FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Jordan peterson
Jordan peterson
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I havent heard of him until recently, have you? I like him, he is a pshycologist and very active in the political scene, he dont like political correctess (who doesnt lol) and want free speech, he can destroy anyone that interviews him if they twist his opinion  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I really like his style. Accurate, strong arguments against the typical idiocy from both the hard left and the hard right.
I don't go for the Christian stuff but respect where he comes from and the need for a moral framework in modern society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I really like his style. Accurate, strong arguments against the typical idiocy from both the hard left and the hard right.
I don't go for the Christian stuff but respect where he comes from and the need for a moral framework in modern society. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What I also like is he has clout and credibility.
15 years studying religious texts and Russian literature as an insight to the best and worst of human nature. A professor of clinical psychology and an expert on personality.
He knows all the arguments from the left and where they are wrong (and why they appeal to certain types).
He knows the history of why suppression of free speech is so dangerous.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He's a stupid persons idea of what a smart person sounds like."
A great non argument. Have you got anything to actually say?
Could you provide an example of a smart person up to your standards?
Lena Dunham?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I really like his style. Accurate, strong arguments against the typical idiocy from both the hard left and the hard right.
I don't go for the Christian stuff but respect where he comes from and the need for a moral framework in modern society. "
Same, heard about him about 2 years ago with the C16 bill in Canada - really started paying attention to him around this time last year.
Love how he combines psychology, neurobiology, philosophy and politics - not a fan of his over reliance on Christian text though, especially when you see the same paralells in now extinct religions.
I'll hapily say his lectures on OCD and depression helped me cope with my own |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He's a stupid persons idea of what a smart person sounds like.
A great non argument. Have you got anything to actually say?
"
Well, it's not an argument, it's a statement, so points for observation.
Well done.
But the man himself is nothing special. Every self help section of every bookshop has dozens of books where mundane advice is padded out in a manner that would make even the most brazen spoofer blush. And a good portion of those books also have a good dollop of "biological explanations" to try and make their advice seems more authoritative than it actually is.
The only real difference between Peterson and anyone else who has written a self help book, is few of them have made the cross over into pandering to redpilling shitlords.
Now, go clean your room. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He's a stupid persons idea of what a smart person sounds like.
A great non argument. Have you got anything to actually say?
Well, it's not an argument, it's a statement, so points for observation.
Well done.
But the man himself is nothing special. Every self help section of every bookshop has dozens of books where mundane advice is padded out in a manner that would make even the most brazen spoofer blush. And a good portion of those books also have a good dollop of "biological explanations" to try and make their advice seems more authoritative than it actually is.
The only real difference between Peterson and anyone else who has written a self help book, is few of them have made the cross over into pandering to redpilling shitlords.
Now, go clean your room. "
That's fine and dandy and you are right to an extent, but lets be blunt, he had over a decade of clinical practice and personal training to back up his observations - and unlike many, he has the ability to communicate articulately, but doesn't sound aresy. That's pretty key.
You could have best help ever for depressed people but if you can't reach out and get them to listen there is no way you're going to get them to even take your advise and try it for a week.
I don't think he's partiulally special regarding his actual proffession. He is credible, but so are many professors and doctors of clinical psychology. His talent is in being an articulate debater and being able to get people who wouldn't normally pay attention to such things, to pay attention.
Kind of like Brian Cox with sciences.
At the end of the day, if you think people out there are more suitable for giving advise and compiling it into a book, then put them forward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he had over a decade of clinical practice and personal training to back up his observations "
He could have twice that, it wouldn't make him any less wrong.
And that he peddles his pabulum in a pleasing manner doesn't make him right.
Peterson offers nothing of substance, just a facsimile of an intellectually justified position for being shitty to transpeople, women, and anyone who has audacity to object to either of those.
There's a reason, after all, that his rise in popularity began when he incorrectly interpreted bill C-16 and use that as a cover to justify his own shitty behavior. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"What I also like is he has clout and credibility.
15 years studying religious texts and Russian literature as an insight to the best and worst of human nature. A professor of clinical psychology and an expert on personality.
He knows all the arguments from the left and where they are wrong (and why they appeal to certain types).
He knows the history of why suppression of free speech is so dangerous.
"
That is right he does, that is why such persons are good, cos they challange them to keep free speech alive from the left as they want to silice everyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see this champion of free speech is suing a university because they said mean stuff about him. "
He is an arse.
To be fair his basic premise has merit. But it also has a massive flaw.
Fact is political correctness came about because some saw freedom of expression as a means to use gratuitous language purely to cause offence, outrage and incite violence while remaining just the right side of the law. Unfortunately those who will use any opportunity offered to silence any opposition have used political correctness for this purpose.
If Jordan Peterson were just pushing back against those who use political correctness to shut down debate then I would be 100% behind him, but he is using his opposition to PC to cause offence and outrage purely for effect and then when he and his rhetoric is compared to Hitler the snowflake is running to the courts because although he demands the absolute right to use hate speech and offend anyone on a whim he demands that he should be protected from others doing the same to him.
The man is an arse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he had over a decade of clinical practice and personal training to back up his observations
He could have twice that, it wouldn't make him any less wrong.
And that he peddles his pabulum in a pleasing manner doesn't make him right.
Peterson offers nothing of substance, just a facsimile of an intellectually justified position for being shitty to transpeople, women, and anyone who has audacity to object to either of those.
There's a reason, after all, that his rise in popularity began when he incorrectly interpreted bill C-16 and use that as a cover to justify his own shitty behavior. "
Less wrong about what exactly?
Still waiting for you to say something of substance that isn't just your butthurt* opinion.
*I hate this word but it works well here...you are upset that your teenage hard left ideology has a very credible foe systematically ripping it apart and showing the world how wrong it is.
Who are your intellectual heros John?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I see this champion of free speech is suing a university because they said mean stuff about him.
He is an arse.
To be fair his basic premise has merit. But it also has a massive flaw.
Fact is political correctness came about because some saw freedom of expression as a means to use gratuitous language purely to cause offence, outrage and incite violence while remaining just the right side of the law. Unfortunately those who will use any opportunity offered to silence any opposition have used political correctness for this purpose.
If Jordan Peterson were just pushing back against those who use political correctness to shut down debate then I would be 100% behind him, but he is using his opposition to PC to cause offence and outrage purely for effect and then when he and his rhetoric is compared to Hitler the snowflake is running to the courts because although he demands the absolute right to use hate speech and offend anyone on a whim he demands that he should be protected from others doing the same to him.
The man is an arse."
Has he used hate speech? Examples?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He's a stupid persons idea of what a smart person sounds like."
Oh John darling, I just saw that you pulled that straight from the Reddit thread with the same name.
There I was assuming you used your own brain to write your own words.
How naive of me
I'll definitely be ignoring you from now on.. you are just a puppet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He's a stupid persons idea of what a smart person sounds like.
Oh John darling, I just saw that you pulled that straight from the Reddit thread with the same name.
"
It's a fairly common turn of phrase, I'm not surprised you've seen it elsewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he had over a decade of clinical practice and personal training to back up his observations
He could have twice that, it wouldn't make him any less wrong.
And that he peddles his pabulum in a pleasing manner doesn't make him right.
Peterson offers nothing of substance, just a facsimile of an intellectually justified position for being shitty to transpeople, women, and anyone who has audacity to object to either of those.
There's a reason, after all, that his rise in popularity began when he incorrectly interpreted bill C-16 and use that as a cover to justify his own shitty behavior.
Less wrong about what exactly?
"
Aside from the given example of C-16?
Maybe we could move onto his predilection for cherry picking bits of biology to suit his arguments. Lobsters, indeed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he had over a decade of clinical practice and personal training to back up his observations
He could have twice that, it wouldn't make him any less wrong.
And that he peddles his pabulum in a pleasing manner doesn't make him right.
Peterson offers nothing of substance, just a facsimile of an intellectually justified position for being shitty to transpeople, women, and anyone who has audacity to object to either of those.
There's a reason, after all, that his rise in popularity began when he incorrectly interpreted bill C-16 and use that as a cover to justify his own shitty behavior.
Less wrong about what exactly?
Aside from the given example of C-16?
Maybe we could move onto his predilection for cherry picking bits of biology to suit his arguments. Lobsters, indeed."
Less about the journey and more about the destination. Of his ideas, what do you disagree with and why?
Do you know his material or are you still parroting the articles in the guardian and the one titled "the stupid person's smart person"?
I read half the book but found it meandering and dry and too religious but his podcasts are excellent. He's very articulate and considered in how he talks.
One part that resonated with me was his reference to a book about how ordinary decent German cops turned to murdering naked pregnant women in the name of ideology. His background is an obsession with how those things came to be, speech control was one of the steps so I find his reasoning credible. Like taxes, once the structure is there they are rarely repealed or reduced.
That was always my first thought having visited places like Auschwitz - how did they turn men into monsters to do the dirty work?
He doesn't do "shitty" things to trans people or women and he isn't a redpiller. You made it up, bastardised the truth or just read it elsewhere in a lazy opinion piece without doing your homework.
It seems the best the critics can come up is that he misinterpretted the legislation - human error - not that the principle he was working to is wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he had over a decade of clinical practice and personal training to back up his observations
He could have twice that, it wouldn't make him any less wrong.
And that he peddles his pabulum in a pleasing manner doesn't make him right.
Peterson offers nothing of substance, just a facsimile of an intellectually justified position for being shitty to transpeople, women, and anyone who has audacity to object to either of those.
There's a reason, after all, that his rise in popularity began when he incorrectly interpreted bill C-16 and use that as a cover to justify his own shitty behavior. "
Can you give quotations or a video link to support the idea that he is shitty to trans people, women ect?
I mean the closest thing I've heard is when he said he'd 'struggle to personally view a trans woman as a biological female' - nt that he didn't believe they can be viewed legally as a woman, just on the basis that a trans individual still has their genetically assigned chromosomes and that no amount of hormonal therapy can change that.
Coming from a medical background, the chromosomes you have, have real world implications for genetic illnesses and certain cancer risks, they do not care about how you identify or how the Law identifies you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he had over a decade of clinical practice and personal training to back up his observations
He could have twice that, it wouldn't make him any less wrong.
And that he peddles his pabulum in a pleasing manner doesn't make him right.
Peterson offers nothing of substance, just a facsimile of an intellectually justified position for being shitty to transpeople, women, and anyone who has audacity to object to either of those.
There's a reason, after all, that his rise in popularity began when he incorrectly interpreted bill C-16 and use that as a cover to justify his own shitty behavior. "
In addition, can you point out where he is wrong regarding his clinical practice?
As far as I'm concerned his clients do not have anything bad to say about his service?
Or are you referring to his social and political views as wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I see this champion of free speech is suing a university because they said mean stuff about him.
He is an arse.
To be fair his basic premise has merit. But it also has a massive flaw.
Fact is political correctness came about because some saw freedom of expression as a means to use gratuitous language purely to cause offence, outrage and incite violence while remaining just the right side of the law. Unfortunately those who will use any opportunity offered to silence any opposition have used political correctness for this purpose.
If Jordan Peterson were just pushing back against those who use political correctness to shut down debate then I would be 100% behind him, but he is using his opposition to PC to cause offence and outrage purely for effect and then when he and his rhetoric is compared to Hitler the snowflake is running to the courts because although he demands the absolute right to use hate speech and offend anyone on a whim he demands that he should be protected from others doing the same to him.
The man is an arse."
With all due respect, he constantly pushes against the hard right conservative types and far right ethno-nationalist types who wish to censor free speech to impede liberal and progressive philosophies. Unless someone is on the really far left, or just reading the headlines of articles, I question how he can be seen as a 'Hitler' like figure.
Further more I reject the idea that he wants protection from criticism.
He willingly engages in public debates, that doesn't sound like someone who hides away to me? In addition there is a difference between a Uni saying something nasty about you, and them writing a hitpiece which tries to discredit your academic research. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He's a very poor substitute for Prof. John Gray.
You can check him out on Radio 4's 'A Point Of View', on the iPlayerRadio.
He's significantly better."
I'll give him a listen  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
In addition, can you point out where he is wrong regarding his clinical practice?
"
This is the childish article where John formed his considered opinion (complete with endless name calling):
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/
This is a sample of the quality of writing and thinking in the piece:
"Those looking for further opportunities to give him money can pay USD $9.99 for “100 question phrases” which “can be found, along with similar question sets, elsewhere on the web” so that they might learn how your personality compares to 10,000 others.
Pro tip: just take a personality test from the back of an issue of Glamour; you’ll only be out about five bucks, and you might find a free perfume sample" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He's a very poor substitute for Prof. John Gray.
You can check him out on Radio 4's 'A Point Of View', on the iPlayerRadio.
He's significantly better."
He's worth the bother. I don't agree with all he says but he's rational, logical and his ideology, such as it is, is uncluttered by personal religious belief. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he had over a decade of clinical practice and personal training to back up his observations
He could have twice that, it wouldn't make him any less wrong.
And that he peddles his pabulum in a pleasing manner doesn't make him right.
Peterson offers nothing of substance, just a facsimile of an intellectually justified position for being shitty to transpeople, women, and anyone who has audacity to object to either of those.
There's a reason, after all, that his rise in popularity began when he incorrectly interpreted bill C-16 and use that as a cover to justify his own shitty behavior.
Less wrong about what exactly?
Aside from the given example of C-16?
Maybe we could move onto his predilection for cherry picking bits of biology to suit his arguments. Lobsters, indeed.
Less about the journey and more about the destination. Of his ideas, what do you disagree with and why?
"
All of them, as they're rooted in his (small c) conservatism.
But especially when he advocates for "enforced monogamy", his transphobia, his misogyny - as explicitly seen in his coding of chaos as feminine, and his advocacy for political cowardice.
Anyone who pulls the "you're not perfect, therefore you can criticise" is a coward and an idiot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he had over a decade of clinical practice and personal training to back up his observations
He could have twice that, it wouldn't make him any less wrong.
And that he peddles his pabulum in a pleasing manner doesn't make him right.
Peterson offers nothing of substance, just a facsimile of an intellectually justified position for being shitty to transpeople, women, and anyone who has audacity to object to either of those.
There's a reason, after all, that his rise in popularity began when he incorrectly interpreted bill C-16 and use that as a cover to justify his own shitty behavior.
Can you give quotations or a video link to support the idea that he is shitty to trans people, women ect?
"
Once again, aside from the aforementioned misrepresentation of bill C-16 which he then uses to justify why he can misgender people with impunity?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
In addition, can you point out where he is wrong regarding his clinical practice?
This is the childish article where John formed his considered opinion (complete with endless name calling):
"
Yes, the only place that information can exist is the first place you, personally find it.
That's exactly how this works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok Cathy "
I can see you work shopped the hell out of this response.
Taking the extra time was worth it, I commend your dedication to the craft of banality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I give up...you haven't provided any direct evidence of misogyny or transphobia.
Like Cathy you are putting words in the man's mouth...."so you are saying"...and as I said before you are puppet who can't form your opinion or arguments so what's the point.
Ciao |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I give up...you haven't provided any direct evidence of misogyny or transphobia.
Like Cathy you are putting words in the man's mouth...."so you are saying"...and as I said before you are puppet who can't form your opinion or arguments so what's the point.
Ciao"
Well, if you can't be bothered reading, what more is there to be done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've followed his lectures for quite sometime now - well before his channel four interview (more like a car crash) with Cathy Newman.
I am a fan of his approach and I like how he can draw from the spiritual a more logical view point and unashamedly so.
He is the only psychologist that I have come across who does not simply shut down and scoff at the arguments and theories out forward by Freud, which I think I'd commendable.
He also draws a lot of his style of psychotherapy from another often belittled psychotherapist, Carl Rogers.
Regarding his views on Christianity, whisky he is devoutly Christian he will not jealously protect his faith...everything is up for discussion and debate. However, I have an inner conflict, because without doubt, my favourite orator was Christopher Hitchens - I only wish that I could have seen the dialogue these two would have had.
He's often labelled 'alt-right', even though they can't stand him and he loathes identity politics. In America and Canada he would be labelled a conservative, yet he is actually a liberal (I mean that in classic English liberal sense, not the twisted form the far left in the US have adopted). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Because you said it is so doesn't make it so. You've no points beyond your own wild extrapolation of the truth.
I haven't seen anything to suggest he hates women or trans people. I could well be wrong...if you can dig out a direct quote that supports your point I'll listen.
Otherwise, run along to your nearest safe space.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've followed his lectures for quite sometime now - well before his channel four interview (more like a car crash) with Cathy Newman.
I am a fan of his approach and I like how he can draw from the spiritual a more logical view point and unashamedly so.
He is the only psychologist that I have come across who does not simply shut down and scoff at the arguments and theories out forward by Freud, which I think I'd commendable.
He also draws a lot of his style of psychotherapy from another often belittled psychotherapist, Carl Rogers.
Regarding his views on Christianity, whisky he is devoutly Christian he will not jealously protect his faith...everything is up for discussion and debate. However, I have an inner conflict, because without doubt, my favourite orator was Christopher Hitchens - I only wish that I could have seen the dialogue these two would have had.
He's often labelled 'alt-right', even though they can't stand him and he loathes identity politics. In America and Canada he would be labelled a conservative, yet he is actually a liberal (I mean that in classic English liberal sense, not the twisted form the far left in the US have adopted). "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I haven't seen anything to suggest he hates women or trans people. I could well be wrong...if you can dig out a direct quote that supports your point I'll listen.
"
Please, you don't see anything because you don't want to. There's plenty I've provided in this thread already that demonstrates Peterson's disgusting attitudes.
Maybe you could go back and try addressing some of them instead of issuing even more demands in a pathetic attempt to avoid having to say anything at all.
A tiresome trick you've expertly cribbed from Peterson himself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I haven't seen anything to suggest he hates women or trans people. I could well be wrong...if you can dig out a direct quote that supports your point I'll listen.
Please, you don't see anything because you don't want to. There's plenty I've provided in this thread already that demonstrates Peterson's disgusting attitudes.
Maybe you could go back and try addressing some of them instead of issuing even more demands in a pathetic attempt to avoid having to say anything at all.
A tiresome trick you've expertly cribbed from Peterson himself."
You just keeping saying the same shit over and over and expect us to see what you see when it's obvious that your thought process is excessively reactionary. Your hard left ideology is under attack by a force of (some) reason and you can't think clearly as you are blinkered by emotion.
I trust the reasonable views of the other posters above much more as they have shown themselves capable of nuance and balance.
It's also amusing how you insult everyone and sundry in the quest to insulate the world from offense.
Maybe everyone is a fool and an idiot - if only we could see what you see with your superior vision, at least show us the light.
Your repeated failure to show anything of substance just shows that you have nothing substantive to say.
It's all outrage at your own exaggerated version of reality and until you sit down think things through and try to make a cogent point how can any reasonable person respect where you are coming from?
So for about the 5th time WHAT HAS HE SAID that will show us that he is the deeply misogynistic trans-hating caracture that you are trying to paint.
Or will you continue to add creative license to the discussion a la Cathy Newman? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Maybe you could go back and try addressing some of them instead of issuing even more demands in a pathetic attempt to avoid having to say anything at all.
"
I'll humour you ...to show where I think you are wrong and massively exaggerating.
I don't know the details but as best I know from what the man has actually said (!) he is respecting a deep principle that compelling speech is a very slippery slope to more dangerous forms of propaganda and thought control. Maybe he is paranoid but we've seen in the past 100 years many examples of how this happens and is genuinely horrific (gulags, concentration, camps, killing fields) so he has at least half a point and to me it's a more important quest than trying to insulate the world from offense.
It sounds more credible given his psychologist background into the flaws of human nature and how we are easily manipulated over your thesis that he has a hobby of pissing off a tiny subset of trans people (the rare ones who don't want to be called the pronoun of the gender they have become/are).
I find it hard to believe that he hates women firstly because he married one (the real women haters are virgins on killing sprees) and he seems genuinely kind in his wish to treat and help people - it lines up with Christian morality.
I think he's a man of principle, very bright and suitably aggressive to stamp out the retarded ideologies of both hard left and hard right. It's to be applauded...obviously the affected sides will try to smear their foe.
He talks about the risks he has taken of a public controversial life being worth it if it helps guide humanity a bit better and to me this again is more credible than your position that he wants to spread hate about women and trans people.
I challenge you to listen to him properly in his podcast (and not his butthurt critics) and quote liberally all the terrible things he is saying to keep trans people and women down.
Or you can continue your dweebish ignorance..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He can't hate women, he married one" is not solid reasoning. Marrying someone is not any indication of anyone's lack of misogyny, just ask any domestic abuse victim.
Instead we should look to Peterson's thoughts about enforced monogamy, where he makes the case that we should socially enforce monogamy so that those self same "virgins on killing sprees" can be soothed by the ready access to the magical pussy, or as he puts it "decrease male violence".
(Note: This is based on a misreading of a paper that doesn't actually say what he thinks it does. Because Peterson is a fraud)
This, again, ignores victims of domestic abuse, where these men who are monogamous and lash out anyway.
It also ignores the wants of women - that they may not want to be pressured by society into an enforced monogamous relationship, especially so that male entitlement is satisfied and they don't get violent
(Except, of course, when they do).
And then, we have your masterful rebuttal of his transphobia, which is "I choose to ignore it".
Well then, how do you square your notions that he's a "man of principal" with the fact he has misrepresented bill C-16, has been corrected repeatedly, and yet continues to do so, and then uses this as a justification to misgender trans people?
Kind of flies in the face of his vapid "12 rules for life" wherein he states that "Assume that the person you're listening to might know something you don't"?
Apparently, there was a hidden clause in that which is "unless they're law professors telling me I'm wrong about their area of expertise".
Or Peterson is a hypocrite.
And you've ignored how often I've cited his advocacy for political inaction, with the rule of "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world", as being as bad as his misogyny and transphobia.
Probably because that's indefensible, even for you.
So, no, I won't be listening to Peterson's podcast or anything of the like. I'll leave that to easily hooked rubes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I haven't read past your second paragraph..fools will only bring you to their level...but I read what he has said about enforced monogamy on his blog and I suggest you do the same. But you won't because you are married to an ideology.
He's talking about the advantages to cultures where monogamy is stronger.
I can see his point and we all know people with absent parent issues.
I say this as a serial non-monogamist |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
And you've ignored how often I've cited his advocacy for political inaction, with the rule of "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world"
"
I don't get your point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You are still operating from pure ignorance using labels of transphobia and misogyny...lazy character assignation...the oldest and weakest argument there is.
You'd make a fine politician...morally bankrupt but you'd probably do ok. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I haven't read past your second paragraph..fools will only bring you to their level...but I read what he has said about enforced monogamy on his blog and I suggest you do the same. But you won't because you are married to an ideology.
He's talking about the advantages to cultures where monogamy is stronger.
I can see his point and we all know people with absent parent issues.
I say this as a serial non-monogamist "
And for clarity...he's not talking about "enforcing" in any totalitarian sense...that would make him a hypocrite because that's what the new facists like yourself believe - enforced speech.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I haven't read past your second paragraph"
I'd like you to remember this petulance the next time you demand that you be engaged with as an equal.
It'll help explain why you won't be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
This, again, ignores victims of domestic abuse, where these men who are monogamous and lash out anyway.
It also ignores the wants of women - that they may not want to be pressured by society into an enforced monogamous relationship, especially so that male entitlement is satisfied and they don't get violent
(Except, of course, when they do).
"
Look how one directional you are...your own sexism is shining through.
You claim to care about equality but only look one way when crossing the street.
Just look here at our doorstep where some women are extremely entitled (demanding profiles, booking multiple men for the one date) for the counterpoint.
I'm finally out of here as knowing that people who are seemingly smart can be so foolish and basic and programmed is bad for my blood pressure.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I haven't read past your second paragraph
I'd like you to remember this petulance the next time you demand that you be engaged with as an equal.
It'll help explain why you won't be."
We are not equals don't worry  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I haven't read past your second paragraph
I'd like you to remember this petulance the next time you demand that you be engaged with as an equal.
It'll help explain why you won't be.
We are not equals don't worry "
You're quite right.
Everything from your constant demanding that arguments be made and then refusing to read them, to the ever present "I'm leaving forever" only to storm back and have another halfhearted stab at calling people trolls has really demonstrated the breadth of the gulf here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There's a single line from a very sexist rapsong that is ironically one of the best odes to equality I've ever heard.
"And a bitch who's a man cos they're bitches too".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
