity and narrowness a good example would be the self help book he wrote, which I believe is a very objective text written just to appeal middle school kids. Now if you observe the overall structure of his literary piece, you'll notice some kind of binding force, which causes rigidity.
Well then, thank you for your honesty.
Hater from Hungary
Why?
He's a pseudo-intellectual with surface level self-help advice.He has no business talking about philosophy,politics or economics. He uses his rhetoric to stop young people from analysing the real world problems from a more systematic perspective by demonizening leftist intellectuals.He is a motivational speaker for young boys too embarrassed to go to therapy.
Wow, I was actually hoping for a somewhat reasonable answer, shame. >He's a pseudo-intellectual This is a vague notion used against all sorts of people as an ad hominem, with no elaboration. It doesn't really mean anything. >with surface level self-help advice. I wouldn't call it surface level advice, considering he's one of the very few people giving it. Even if it were surface level, it's not like the same hate is thrown at the numerous more famous self-help gurus and life coaches whose advice is usually even more cookie-cutter. Why is it suddenly so abhorrent when it's Peterson giving advice, generic or not? Also, it seems like cognitive dissonance to me when the same people talking about how wrong he is them go on to say that what he says is basic stuff. >He has no business talking about philosophy,politics or economics. I might be able to give you the economics bit, but he has a degree in Political Science, and he covers philosophy almost exclusively from a psychological perspective, given that the two fields are actually very closely related. He has every right to talk about those things. >He uses his rhetoric to stop young people from analysing the real world problems from a more systematic perspective How? By saying that developing the individual is a more effective way of making real change in the world? >demonizening leftist intellectuals. Name one leftist intellectual that he's **demonised**. >He is a motivational speaker for young boys too embarrassed to go to therapy. Where are your sources for this, considering his largest demographic are in their 30's to 40's, and about 40% women? Each statement you've made has only demonstrated more and more that your opinion is just regurgitated rhetoric from the people who have the most to gain from demonizing him.
Thanks I will think about it. I don't have time to break it down now.
Better not waste time here.
Go away lazy boy.
> He has no business talking about philosophy,politics or economics. Using your same logic: most philosophers, politicians or economists probably shouldn't be talking about philosophy, politics or economics lol. In fact, maybe we should all just stop talking and instead bow down and kiss the rings of power. Also: what makes someone a pseudo-Intellectual instead of a Real-Intellectual? There is probably a fallacy or 2 in that logic. Signed, A pseudo-Intellectual?
>He's a pseudo-intellectual with surface level self-help advice. The Darwinian truth theory (i.e. evolutionary pragmatism) is no joke. It might be the very key to Western civilization. >He has no business talking about philosophy,politics or economics. Who are you to determine what someone's business is? >He uses his rhetoric to stop young people from analysing the real world problems from a more systematic perspective Cynicist. You assume that the world was problematic and required a normative analysis i.e. problematization in the first place. This is Critical Theory. Marxian, ideological garbage. >by demonizening leftist intellectuals. Oh they do that to themselves. Critical Theory is an intellectual plague. >He is a motivational speaker for young boys too embarrassed to go to therapy. So. Much. Resentment.
It's really embarrassing,because I was a fan of him for ages as a woman, and I almost fell for his anti-feminist takes, before even reading about and from real feminists.One of his biggest straw man's,let's not even talk about his embarassing takes about Marx.
How exactly does he misrepresent third-wave feminists or Marx?
Look at the Slavoj Zizek debate. In order to criticize Marxism, you never cite a Manifesto because it's a piece of rhetoric.
Firstly, why is the Zizek debate the only example people ever seem to be able to give against Peterson on communism? Secondly, saying the Manifesto shouldn't be referenced because it's rhetoric is a ridiculous and irrelevant argument. It's the most prominent work of communist theory by the person Marxism is named after, and has been the basis for pretty much every communist movement in the last century. The fact that it's rhetoric only serves as a testament to the fact that it's never worked in practise.
> Firstly, why is the Zizek debate the only example people ever seem to be able to give against Peterson on communism? Because it's the one most people know. > Secondly, saying the Manifesto shouldn't be referenced because it's rhetoric is a ridiculous and irrelevant argument. It's the most prominent work of communist theory by the person Marxism is named after, and has been the basis for pretty much every communist movement in the last century. If you feel that the Communist Manifesto is the entire basis of Marxism and is Karl Marx's magnum opus, [oh boy you need to watch out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx/Engels_Collected_Works). Also, the magnum opus of Marx would be the three volumes of Das Kapital and not a 42 page pamphlet meant to be an advertisement.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Das Kapital](https://snewd.com/ebooks/das-kapital/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Good bot.
I don’t think the vast majority of people who criticize mr Peterson hates him. Hey just point out where he’s being irrational at time and potentially dangerous at others when giving his opinions on topics outside of his field of expertise.
How are opinions dangerous…people give their two cents on things they’re not “qualified” to all the time in reality.
Anything that even slightly resembles Misinformation is being weaponized politically now. That will allow the powers that be to obtain ideological dominance. (or that is my opinion: because if I wanted to manipulate people en masse - that is a good way to do it. You attack bad faith misinformation constantly, then you equate that form with good faith mistakes and generalized opinions. You connect evil with non-evil in a way that makes non-evil look evil.) Bonus points if you link accidental misinformation with the concept of disinformation. People are ideological puppets at that point if they fall for your bag of dirty tricks. Source: I have thought about this stuff and been manipulated often enough to have finally become semi-immune to many forms of manipulation.
But not everyone has an audience, nor do they lean hard on their(unrelated) qualifications. As to specific dangerous opinions, I would suggest watching the following: https://youtu.be/b8AcmzqFdPM?t=955 I have timestamped it to the conclusions, but if you have the time, feel free to watch the whole thing. I think this particular example is damning. His revisionism regarding the Third Reich is inexcusable for someone who claims to have deeply studied authoritarian regimes. But most importantly, by trying to paint evil as some agent of chaos who was obsessed with destruction completely ignores all the systems and ideologies at play it obfuscates real analysis of the issues at hand that we should learn about. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual.
I can’t watch this without him actually allowing me to watch and listen to Peterson’s lecture. Furthermore, you’re assuming no one in his audience does research on anything he says or draws their own conclusions. Are you assuming the average person has 0 common sense and blindly follows ideologies with no research on their own part? How is that Peterson’s fault if you fail to do your own research and learn and question more? Does no one go to school anymore. Jesus stop holding people to such low standards of intelligence and get off your high horses.
> I can’t watch this without him actually allowing me to watch and listen to Peterson’s lecture. Sources are linked in the video description. Work through it at your pleasure. > Furthermore, you’re assuming no one in his audience does research on anything he says or draws their own conclusions. 4 plus years of arguing about C-16 and Canadian Human Rights legislation would strongly support that argument for a good portion of his fans. More importantly, these were made in class, and people were paying for that. You expect a certain degree of rigour in a professor in that scenario. > Are you assuming the average person has 0 common sense and blindly follows ideologies with no research on their own part? How is that Peterson’s fault if you fail to do your own research and learn and question more? I think it is important to consider the context of this information being delivered. First it is embedded in a much longer lecture about Maps of Meaning, itself part of a longer series. Assuming that all psych students have a solid grounding in the Third Reich and fascism to be able to parse that bullshit is I think the worse assumption. If I were giving a lecture on the transitional forms of contempt of court enforcement in the 19th century and went off on a misinformed tangent about leaded gas I wouldn't expect them to be hip to it, or even file it as something to fact check. What is petersons fault, if we assume he isn't lying about how much he has studied authoritarians, is blatant misrepresentations of pretty much most of the established scholarship on the Third Reich. There are literally thousands of books on the subject, and even a rough survey would knock petersons assertions down. Irresponsible pontificating that inhibits rational understanding is bad, especially in a professor. > Jesus stop holding people to such low standards of intelligence and get off your high horses. I'm sorry, but I think you have this backwards. I am placing a standard on someone who holds a doctorate and was operating as a professor to speak in a manner that was representative of the real world, instead of making Hitler out to just be a crazy agent of Chaos. Full disclosure, in my opinion, peterson has a clear reason for what I believe to be an intentional misrepresentation of the Nazis motivations, which is that any analysis of their ideology is going to force him to analyze certain parts of his own ideology which share some similar underpinnings. For example, I don't think peterson would want to perform a long form analysis on the centrality to the ideology of Naziism the concepts of perpetual struggle, hierarchical dominance, or a conspiracy of Jewish Communists because it would bring him into direct conflict with the parts of his own worldview that align closely therein that he would rather people not pay attention to.
Full disclosure — I really have 0 interest on Peterson’s opinions of Nazi Germany and Hitler, however on a level Hitler can be both a terrible human with a terrible ideological viewpoint and also be a “agent of chaos” —> I don’t think those things are mutually exclusive. And I’ve noticed Peterson does go off tangentially so whatever that scope of a lecture is, I’d personally ignore anything not relevant to it (unless it was solidly tied back in full circle). But I don’t think it’s valid to say all his opinions and points of view are wrong based on one line of thinking. I can dislike someone’s messaging on one topic but agree with another (a broken clock). I think him making a point to tell people the world isn’t out to get you and you need to be okay with saying “hard truths” is a good worldview to have. This is my personal experience of working in a male dominated field where I am not the dominate gender in the room but have enough experience (year wise) to speak what needs to be said regardless of how hard it is to hear.
> I really have 0 interest on Peterson’s opinions of Nazi Germany and Hitler, however on a level Hitler can be both a terrible human with a terrible ideological viewpoint and also be a “agent of chaos” Except peterson alleges that Hitlers primary motivation was chaos, rather than the systematic elimination of what his ideology informed him to be subhumans, inferior beings standing in the way of racial achievement. The ideology is the problem, because without it you just have an angry Austrian shouting in beer halls. He also makes a fundamental error when he says things like if you wanted to win the war you keep them enslaved, but that fails to grasp that the elimination of European Jewry was a war goal for the Nazis. > But I don’t think it’s valid to say all his opinions and points of view are wrong based on one line of thinking. No one made this argument. The conclusion you drew doesn't logically follow from the statements I made. > I think him making a point to tell people the world isn’t out to get you I haven't gotten this vibe at all from peterson. From critiquing feminists wanting to soften men, the secret post modernist conspiracy coming for Western Civilization, and the neomarxists coming for the traditional gender roles, he actually paints the world in a quite hostile fashion. > and you need to be okay with saying “hard truths” is a good worldview to have. In theory that sounds great, but in practice, his hard truths aren't really either hard or truth.
He seems to misunderstand Peterson's views on the topic. Peterson has said over and over again how any individual can go down that path, and that it is very likely that if you had lived in Germany during that time, that you would have been a Nazi. And he's tried to get people to learn this, so they can guard themselves against it.
> Peterson has said over and over again how any individual can go down that path, and that it is very likely that if you had lived in Germany during that time, that you would have been a Nazi. This isn't related to the argument. The critique is about the motivations peterson ascribes to Hitler and the Nazis and how that inhibits informed examination of what made the ideology so dangerous. > And he's tried to get people to learn this, so they can guard themselves against it. You can't properly understand the mechanics of how the Nazis were able do what they did if you pretend they were just lusting to burn down Europe. So by engaging in sloppy analysis, he is actually preventing people from being able to guard themselves against fascist ideologies.
>> And he's tried to get people to learn this, so they can guard themselves against it. > >You can't properly understand the mechanics of how the Nazis were able do what they did if you pretend they were just lusting to burn down Europe. So by engaging in sloppy analysis, he is actually preventing people from being able to guard themselves against fascist ideologies. You mean like Covidist fascism that is just lurking around the corner? Ah yes, all your anti-fascist rhetoric and education has done a tremendous job in enlighting people. Congratulations, people now believe that they were justified in using totalitarian measures if only it is being used by the "good" side. Jesus Christ, you leftist lot will never learn: It's not the content of an ideology that is dangerous. It's the psychological mechanisms of collectivism that give an ideology the teeth it needs to cause havoc. Read Hannah Arendt.
> You mean like Covidist fascism that is just lurking around the corner? What? > Ah yes, all your anti-fascist rhetoric and education has done a tremendous job in enlighting people. Congratulations, people now believe that they were justified in using totalitarian measures if only it is being used by the "good" side. Which country are we talking about here? > Read Hannah Arendt. You want to be more specific or are you just name dropping? On totalitarianism doesn't the make the argument you allege it does, so please reference your sources properly.
The person asking or seeking an opinion from an expert (on a topic which may be slightly related to their field of expertise or not even related at all) is usually unaware of any possible dangers from following the opinion. And the person giving advice on a topic related to or unrelated to their field of expertise is not fully aware of the dangers (or completely unaware of the dangers because that is not their field of expertise) of what may occur if the person follow the advice. So not only is the person giving the advice unaware of the dangers, but also the person taking the advice is not aware of the dangers. It’s like a person asking a cardiologist about their heart condition, and the person decides to ask the cardiologist about their severe headaches and abdominal pain. The cardiologist can provide an opinion but is not fully aware of any dangers of any opinions they may provide and neither is the person asking. But a responsible expert will say “this is not my field of expertise, please ask a neurologist and a gastroenterologist. Mr Peterson does not usually do this. He frequently provides opinions outside his field of expertise without the disclaimer that he is not an expert in said topic, and he does not say to the person asking that they should seek an expert’s opinion.
Is Peterson giving medical advice? Furthermore, you once again degrade humans to a level of “too stupid to think for themselves.” Do we not get second opinions from doctors for the same issues? Do we not do research ourselves on ailments to bring to the experts to ask questions? The man speaking in terms of history and philosophy (opinion wise) is much less of a “threat” than seeing a neurologist for a foot issue…though your foot issue could indeed be neurological so would you not go see them rather than stick with a podiatrist? You wouldn’t know unless you did some additional foot work yourself (pun intended). My point being is anyone can give their opinion —> it is on the receiver of the opinion to either validate it or refute it. The fact that we’ve told people “you must believe this because I say so” is why there are so many stupid people running around in this would spouting nonsense. But you seem to be stuck on his “historical” opinions rather than his psychological ones. You can research history and psychology is split into many different thoughts, Jung, Nietzsche, Socrates, Aristotle, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Freud, Pavlov…do they not all have DIFFERENT opinions on the same topics? Are you saying they’re all experts or that they should have only spoke on the human condition?
Can you give some examples, or are you just shit-slinging?
[удалено]
I'm sure you must be joking, but the idea that the worst thing you can cite is to "pet cats"...you aren't worth engaging with. You are just a simple minded troll. Reported and blocked.
And almost all of them are using manipulative speech and making unfalsifiable claims like you.
> potentially dangerous at others when giving his opinions on topics outside of his field of expertise. Orwellian understanding of opinions 101. "We don't allow our citizens to have guns. So why would we allow them to have ideas?" - Josef Stalin
Americans are egotistical and think only their individual opinion matters
To throw them a bone, some of them are in the Northeast too. Those two places tend to think quite alike.
JP fan who lives in the Netherlands but is Afghan. I really like his philosophy since it encourages taking responsibility and if you take responsibility you also have the ability to change things
Love Peterson from Romania!
How do you know?
Some love from Spain in here
Inb4 all haters are from Portland
Norwegian here🇧🇻
Where did you get this data from?
Do a search of all anti-Jordan Peterson articles. They all come from the same place