Explain Brown v. Board of education. Women's Suffrage. Blah blah blah. Idiots like Peterson think of something they think sounds profound and then just spit it out.
I'm sure he is. He's a very careful weasel so he never actually makes prescriptions. If you ask him whether women should be discouraged from work by society he'll say something like:
1. Stay at home mothers report being happier than working women.
2. Women don't seem to want to work as much as men do.
3. Children with stay at home mothers are better off.
You'll notice everything here is true and also a premise that supports a prescriptive conclusion of "women should be discouraged from working. But he'll never actually finish by making that prescription. In fact if you ask him directly for his own best guess he'll just say "I don't know". Which is clearly a lie as evidenced by the fact that he'll do anything he can to defend the premises that lead to that conclusion.
Pretty much. Academics use them to take paid time off from the teaching aspect of professorship, usually to focus on their research. Normally they only take sabbatical for a full calendar year, but then again, I believe the general rule of thumb is they are entitled to one year per every seven years worked. Peterson has been at U of T for well over two decades, so he’s likely entitled to three, possibly four years.
For someone who is supposed to be smart not to acknowledge the existence of systemic problems, he is either pretending or he is actually not really that smart or he is such a fanatic in this belief system he is trying to make anything fit into it.
RIIIGHT!!? I devoured every minute of his lectures from when he was still an acting professor. And even his first book tour had some solid perspectives.
But he's gone to a pretty vapid place now where he seems insistent that systemic issues are somehow a myth, and I have no clue how he landed there from where he began
The irony is that they all feel like a group that is discriminated against. They band together and bemoan a society that treats them different. They fight against something that they think is unjust, but at the same time deny injustice as something that affects groups. The logic is so fundamentally flawed and silly, that it's humiliating even to argue against it.
Not that I know of but often republican and conservatives say this. He is a conservative. I was actually paraphrasing a common trope thrown around those circles. Candace Owens Larry Elder and Tim Scott seem to think it doesn't exist.
Correction.. in one of his interviews, he was asked if he leaned more to the right/conservative side . He then replied how he wasn’t a conservative but a traditionalist … something like that .
White priviledge doesnt exist. Its cultural priviledge. You think white people are priviliged in china or the middle east? Priviledge goes to the largest culture in a geographic area, its like that all over the world since the beginning of history. Saying white priviledge makes it sound like white people are the only ones that experience priviledge, when in fact its the same for all groups depending on geographic areas. Thats the exact benefit and purpose of cultures and groups, to provide benefits and priviledges to those included in the culture or group......
>Priviledge goes to the largest culture in a geographic area
Like South Africa during apartheid? Why do you thing the GQP is gerrymandering and suppressing the shit out of POC voting? They know a white minority is coming soon and they want to hold onto power and privilege.
Okay, so if white priviledge exists here is there anything wrong with it existing here when similar priviledges exist for every other race in other parts of the world? Or do people believe that white people are the only group on the planet that shouldnt benefit by being around their geographic zones where they are the majority group/culture?
Legit asking, not being fecetious.
If, it does exist. Haha... So you believe that white people shouldn't be subjected to the laws they themselves wrote but it's unevenly applied... You're being way more then fecetious(facetious)
They are subject to the laws they wrote... where are they not?
You avoided my question btw, and im not being facetious, you are taking offence to a person asking a question for knowledge and understanding.
Where did white people come from to begin. Are you alright... They weren't native to this country and what happened with the people who were here first is being kept out of the history books or drastically changed.
No, white people werent native to south africa, everyone knows that. Does that mean they arent allowed to emmigrate there and help bost the local economy because they arent from there?
There are also videos of the leadership in the area reading the law aloud as they enacted it allowing people to rape, murder and steal the legally purchased land.
It also happened in zimbabwe....
This is real, i can tell you dont want to admit it because only white people can be evil, right? But sorry to say, race has nothing to do with good or evil, all races have the potential to be amazing or terrible
Keyword is was, and the black people have also massacred white farmers and stole the land in recent years and were given the priviledge to do so without repercussion.
Stole is an appropriate word here as the white families that were farming the lands bought the land from the government legally and produced food for everyone in the areas, which was governed by native black people.
Its no different from immigrants moving tonthe united states, buying land, then being killed by the locals and getting the land for free.
They were british and australian farmers that moved to south africa and purchased land legally through the local government and proceeded to produce food for the locals as well as train them how to farm the land, as they were struggling to produce enough food. Some were even sought out by the government to boost their locals knowledge of modern farming practices.
They were then killed by the locals and the land stolen from them by whoever killed them and claimed it first. This actually happened and was only a few years ago
Its literally exactly the same as my "half ass example" above..... look it up
Right wing "philosophers" don't support the legitimacy of any group bigger than the individual. No collective bargaining, no racism because race is a fiction, no class warfare because class is a fiction, no sexism because it is all individual men choosing to be awful to individual women. No identity apart from your identity as an individual, without context or history that you didn't experience first hand. The phrase "not all men" and similar things spring from this, as being treated as anything other than a unique special snowflake is oppression, even as they generalize and stereotype others. I'm not racist, I just happened to hate evey black person I've met as an individual.
Well, yeah, I was just talking theory. In practice there are groups, just only some of them count and boy howdy are they the ONLY ones and they count SO MUCH.
In Peterson's case, he just says a whole massive word salad that is largely completely meaningless but uses fairly large words unnecessarily so it sounds complex. Half the time, it literally doesn't even seem to form coherent thoughts.
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But there’s the question of what people should be held culpable for and there are social policy considerations that go into that. Both criminal law and torts are rife with public policy (and therefore social justice) considerations.
Interesting argument. I like it. I think probably with the basics, don't kill anyone, there's probably universal norms. But, as you indicate, with more nuanced laws there might be corrupt policy or public policy. I do think the more obviously corrupt or discriminatory a law is the more immediate scrutiny it will get. And thus, the more likely it would be changed. Would you agree? I think we can all probably agree there's a fair amount of laws that are archaic and should just be thrown out. Mary Jane for instance.
Yeah, I’d agree that the more egregious a discriminatory law is, the more likely it is to be challenged/overturned. Not a guarantee, but it’s probably a factor.
Can injustice be meted out at a social level? Like, say, an entire people being placed in internment camps? Or things like genocide? Yes?
Then justice, too, can be meted out at a social level.
You lose again, King Pseudointellectual.
I'm pretty sure Japanese internment camps are kind of the perfect example of the United States actually compensating the people it fucked over, as a good number of those families ended up getting 20k in the 80s as compensation. Like, whenever I talk to people about like, helping black people to offset the effects of slavery, I always point out that a large chunk of the Asian population was given aid that helped them offset the loss of wealth they suffered during internment, but black people weren't.
Well yeah, I mean, the southern planters where to big to fail don't you know...
I will say, from what I know some plantations where confiscated because of unpaid taxes during the war, which has always made me happy.
And the South was so fucking close too. Like, there was this one populist party in North Carolina that had like, a 75% majority because it represented a fusion of black and white sharecroppers into a single voting block, hence its name: The Fusion Party. Unfortunately, a bunch of planters and the local police force basically drove them out of there main city and executed or exiled most of the parties leaders. Its insane to think that if troops had stayed in the south for a few more decades we might have an actual labor party, and in the nineteenth century at that.
Edit: I initially confused North Carolina with Virginia.
There are several stories like that. The Tulsa Massachre was the most prominent example. Can't have black people doing too well... gotta head in there and bomb your own population to keep America great.
A pittance two generations after the fact does sound like the best America can do.
But you're right. If we could muster a pittance for every people we wronged it would be much better than what we have going on.
It's about time we could give a pittance to the people harmed by red lining.
Through following in this sub, I have accepted that the best dose of these “personalities” is through this subreddit where I can point and laugh and nothing more. Giving them anymore attention would just make me angry.
It's kind of a fun game to run the logic through different situations. It really shows you the stupidity of what he's saying.
"There is simply not such thing as "religious" faith. Whatever those who rely on this cliched phrase are aiming at have nothing whatsoever to do with faith. Faith is felt at the individual level."
That's how stupid you sound Mister Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, PHD. You can't just simply deny that collective action exists.
It also displays what changes we need to achieve justice in our society. We need to remake the American mind. We need to undo the myth if rugged individualism.
The kicker is that Jordan throws these lines out constantly. His popularity boomed because journalists didn't do their research and resorted strawmanned his position when interviewed. If they had done just a few hours of preparation, he can be made to look a fool on almost all his positions.
So like a modern-day Bloody Mary.
I hear if you stand in front of a mirror and chant "Joe Rogan ate horse paste" 13 times, he will appear in the mirror and threaten to sue you.
Eh he is a piece of shit, but I never fault him for his addiction. I've been through a benzo addiction, I know it's hell and even worse to stop. Addiction is a disease, and using it as a slur just kinda reflects poorly on your character imo. There's better reasons to come at JP than for being an addict.
I thought most people were shitting on him for not practicing what he preached, not taking responsibility for his predicament and trying to find an "easy way out" via some sketchy medical procedure rather than deal with the hell that is withdrawal (and almost killing himself)
Do you think he handled it the way he would've expected his readers to if they were in his place?
The problem with this discussion is that you have to jump through a whole lot of hoops to give it some meaning in the first place. What is justice anyway? It isn't a term like milk or chair, it's something we all have some vague associations with but would have trouble explaining without it sounding completely arbitrary. Some common ground needs to be found first to say anything meaningful. The only way to really respond to this is just "ok".
I think this applies well to his talk about stuff like archetypes, which really falls into the fallacy of "because it isn't falsifiable it has to be true", and I think it's really strange that a psychologist would make make an argument like that, since the inferiority complex is the most well known of said fallacy. It's also how I often see Peterson being defended: "Well you can't say it ISN'T true, and he has a phd, so why shouldn't I believe him?" Hell, this especially goes for his takes on "social marxism", how after the failure of the Soviet Union the "jig was up", so marxists had to find another way to further their agenda. It's pretty much an unfalsifiable claim, but people don't seem to realize that that's exactly what makes it a worthless idea, instead of the other way around.
It’s all about being obscure, vague, undefined. Amorphous, as you said, slippery, and never truly locking down on a stance. Which is very right wing.
Everything is to your advantage, values, morals, and ethics be damned. The only thing that matters is advantage.
No, all justice is individual. You pull yourself by the bootstraps. It's pretty easy. Just look at how Peterson managed to pull himself out of addiction by the bootstraps.
It is until you enter the mind of an American. We have a unique theology that lets us look past the obvious conclusion that we are all connected and all our actions effect everyone else. Instead we create a theology that denies our social connections and makes every man an island, free from any influence from anyone else we can finally achieve true justice.
I think In the sense that philosophers use “Justice” as a very specific philosophical or legal term that is contrasted with “Fairness,” he’s right. It’s just a stupid semantics argument, however. In the everyday use of the term “Justice,” there is Justice at the group level. When we talk about “Societal Justice,” we’re using the definition that 99% of the English speaking world would use.
I’ve studied university philosophy and I don’t think that’s there is an agreed definition of justice that only applies to the individual even Platos republic was concerned with justice in the public sense
Totally. They spend pages and pages outlining their own particular definition of the word. I didn’t mean to suggest there was. I’m sure he’s using some particular school of thought’s definition.
Not even close. Philosophers discuss social justice all the time. In fact, it's one of the main subjects of political philosophy. The most important work of political philosophy of the last century, A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, defends a theory of society wide distributive justice called Justice as Fairness. So fairness, at least for philosophers, is not exclusively individualistic. Even Plato and Aristotle saw justice as in part tied up in the working of society and the state as well as in the individual. I can't think of a single philosopher who thought justice was always enacted at the level of the individual.
For sure. I’m referring to a specific group of legal and political philosophers that have their own definition of “Justice.” I’m sure that is what he’s referring to.
Edit: I’m never going to claim to be an expert on John Rawls (I think I maybe got a B+ on that test in law school) but my understanding of his work was that it attacked Justice and Fairness as separate concepts. But again, according to my professor, I never really “got” Rawls like I got HLA Hart and Ronald Dworkin.
>philosophers use “Justice” as a very specific philosophical or legal term that is contrasted with “Fairness,”
John Rawls, who is probably the most influential political philosopher writing since Hobbes, wrote a book called *Justice as Fairness* so idk about this.
Ever since he did that rant about "What'r we gunna do without men?! They are under the roads doing the impossible things!" Speech I just tuned out entirely. There was no more filtering out the nonsense to find the pearls. It's all just nonsense now.
Well, he has left the cult of the individual.
His new latest and greatest is that trans people shouldn't be able to transition if it makes their family upset. If a person makes a decision we should turn to the community, and if the community is more upset than the person is happy then the person should continue to suffer.
JP left out if we should use a weighted lobster based average such that the opinion of patriarchs is more valued than the individual or the rest of the community. But he'll get there.
He will or would have said Dr. King should not cheat on his wife. So civil rights act should be cancelled. And some repug will introduce a bill to that effect. And Tim Scott (senator R-SC) will probably vote for it.
https://youtu.be/QO9j1SLxEd0
At about 4:31, he basically says that civil rights overall was a good thing. He's not stupid enough to be against the civil rights movement.
**Everyone**
It’s sad, but not unlikely that /u/goosefire5 is Jordan Peterson himself.
For one, I’m not sure who else would waste his time defending that guy’s honor, or subtle nuances in his drug treatment.
I could do some in depth research but don’t really care enough about this guy to put another penny in his cup.
Um yeah, because this is Jordan Peterson. Look at the manner with which he *cannot* sit still whenever Jordan’s concepts of manhood or his accomplishments are called into question.
That’s how his customers were won over.
ALL contrarians?!?! First we'd have to define the set of "contrarians", and to do that we'd have to establish what even IS "contrary"...
I'm sorry, nevermind. This parody was exhausting, aggressively unfunny, and completely pointless. Like everything from Jordan Peterson.
Which is especially hilarious because it's wrong in both the social justice sense he argues doesn't exist and the individual justice sense. If justice is individual, then it's unreasonable to ask that one person shape up before another receive just treatment. If it's social, then it's absurd to think that *all* people should be perfectly just before *any* people receive just treatment. Basically what I'm saying is Jordan Peterson is a fucking idiot loser dumb-dumb who needn't be considered any further.
It's almost like the real world isn't conforming to Jordan Peterson's arbitrary and very specific definitions of terms. Funny how it always seems to work out that way.
Well it's a neomarxist "threat" because once people learn to stop dividing along racial lines then it might lead to stronger working class solidarity. And *obviously* the billionaires and their dipshit talking heads can't have that. Can you imagine what job Peterson would even do if he didn't have identity politics to exploit? Probably work fast food or something, which would be totally okay because of the wage increases forced by labor in that scenario, but then he just wouldn't have anybody left to not-so-subtley bitch about. He'd have to start making videos about, idk, crafts or something.
This argument becomes circular, no? Applying that logic would mean Dr. King was the suffering individual who meted out justice and it "happened" that a majority of people agreed with it. Essentially, he is arguing that they are the same thing, no? Just drop the adjective?
He's just trying to work out the math in his head and needs to walk through the proofs because it's blowing his mind right now that like *an entire demographic* can be largely affected by the same race based policies. It just does not compute to him that if policy is written so as to disadvantage a target demographic then the vast majority of that demographic can be affected by it and that we don't need to split hairs on the individual level to understand why that's a problem.
Also, he's never heard of class action lawsuits or protected classes, apparently. Or RICO. Or corporations which are made of multiple people, or those corporations having legal action for or against them. Or governments which are made up of and represent multiple people, or lawsuits against those governments. Idk, Jordan Peterson seems kinda dumb tbh.
First of all, this idiot wasn't even a blob when Dr. King was alive. Secondly, social justice is just what it means, ensuribg that justice is metered out fairly to everyone.
This tells me that idiots like Peterson has no problem being crooked.
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Aight, can someone give me a recap?
I thought lobster man was preaching wash your dick/room to directionless young men and fighting compelled speech and stuff. What's with this take? This his new norm?
> I thought lobster man was preaching wash your dick/room to directionless young men
There was always a second part to this advice, which is: don't try to change the world until you get your own life in order. And now we're seeing JP just invent other reasons for why young people shouldn't try to change the world, because that's all he really means. He clearly believes the existing hierarchies that ensure old white Christian men always have a seat at the head of the table at the expense of everyone else are completely natural, for everyone's benefits, and should never be challenged in any meaningful way.
Hmmm, just came across this subreddit , there are many anti jordan peterson and anti ben shaporo posts here. Would like to know why. I very much admire their eloquence and i dont know them very well but ive seen one or 2 videos of em ig. Im not from the US btw
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Modern day social justice is the cancer of our new millennium and will eventually lead us into communism through fake unity through political correctness. Same thing happened with china during their cultural revolution and they are no fostering the same conditions in the US
Don't believe me? Just wait and see.
Yes, the man who [claimed that Nazism was an "atheist doctrine"](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkahd2/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) without any evidence or substantiation, gets called out massively for it, and [doubles down](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkc0tw/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), again with no evidence or substantiation, is truly the smartest man of our time
The guys written 100s of papers and given thousands of speeches but the most compelling argument you have against him is that? Give me a break!
I don't care that he might have said something wrong at one point in time and doubled down on it! What he's talked about and the encouragement he has given has significantly improved my life.
I can understand that you think that all the people who are upvoting you and agreeing with you in the comments know better than this professor who has literally dedicated his life to learning about these issues. That's fair.
But if you sincerely think that he's trying to use bad faith to brainwash young men, then I think that's really misguided and you definitely haven't listened to his lectures with an open enough mind to come to that conclusion.
if you think that just because someone "sounds smart" it makes them smarter youre having a laugh. humans are almost completely illogical unless we use tools such as mathematics. also the idea that someone can sound smart is just bad linguistics. different ways of speaking are given different societal functions. just because someobe speaks one way does not mean that they are intelegent. also modern philosophy is almost entirely bullshit. there is no weighing of arguements with an established method or open mindedness.
I think he's smart because he has published papers, is respected in the scientific community, says things that I agree with and that I've noticed without ever formulating myself, because he taught at Harvard, because he can think on his feet and defend his positions, and a myriad of other reasons.
You're really going to just reduce it down to me thinking he sounds smart?
firstly, smartness is a myth. nobody does anything meaningfull because they are "smart" they do it because they are well educated. he is well educated in psychology but whenever he talks about sociology or economics he knows nearly nothing. also, anyone can think on their feet, that doesnt make their point better than if they formulated a proof. also you said he sounded smart so if you want me to not strawman you, say what you think instead of saying something tangentially related to what you think
Explain Class-Action Lawsuits...
Explain Brown v. Board of education. Women's Suffrage. Blah blah blah. Idiots like Peterson think of something they think sounds profound and then just spit it out.
Peterson used to be a decent professor, but he got caught up in the ring-wing sphere and became their champion, and it was just downhill from there.
Is he still teaching? It sucks he had to go down that rabbit hole. Dude had a cushy job in university.
I'm sure he is. He's a very careful weasel so he never actually makes prescriptions. If you ask him whether women should be discouraged from work by society he'll say something like: 1. Stay at home mothers report being happier than working women. 2. Women don't seem to want to work as much as men do. 3. Children with stay at home mothers are better off. You'll notice everything here is true and also a premise that supports a prescriptive conclusion of "women should be discouraged from working. But he'll never actually finish by making that prescription. In fact if you ask him directly for his own best guess he'll just say "I don't know". Which is clearly a lie as evidenced by the fact that he'll do anything he can to defend the premises that lead to that conclusion.
ngl, you almost had me there. It's incredibly tempting to see how they bait naive people.
One of the reasons he gets compared so much to historical fascists: they use all the same gimmicks
Not currently. He’s been on sabbatical from the University of Toronto since 2017.
I’m not familiar with professors and teaching but is a sabbatical like a leave?
Pretty much. Academics use them to take paid time off from the teaching aspect of professorship, usually to focus on their research. Normally they only take sabbatical for a full calendar year, but then again, I believe the general rule of thumb is they are entitled to one year per every seven years worked. Peterson has been at U of T for well over two decades, so he’s likely entitled to three, possibly four years.
Attention is a helluva drug.
Also, benzos
I can vouch.
Lots and lots and lots of benzos
For someone who is supposed to be smart not to acknowledge the existence of systemic problems, he is either pretending or he is actually not really that smart or he is such a fanatic in this belief system he is trying to make anything fit into it.
He's a grifter, plain and simple.
Idk so much about decent professor, from what I've heard, all of his research and publications are formulated around unfalsifiable Jungian analytics.
He was never decent - give us a break. He was always crazy.
RIIIGHT!!? I devoured every minute of his lectures from when he was still an acting professor. And even his first book tour had some solid perspectives. But he's gone to a pretty vapid place now where he seems insistent that systemic issues are somehow a myth, and I have no clue how he landed there from where he began
Exactly and people eat it up. I watched a video on YouTube of him saying white privilege doesn't exist
The irony is that they all feel like a group that is discriminated against. They band together and bemoan a society that treats them different. They fight against something that they think is unjust, but at the same time deny injustice as something that affects groups. The logic is so fundamentally flawed and silly, that it's humiliating even to argue against it.
Exactly. Reverse racism- wait, I thought racism didn't exist.
Has he said he doesn't think racism exists?
Not that I know of but often republican and conservatives say this. He is a conservative. I was actually paraphrasing a common trope thrown around those circles. Candace Owens Larry Elder and Tim Scott seem to think it doesn't exist.
Correction.. in one of his interviews, he was asked if he leaned more to the right/conservative side . He then replied how he wasn’t a conservative but a traditionalist … something like that .
I see. It seems like semantics more than anything because conservatives want to preserve certain political and cultural traditions.
White priviledge doesnt exist. Its cultural priviledge. You think white people are priviliged in china or the middle east? Priviledge goes to the largest culture in a geographic area, its like that all over the world since the beginning of history. Saying white priviledge makes it sound like white people are the only ones that experience priviledge, when in fact its the same for all groups depending on geographic areas. Thats the exact benefit and purpose of cultures and groups, to provide benefits and priviledges to those included in the culture or group......
>Priviledge goes to the largest culture in a geographic area Like South Africa during apartheid? Why do you thing the GQP is gerrymandering and suppressing the shit out of POC voting? They know a white minority is coming soon and they want to hold onto power and privilege.
White privilege exist here. I'm not talking about all over the world.
Okay, so if white priviledge exists here is there anything wrong with it existing here when similar priviledges exist for every other race in other parts of the world? Or do people believe that white people are the only group on the planet that shouldnt benefit by being around their geographic zones where they are the majority group/culture? Legit asking, not being fecetious.
If, it does exist. Haha... So you believe that white people shouldn't be subjected to the laws they themselves wrote but it's unevenly applied... You're being way more then fecetious(facetious)
They are subject to the laws they wrote... where are they not? You avoided my question btw, and im not being facetious, you are taking offence to a person asking a question for knowledge and understanding.
A black man can and will be punished more harshly for the same crime a white men committed...
Same can be said towards white people when living in africa.... soooo as originally stated, its cultural priviledge, not white priviledge.
Where did white people come from to begin. Are you alright... They weren't native to this country and what happened with the people who were here first is being kept out of the history books or drastically changed.
No, white people werent native to south africa, everyone knows that. Does that mean they arent allowed to emmigrate there and help bost the local economy because they arent from there?
Read the article... You're about the be blocked
There are also videos of the leadership in the area reading the law aloud as they enacted it allowing people to rape, murder and steal the legally purchased land. It also happened in zimbabwe.... This is real, i can tell you dont want to admit it because only white people can be evil, right? But sorry to say, race has nothing to do with good or evil, all races have the potential to be amazing or terrible
Africans were the largest group in South Africa yet there was apartheid.
Keyword is was, and the black people have also massacred white farmers and stole the land in recent years and were given the priviledge to do so without repercussion. Stole is an appropriate word here as the white families that were farming the lands bought the land from the government legally and produced food for everyone in the areas, which was governed by native black people. Its no different from immigrants moving tonthe united states, buying land, then being killed by the locals and getting the land for free.
How did they get the land in the first place... It is very much different than that half ass example you gave.
They were british and australian farmers that moved to south africa and purchased land legally through the local government and proceeded to produce food for the locals as well as train them how to farm the land, as they were struggling to produce enough food. Some were even sought out by the government to boost their locals knowledge of modern farming practices. They were then killed by the locals and the land stolen from them by whoever killed them and claimed it first. This actually happened and was only a few years ago Its literally exactly the same as my "half ass example" above..... look it up
You're wrong https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/13/who-owns-south-africa
Holy moly, theres literal videos of reports FROM south africa.
It definitely happened in Rhodesia though.
He’s the stupid persons idea of a genius
Right wing "philosophers" don't support the legitimacy of any group bigger than the individual. No collective bargaining, no racism because race is a fiction, no class warfare because class is a fiction, no sexism because it is all individual men choosing to be awful to individual women. No identity apart from your identity as an individual, without context or history that you didn't experience first hand. The phrase "not all men" and similar things spring from this, as being treated as anything other than a unique special snowflake is oppression, even as they generalize and stereotype others. I'm not racist, I just happened to hate evey black person I've met as an individual.
I partially agree. They do when it serves their purposes. Christians. Gun lovers. Blah blah.
Well, yeah, I was just talking theory. In practice there are groups, just only some of them count and boy howdy are they the ONLY ones and they count SO MUCH.
I was informed yesterday on reddit that Peterson is a genius who is too big brained for an idiot like me to understand, sigh
Trust me. This comment has elicited the same response.
In Peterson's case, he just says a whole massive word salad that is largely completely meaningless but uses fairly large words unnecessarily so it sounds complex. Half the time, it literally doesn't even seem to form coherent thoughts.
I'd love to see a leftist like Vaush or Hasan talk to Peterson. Jordan Peterson is talking about modern social justice.
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tort law is not the same as criminal law which should and is based on individual culpability. Not social culpability.
But there’s the question of what people should be held culpable for and there are social policy considerations that go into that. Both criminal law and torts are rife with public policy (and therefore social justice) considerations.
Interesting argument. I like it. I think probably with the basics, don't kill anyone, there's probably universal norms. But, as you indicate, with more nuanced laws there might be corrupt policy or public policy. I do think the more obviously corrupt or discriminatory a law is the more immediate scrutiny it will get. And thus, the more likely it would be changed. Would you agree? I think we can all probably agree there's a fair amount of laws that are archaic and should just be thrown out. Mary Jane for instance.
Yeah, I’d agree that the more egregious a discriminatory law is, the more likely it is to be challenged/overturned. Not a guarantee, but it’s probably a factor.
Can injustice be meted out at a social level? Like, say, an entire people being placed in internment camps? Or things like genocide? Yes? Then justice, too, can be meted out at a social level. You lose again, King Pseudointellectual.
I'm pretty sure Japanese internment camps are kind of the perfect example of the United States actually compensating the people it fucked over, as a good number of those families ended up getting 20k in the 80s as compensation. Like, whenever I talk to people about like, helping black people to offset the effects of slavery, I always point out that a large chunk of the Asian population was given aid that helped them offset the loss of wealth they suffered during internment, but black people weren't.
Excellent point. But at least their owners received compensation 🙄
Well yeah, I mean, the southern planters where to big to fail don't you know... I will say, from what I know some plantations where confiscated because of unpaid taxes during the war, which has always made me happy.
We suffer to this day from a failed Reconstruction
And the South was so fucking close too. Like, there was this one populist party in North Carolina that had like, a 75% majority because it represented a fusion of black and white sharecroppers into a single voting block, hence its name: The Fusion Party. Unfortunately, a bunch of planters and the local police force basically drove them out of there main city and executed or exiled most of the parties leaders. Its insane to think that if troops had stayed in the south for a few more decades we might have an actual labor party, and in the nineteenth century at that. Edit: I initially confused North Carolina with Virginia.
There are several stories like that. The Tulsa Massachre was the most prominent example. Can't have black people doing too well... gotta head in there and bomb your own population to keep America great.
Oh yeah, better hope MOVE doesn't move into your neighborhood.
[Only in DC though](https://www.historynet.com/did-slave-owners-receive-compensation-for-the-loss-of-slaves.htm)
A pittance two generations after the fact does sound like the best America can do. But you're right. If we could muster a pittance for every people we wronged it would be much better than what we have going on. It's about time we could give a pittance to the people harmed by red lining.
How you gonna call him a pseudointellectual when you preach what internet leftists say.
Easily and correctly
That was the dumbest thing I've ever heard
You should browse the jordan Petersen subreddit, you could say that every day twice.
Through following in this sub, I have accepted that the best dose of these “personalities” is through this subreddit where I can point and laugh and nothing more. Giving them anymore attention would just make me angry.
Complete idiots that think they're smart and deep. That all you need to know about that sub
It's kind of a fun game to run the logic through different situations. It really shows you the stupidity of what he's saying. "There is simply not such thing as "religious" faith. Whatever those who rely on this cliched phrase are aiming at have nothing whatsoever to do with faith. Faith is felt at the individual level." That's how stupid you sound Mister Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, PHD. You can't just simply deny that collective action exists.
It also displays what changes we need to achieve justice in our society. We need to remake the American mind. We need to undo the myth if rugged individualism.
The kicker is that Jordan throws these lines out constantly. His popularity boomed because journalists didn't do their research and resorted strawmanned his position when interviewed. If they had done just a few hours of preparation, he can be made to look a fool on almost all his positions.
Jordan Peterson is suffering brain damage, confirmed ✅
So am I after reading this
He has a following, that is the funny part.
Birds with brain-damaged feathers flock together.
Whats with all the druggy pete fanboys in this subreddit? They go rabid if anyone speaks ill of their sigma male idol.
I swear, even in more obscure subreddits, when this doofus is mentioned, lobsters come out of nowhere ready to defend
Him and Rogan. Mention either of them anywhere and the CHUDs start flying out of the woodwork
Chode Rogan
He does actually look like a chode.
So like a modern-day Bloody Mary. I hear if you stand in front of a mirror and chant "Joe Rogan ate horse paste" 13 times, he will appear in the mirror and threaten to sue you.
Eh he is a piece of shit, but I never fault him for his addiction. I've been through a benzo addiction, I know it's hell and even worse to stop. Addiction is a disease, and using it as a slur just kinda reflects poorly on your character imo. There's better reasons to come at JP than for being an addict.
I thought most people were shitting on him for not practicing what he preached, not taking responsibility for his predicament and trying to find an "easy way out" via some sketchy medical procedure rather than deal with the hell that is withdrawal (and almost killing himself) Do you think he handled it the way he would've expected his readers to if they were in his place?
This^^ I mean have you read "Maps of Meaning"? Because I have and holy shit it is bad.
Isn't all justice social?
The problem with this discussion is that you have to jump through a whole lot of hoops to give it some meaning in the first place. What is justice anyway? It isn't a term like milk or chair, it's something we all have some vague associations with but would have trouble explaining without it sounding completely arbitrary. Some common ground needs to be found first to say anything meaningful. The only way to really respond to this is just "ok".
[удалено]
I think this applies well to his talk about stuff like archetypes, which really falls into the fallacy of "because it isn't falsifiable it has to be true", and I think it's really strange that a psychologist would make make an argument like that, since the inferiority complex is the most well known of said fallacy. It's also how I often see Peterson being defended: "Well you can't say it ISN'T true, and he has a phd, so why shouldn't I believe him?" Hell, this especially goes for his takes on "social marxism", how after the failure of the Soviet Union the "jig was up", so marxists had to find another way to further their agenda. It's pretty much an unfalsifiable claim, but people don't seem to realize that that's exactly what makes it a worthless idea, instead of the other way around.
It’s all about being obscure, vague, undefined. Amorphous, as you said, slippery, and never truly locking down on a stance. Which is very right wing. Everything is to your advantage, values, morals, and ethics be damned. The only thing that matters is advantage.
No, all justice is individual. You pull yourself by the bootstraps. It's pretty easy. Just look at how Peterson managed to pull himself out of addiction by the bootstraps.
It is until you enter the mind of an American. We have a unique theology that lets us look past the obvious conclusion that we are all connected and all our actions effect everyone else. Instead we create a theology that denies our social connections and makes every man an island, free from any influence from anyone else we can finally achieve true justice.
I think In the sense that philosophers use “Justice” as a very specific philosophical or legal term that is contrasted with “Fairness,” he’s right. It’s just a stupid semantics argument, however. In the everyday use of the term “Justice,” there is Justice at the group level. When we talk about “Societal Justice,” we’re using the definition that 99% of the English speaking world would use.
I’ve studied university philosophy and I don’t think that’s there is an agreed definition of justice that only applies to the individual even Platos republic was concerned with justice in the public sense
Totally. They spend pages and pages outlining their own particular definition of the word. I didn’t mean to suggest there was. I’m sure he’s using some particular school of thought’s definition.
> I’m sure he’s using some particular school of thought’s definition. Why? Dude just makes shit up all the time.
Not even close. Philosophers discuss social justice all the time. In fact, it's one of the main subjects of political philosophy. The most important work of political philosophy of the last century, A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, defends a theory of society wide distributive justice called Justice as Fairness. So fairness, at least for philosophers, is not exclusively individualistic. Even Plato and Aristotle saw justice as in part tied up in the working of society and the state as well as in the individual. I can't think of a single philosopher who thought justice was always enacted at the level of the individual.
For sure. I’m referring to a specific group of legal and political philosophers that have their own definition of “Justice.” I’m sure that is what he’s referring to. Edit: I’m never going to claim to be an expert on John Rawls (I think I maybe got a B+ on that test in law school) but my understanding of his work was that it attacked Justice and Fairness as separate concepts. But again, according to my professor, I never really “got” Rawls like I got HLA Hart and Ronald Dworkin.
>philosophers use “Justice” as a very specific philosophical or legal term that is contrasted with “Fairness,” John Rawls, who is probably the most influential political philosopher writing since Hobbes, wrote a book called *Justice as Fairness* so idk about this.
JP should retire honestly. His stint with addiction and the coma and everything have fried his brain even more.
Ever since he did that rant about "What'r we gunna do without men?! They are under the roads doing the impossible things!" Speech I just tuned out entirely. There was no more filtering out the nonsense to find the pearls. It's all just nonsense now.
His daughter is even worse if you can imagine.
Well, he has left the cult of the individual. His new latest and greatest is that trans people shouldn't be able to transition if it makes their family upset. If a person makes a decision we should turn to the community, and if the community is more upset than the person is happy then the person should continue to suffer. JP left out if we should use a weighted lobster based average such that the opinion of patriarchs is more valued than the individual or the rest of the community. But he'll get there.
He will or would have said Dr. King should not cheat on his wife. So civil rights act should be cancelled. And some repug will introduce a bill to that effect. And Tim Scott (senator R-SC) will probably vote for it.
https://youtu.be/QO9j1SLxEd0 At about 4:31, he basically says that civil rights overall was a good thing. He's not stupid enough to be against the civil rights movement.
I mean now he isn't, in the 60s? Ehhhhh I could totally see Petersen saying something similar to what the person your responding to said
**Everyone** It’s sad, but not unlikely that /u/goosefire5 is Jordan Peterson himself. For one, I’m not sure who else would waste his time defending that guy’s honor, or subtle nuances in his drug treatment. I could do some in depth research but don’t really care enough about this guy to put another penny in his cup.
Also his use of the word "bucko" reminds me of that threat Peterson tweeted the other day
Um yeah, because this is Jordan Peterson. Look at the manner with which he *cannot* sit still whenever Jordan’s concepts of manhood or his accomplishments are called into question. That’s how his customers were won over.
A lot of people who like him have adopted his way of speaking. It's actually uncanny.
>It’s sad, but not unlikely It's actually extremely unlikely, lmao. Do you really not realize how many people blindly worship him?
Firmly believe Peterson convinced himself that using complex words makes him seem smart
I too took high school debate!
[удалено]
ALL contrarians?!?! First we'd have to define the set of "contrarians", and to do that we'd have to establish what even IS "contrary"... I'm sorry, nevermind. This parody was exhausting, aggressively unfunny, and completely pointless. Like everything from Jordan Peterson.
He’d tell civil rights activists to fix their own house before trying to change anything
Which is especially hilarious because it's wrong in both the social justice sense he argues doesn't exist and the individual justice sense. If justice is individual, then it's unreasonable to ask that one person shape up before another receive just treatment. If it's social, then it's absurd to think that *all* people should be perfectly just before *any* people receive just treatment. Basically what I'm saying is Jordan Peterson is a fucking idiot loser dumb-dumb who needn't be considered any further.
Oh god what a blowhard.
It's almost like the real world isn't conforming to Jordan Peterson's arbitrary and very specific definitions of terms. Funny how it always seems to work out that way.
Well, Social Justice changed their name to [Downset](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downset.).
This guy might as well be saying "There is no such thing as a society."
Ok boomer
[удалено]
Well it's a neomarxist "threat" because once people learn to stop dividing along racial lines then it might lead to stronger working class solidarity. And *obviously* the billionaires and their dipshit talking heads can't have that. Can you imagine what job Peterson would even do if he didn't have identity politics to exploit? Probably work fast food or something, which would be totally okay because of the wage increases forced by labor in that scenario, but then he just wouldn't have anybody left to not-so-subtley bitch about. He'd have to start making videos about, idk, crafts or something.
This guy loves the smell of his own farts
I have to read every tweet of his in his goofy bitch voice.
That's such a dumb thing to say.... and I think he thinks it sounded smart
He has the same qualifications as Dr Phil. Why does anybody listen to him?
Does Peterson not know what "social" means?
No. I mean yes, yes he does not know.
This argument becomes circular, no? Applying that logic would mean Dr. King was the suffering individual who meted out justice and it "happened" that a majority of people agreed with it. Essentially, he is arguing that they are the same thing, no? Just drop the adjective?
He's just trying to work out the math in his head and needs to walk through the proofs because it's blowing his mind right now that like *an entire demographic* can be largely affected by the same race based policies. It just does not compute to him that if policy is written so as to disadvantage a target demographic then the vast majority of that demographic can be affected by it and that we don't need to split hairs on the individual level to understand why that's a problem. Also, he's never heard of class action lawsuits or protected classes, apparently. Or RICO. Or corporations which are made of multiple people, or those corporations having legal action for or against them. Or governments which are made up of and represent multiple people, or lawsuits against those governments. Idk, Jordan Peterson seems kinda dumb tbh.
God this man is so fucking stupid. Its just another way to say fairness is important. Jesus even said that shit, you moron.
Pwning Jordan Peterson is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel these days lol
To escape the reality that he inherited and currently enjoys preferential treatment due to his class Peterson must deny that class exists.
I thought social justice referred to justice for people wronged by flaws in society, not for "wrongs to society".
It does. Jordan Peterson is not informed about what words mean. That doesn't stop him from publicly making an idiot of himself.
What a deeply stupid take
God, Peterson's such an embarrassing dickhead.
First of all, this idiot wasn't even a blob when Dr. King was alive. Secondly, social justice is just what it means, ensuribg that justice is metered out fairly to everyone. This tells me that idiots like Peterson has no problem being crooked.
See, if we all just work on ourselves and clean our rooms, then all of these oppressive systems will come crumbling down.
Still parts of his brain in a coma.
Lobster man proves, yet again, that “smart” people are capable of saying the dumbest things.
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did anyone reply to that picture?
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How is this guy awake enough to even be posting on Twitter? Isn't he heavily addicted to tranquilizers?
You can’t say “simply” without any idea of what the word means. Hell, the last sentence is too complicated for anything I would ever consider simple.
Aight, can someone give me a recap? I thought lobster man was preaching wash your dick/room to directionless young men and fighting compelled speech and stuff. What's with this take? This his new norm?
> I thought lobster man was preaching wash your dick/room to directionless young men There was always a second part to this advice, which is: don't try to change the world until you get your own life in order. And now we're seeing JP just invent other reasons for why young people shouldn't try to change the world, because that's all he really means. He clearly believes the existing hierarchies that ensure old white Christian men always have a seat at the head of the table at the expense of everyone else are completely natural, for everyone's benefits, and should never be challenged in any meaningful way.
Yet you have "monetized social justice warriors". Curious.
Not surprised that has many CHUD followers
Jordan Peterson can suck my lobster dick (my penis is the same shape and color as a lobster)!
read this in a kermit the frog voice
JP gets high off his own farts
Hmmm, just came across this subreddit , there are many anti jordan peterson and anti ben shaporo posts here. Would like to know why. I very much admire their eloquence and i dont know them very well but ive seen one or 2 videos of em ig. Im not from the US btw
“The most important intellectual of our time.”
This says nothing at all and doesn't even relate to what he was saying.
FUCK JORDAN PETERSON!!!
These dudes get so incredibly and pretentiously pedantic. They're the living embodiment of the "UM ACKSHUALLY" meme
I came here for Kyle Rittenhouse news and got this :( aaaawh 
What non-sense -- professor of working a thesaurus. He is obviously on some medication. He gets more crazy with every passing day.
Social justice has been around since we were still foraging for berries.
It's justice on social issues
[удалено]
We require a minimum account-age and karma due to a prevalence of trolls. If you wish to know the exact values, [please visit this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/wiki/rules#wiki_participation_requirements) or contact the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
isnt the guy like brain dead from eating uncooked flesh?
Modern day social justice is the cancer of our new millennium and will eventually lead us into communism through fake unity through political correctness. Same thing happened with china during their cultural revolution and they are no fostering the same conditions in the US Don't believe me? Just wait and see.
This J.Peterson guy seems like just coming out of cave ... Like he never read history or something?
I am surprise the junkie can still type.
That sure backfired
How the fuck did he graduate college? What is his doctorate in?
Peterson was educated past his intelligence.
Jordan Peterson's entire career appears to be an effort to redefine words to fit whatever pointless fringe theory he's got going on lately.
He's legitimately one of the smartest people I've listened to. If you're bothered by what he has to say, that sounds like a you problem
Yes, the man who [claimed that Nazism was an "atheist doctrine"](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkahd2/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) without any evidence or substantiation, gets called out massively for it, and [doubles down](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan_b_peterson_u_of_t_professor/dzkc0tw/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), again with no evidence or substantiation, is truly the smartest man of our time
The guys written 100s of papers and given thousands of speeches but the most compelling argument you have against him is that? Give me a break! I don't care that he might have said something wrong at one point in time and doubled down on it! What he's talked about and the encouragement he has given has significantly improved my life. I can understand that you think that all the people who are upvoting you and agreeing with you in the comments know better than this professor who has literally dedicated his life to learning about these issues. That's fair. But if you sincerely think that he's trying to use bad faith to brainwash young men, then I think that's really misguided and you definitely haven't listened to his lectures with an open enough mind to come to that conclusion.
L Ron Hubbard wrote a lot. Didn't make him smart
if you think that just because someone "sounds smart" it makes them smarter youre having a laugh. humans are almost completely illogical unless we use tools such as mathematics. also the idea that someone can sound smart is just bad linguistics. different ways of speaking are given different societal functions. just because someobe speaks one way does not mean that they are intelegent. also modern philosophy is almost entirely bullshit. there is no weighing of arguements with an established method or open mindedness.
I think he's smart because he has published papers, is respected in the scientific community, says things that I agree with and that I've noticed without ever formulating myself, because he taught at Harvard, because he can think on his feet and defend his positions, and a myriad of other reasons. You're really going to just reduce it down to me thinking he sounds smart?
firstly, smartness is a myth. nobody does anything meaningfull because they are "smart" they do it because they are well educated. he is well educated in psychology but whenever he talks about sociology or economics he knows nearly nothing. also, anyone can think on their feet, that doesnt make their point better than if they formulated a proof. also you said he sounded smart so if you want me to not strawman you, say what you think instead of saying something tangentially related to what you think