Jordan Peterson, Stephen Fry take on Michelle Goldberg, Michael Eric Dyson in a fiery debate on political correctness

verminaard: There is zero chance that you have listened to Peterson at all, except when it is a heavily edited hit piece.

:wrong

I first heard about Jordan Peterson when he was a guest of Sam Harris podcast. Peterson made fool of himself by pigheadedly arguing that “what is true” is defined (or should be defined) by what successfully perpetuates the human race. Harris patiently explained why Peterson’s definition of “what is true” with variously hypotheticals that Peterson repeatedly evading directly challenging, and finally conceding that he was *wanting* his notion of truth to be accepted despite its inexorably incoherent logic.

And Sam Harris was very fair to Peterson, and went out of his way to interview him a second time after the first one became stuck on Harris trying in vain to get Peterson to admit that his logic was fatally flawed.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/what-is-true/
https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/

After that, I had a skeptical ear towards what arguments Peterson advanced because of his adherence to such a notion generally invites people to selectively ignore objective facts if they believe they contradict their moral beliefs. And that is an intellectually fatal prescription that implicitly calls for the supremacy of theology over both philosophy and scientific reality.

So it’s not surprising that JP has put his Twitter-foot in his Twitter mouth by recently bashing those who call out climate change deniers using a specious ad hominem involving Holocaust denial. And the argument is so ludicrously vacuous that it even catches Peterson himself in its critically flawed crosshairs.

https://youtu.be/H3GukO0ro84

Mumbles is being a bit hard on ol' Jordan here.

Jordan Peterson is not the best at debating intellectuals. He's very good at debating idiot SJWs, and he's good at laying down the facts of how irrational they are, while being direct, concise, and easy to understand.

That's what rocketed him to fame in the first place. He came out against an idiotic proposed law, and then he got on video debating with some of the most unlikable, self-absorbed college SJWs who looked and acted like they walked out of a conservative political cartoon.

He parlayed that into a great career as a conservative media personality, and given his rather boring and mundane life, it's not likely he will be taken down by any scandal (like Milo was).

I have noticed at times that some of his ideas are odd, backward, or extreme. That actually disappointed me somewhat, as he came off great and fully rational in that argument with the U of Toronto SJWs.

Anyway, it's important to understand what Jordan Peterson is and isn't, and not to get too bent out of shape about the guy.

He found a niche, is profiting handsomely off of it, has the admiration of a large number of people, and has managed to do so without being outrageous or obscene.

Congrats to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Mumbles is being a bit hard on ol' Jordan here.

Jordan Peterson is not the best at debating intellectuals. He's very good at debating idiot SJWs, and he's good at laying down the facts of how irrational they are, while being direct, concise, and easy to understand.

That's what rocketed him to fame in the first place. He came out against an idiotic proposed law, and then he got on video debating with some of the most unlikable, self-absorbed college SJWs who looked and acted like they walked out of a conservative political cartoon.

He parlayed that into a great career as a conservative media personality, and given his rather boring and mundane life, it's not likely he will be taken down by any scandal (like Milo was).

I have noticed at times that some of his ideas are odd, backward, or extreme. That actually disappointed me somewhat, as he came off great and fully rational in that argument with the U of Toronto SJWs.

Anyway, it's important to understand what Jordan Peterson is and isn't, and not to get too bent out of shape about the guy.

He found a niche, is profiting handsomely off of it, has the admiration of a large number of people, and has managed to do so without being outrageous or obscene.

Congrats to him.

---

If Jordan Peterson professionally “stayed in his lane” as a psychologist who just gave life-advice to young men, he wouldn’t make himself such an easy target for the more rigorously educated about topics that Peterson has arrogantly labeled himself as an expert in as a self-promoting means to come as as this great intellectual. Delusional shades of Stephen Molyneux.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Mumbles is being a bit hard on ol' Jordan here.

Jordan Peterson is not the best at debating intellectuals. He's very good at debating idiot SJWs, and he's good at laying down the facts of how irrational they are, while being direct, concise, and easy to understand.

That's what rocketed him to fame in the first place. He came out against an idiotic proposed law, and then he got on video debating with some of the most unlikable, self-absorbed college SJWs who looked and acted like they walked out of a conservative political cartoon.

He parlayed that into a great career as a conservative media personality, and given his rather boring and mundane life, it's not likely he will be taken down by any scandal (like Milo was).

I have noticed at times that some of his ideas are odd, backward, or extreme. That actually disappointed me somewhat, as he came off great and fully rational in that argument with the U of Toronto SJWs.

Anyway, it's important to understand what Jordan Peterson is and isn't, and not to get too bent out of shape about the guy.

He found a niche, is profiting handsomely off of it, has the admiration of a large number of people, and has managed to do so without being outrageous or obscene.

Congrats to him.

---

I don't think Mumbles is being hard on JP at all. Peterson is an ignorant pseudointellectual snake oil salesman who has mobilized an army of resentful incels who might be more insufferable than the SJWs he rails against.

Perhaps the first mention of Jordan Peterson on this site was this thread I started two years ago https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...ose-Their-Shit

At the time I was on board with his basic message that we're going overboard with identity politics (especially in universities). I still believe it's a problem. But JP has raised the alarm to a level that isn't commensurate with the actual problem. He's somehow gone from "these gender-neutral pronouns are getting out of hand" to "the communists are forcing our children to become muslim trans women."

A colleague of mine is actually friends with Peterson (they went to grad school together) so I have a lot of insight into what's going on behind the scenes with this guy. Here's the thing - I don't think he believes most of this shit. He's doing it because it's making him fucking rich. There's a whole new industry of "free speech advocates" (actually just conservatives who scream that the sky is falling) who are profiting off the hysteria they generate.

Finally, as a psychologist I can say that JP is not the intellectual he's made out to be. He goes on the Joe Rogan podcast and spouts off unscientific psychobabble about Jungian archetypes that has been dismissed by the scientific community. But it sounds smart so 30-year-old virgins make tribute videos with titles like "Jordan Peterson dismantles feminism!" and "Jordan Peterson destroys neo-marxist" and they whack off while piling up likes on their sad youtube channels.

Other than that I have no opinion on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Shrink

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Mumbles is being a bit hard on ol' Jordan here.

Jordan Peterson is not the best at debating intellectuals. He's very good at debating idiot SJWs, and he's good at laying down the facts of how irrational they are, while being direct, concise, and easy to understand.

That's what rocketed him to fame in the first place. He came out against an idiotic proposed law, and then he got on video debating with some of the most unlikable, self-absorbed college SJWs who looked and acted like they walked out of a conservative political cartoon.

He parlayed that into a great career as a conservative media personality, and given his rather boring and mundane life, it's not likely he will be taken down by any scandal (like Milo was).

I have noticed at times that some of his ideas are odd, backward, or extreme. That actually disappointed me somewhat, as he came off great and fully rational in that argument with the U of Toronto SJWs.

Anyway, it's important to understand what Jordan Peterson is and isn't, and not to get too bent out of shape about the guy.

He found a niche, is profiting handsomely off of it, has the admiration of a large number of people, and has managed to do so without being outrageous or obscene.

Congrats to him.

---

I don't think Mumbles is being hard on JP at all. Peterson is an ignorant pseudointellectual snake oil salesman who has mobilized an army of resentful incels who might be more insufferable than the SJWs he rails against.

Perhaps the first mention of Jordan Peterson on this site was this thread I started two years ago https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...ose-Their-Shit

At the time I was on board with his basic message that we're going overboard with identity politics (especially in universities). I still believe it's a problem. But JP has raised the alarm to a level that isn't commensurate with the actual problem. He's somehow gone from "these gender-neutral pronouns are getting out of hand" to "the communists are forcing our children to become muslim trans women."

A colleague of mine is actually friends with Peterson (they went to grad school together) so I have a lot of insight into what's going on behind the scenes with this guy. Here's the thing - I don't think he believes most of this shit. He's doing it because it's making him fucking rich. There's a whole new industry of "free speech advocates" (actually just conservatives who scream that the sky is falling) who are profiting off the hysteria they generate.

Finally, [as a psychologist I can say that JP is not the intellectual he's made out to be. He goes on the Joe Rogan podcast and spouts off unscientific psychobabble about Jungian archetypes that has been dismissed by the scientific community. But it sounds smart so 30-year-old virgins make tribute videos with titles like "Jordan Peterson dismantles feminism!" and "Jordan Peterson destroys neo-marxist" and they whack off while piling up likes on their sad youtube channels.

Other than that I have no opinion on the matter.

---

Do you view the entirety of Jungian archetypes and the concept of the collective unconscious as psychobabble or simply Peterson’s choice, use, and interpretation of Jung’s theories? Just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Shrink

I don't think Mumbles is being hard on JP at all. Peterson is an ignorant pseudointellectual snake oil salesman who has mobilized an army of resentful incels who might be more insufferable than the SJWs he rails against.

Perhaps the first mention of Jordan Peterson on this site was this thread I started two years ago https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...ose-Their-Shit

At the time I was on board with his basic message that we're going overboard with identity politics (especially in universities). I still believe it's a problem. But JP has raised the alarm to a level that isn't commensurate with the actual problem. He's somehow gone from "these gender-neutral pronouns are getting out of hand" to "the communists are forcing our children to become muslim trannies."

A colleague of mine is actually friends with Peterson (they went to grad school together) so I have a lot of insight into what's going on behind the scenes with this guy. Here's the thing - I don't think he believes most of this shit. He's doing it because it's making him fucking rich. There's a whole new industry of "free speech advocates" (actually just conservatives who scream that the sky is falling) who are profiting off the hysteria they generate.

Finally, [as a psychologist I can say that JP is not the intellectual he's made out to be. He goes on the Joe Rogan podcast and spouts off unscientific psychobabble about Jungian archetypes that has been dismissed by the scientific community. But it sounds smart so 30-year-old virgins make tribute videos with titles like "Jordan Peterson dismantles feminism!" and "Jordan Peterson destroys neo-marxist" and they whack off while piling up likes on their sad youtube channels.

Other than that I have no opinion on the matter.

---

Do you view the entirety of Jungian archetypes and the concept of the collective unconscious as psychobabble or simply Peterson’s choice, use, and interpretation of Jung’s theories? Just curious.

---

If Peterson has ever said or inferred collective unconsciousness is psychobabble then he's further down the list than ever for me.
And that book cover, I know the publishers are mainly responsible for it, but can you produce a picture that says I am a fucking dick more than that one?

https://media.giphy.com/media/UHI4FD...ized-large.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

verminaard: There is zero chance that you have listened to Peterson at all, except when it is a heavily edited hit piece.

:wrong

I first heard about Jordan Peterson when he was a guest of Sam Harris podcast. Peterson made fool of himself by pigheadedly arguing that “what is true” is defined (or should be defined) by what successfully perpetuates the human race. Harris patiently explained why Peterson’s definition of “what is true” with variously hypotheticals that Peterson repeatedly evading directly challenging, and finally conceding that he was *wanting* his notion of truth to be accepted despite its inexorably incoherent logic.

And Sam Harris was very fair to Peterson, and went out of his way to interview him a second time after the first one became stuck on Harris trying in vain to get Peterson to admit that his logic was fatally flawed.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/what-is-true/
https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/

After that, I had a skeptical ear towards what arguments Peterson advanced because of his adherence to such a notion generally invites people to selectively ignore objective facts if they believe they contradict their moral beliefs. And that is an intellectually fatal prescription that implicitly calls for the supremacy of theology over both philosophy and scientific reality.

So it’s not surprising that JP has put his Twitter-foot in his Twitter mouth by recently bashing those who call out climate change deniers using a specious ad hominem involving Holocaust denial. And the argument is so ludicrously vacuous that it even catches Peterson himself in its critically flawed crosshairs.

https://youtu.be/H3GukO0ro84

---

You expect me to believe you sat on this post for 2 months? Be honest, you just listened to that podcast yesterday, which was probably the first time you ever listened to any Peterson material yourself, and you promptly ran to the thread to pwn me with your critique.

Between his podcasts and his appearances on other podcasts Petesron has done thousands and thousands of hours of material in the last 3 years or so. And you cherry picked one 2 hour podcast, which he has admitted wasn't very good, and now you are an expert Peterson critic.

K.

Then again, I might actually be giving you too much credit that you actually listened to his podcast with Harris yourself. More likely you read a critique of the podcast and are just regurgitating the criticism.

Lets be honest, 99% of psychology is unscientific psychobabble, which is fine, as it makes no effort to mechanistically explain how the brain functions. If a clinical psychologists techniques work, even if they cannot explain how they work mechanistically, than that is an acceptable outcome IMO.

Peterson has claimed on numerous occasions that as a clinical psychologist his techniques are effective, and I have never seen any substantial critique to challenge this assertion. And given how much the leftist media and academic community despises Peterson for mainly ideological reasons, one can surmise if there was a fire we would have seen some smoke by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

verminaard: There is zero chance that you have listened to Peterson at all, except when it is a heavily edited hit piece.

:wrong

I first heard about Jordan Peterson when he was a guest of Sam Harris podcast. Peterson made fool of himself by pigheadedly arguing that “what is true” is defined (or should be defined) by what successfully perpetuates the human race. Harris patiently explained why Peterson’s definition of “what is true” with variously hypotheticals that Peterson repeatedly evading directly challenging, and finally conceding that he was *wanting* his notion of truth to be accepted despite its inexorably incoherent logic.

And Sam Harris was very fair to Peterson, and went out of his way to interview him a second time after the first one became stuck on Harris trying in vain to get Peterson to admit that his logic was fatally flawed.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/what-is-true/
https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/

After that, I had a skeptical ear towards what arguments Peterson advanced because of his adherence to such a notion generally invites people to selectively ignore objective facts if they believe they contradict their moral beliefs. And that is an intellectually fatal prescription that implicitly calls for the supremacy of theology over both philosophy and scientific reality.

So it’s not surprising that JP has put his Twitter-foot in his Twitter mouth by recently bashing those who call out climate change deniers using a specious ad hominem involving Holocaust denial. And the argument is so ludicrously vacuous that it even catches Peterson himself in its critically flawed crosshairs.

https://youtu.be/H3GukO0ro84

---

You expect me to believe you sat on this post for 2 months? Be honest, you just listened to that podcast yesterday, which was probably the first time you ever listened to any Peterson material yourself, and you promptly ran to the thread to pwn me with your critique.

Between his podcasts and his appearances on other podcasts Petesron has done thousands and thousands of hours of material in the last 3 years or so. And you cherry picked one 2 hour podcast, which he has admitted wasn't very good, and now you are an expert Peterson critic.

K.

Then again, I might actually be giving you too much credit that you actually listened to his podcast with Harris yourself. More likely you read a critique of the podcast and are just regurgitating the criticism.

---

Believe what you want. I don’t listen to self-help podcasts, nor many that cover the social issues that Peterson is notable for getting into the middle of. I was on a Sam Harris podcast kick at the time, and wondered who JP was that he had such an devoted following.

Also, it wasn’t “one 2 hour podcast”, but two separate episodes of Harris’ poscast. Which begs me to ask: Did you take the time to listen to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Do you view the entirety of Jungian archetypes and the concept of the collective unconscious as psychobabble or simply Peterson’s choice, use, and interpretation of Jung’s theories? Just curious.

---

I view pretty much everything from the psychoanalytical school of thought to be useless. The major problem is that none of it can be studied empirically. Think about Freud's "id" or Jung's "collective unconscious" - by definition they're both outside of awareness so how can you prove they even exist? You can't. You just have to trust that the fairy tales ginned up by a couple of coke heads over a hundred years ago are somehow valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Shrink

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Do you view the entirety of Jungian archetypes and the concept of the collective unconscious as psychobabble or simply Peterson’s choice, use, and interpretation of Jung’s theories? Just curious.

---

I view pretty much everything from the psychoanalytical school of thought to be useless. The major problem is that none of it can be studied empirically. Think about Freud's "id" or Jung's "collective unconscious" - by definition they're both outside of awareness so how can you prove they even exist? You can't. You just have to trust that the fairy tales ginned up by a couple of coke heads over a hundred years ago are somehow valid.

---

I agree. But I also think when it comes to the practice of clinical psychology, if whatever you are doing works than that is ok. As much as I believe in science and the scientific method, I try not to dismiss other methodologies that get the job done out of hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

You expect me to believe you sat on this post for 2 months? Be honest, you just listened to that podcast yesterday, which was probably the first time you ever listened to any Peterson material yourself, and you promptly ran to the thread to pwn me with your critique.

Between his podcasts and his appearances on other podcasts Petesron has done thousands and thousands of hours of material in the last 3 years or so. And you cherry picked one 2 hour podcast, which he has admitted wasn't very good, and now you are an expert Peterson critic.

K.

Then again, I might actually be giving you too much credit that you actually listened to his podcast with Harris yourself. More likely you read a critique of the podcast and are just regurgitating the criticism.

---

Believe what you want. I don’t listen to self-help podcasts, nor many that cover the social issues that Peterson is notable for getting into the middle of. I was on a Sam Harris podcast kick at the time, and wondered who JP was that he had such an devoted following.

Also, it wasn’t “one 2 hour podcast”, but two separate episodes of Harris’ poscast. Which begs me to ask: Did you take the time to listen to them?

---

I listened to the podcasts in question when they came out, not yesterday like you probably did. I also have listened to a lot of Harris and Peterson since then, so the specifics of those exact podcasts escape me, although I do remember both of them admitting their first podcast together wasn’t very good because they got bogged down arguing about the definition of truth.

Generally I view the world more like Harris than Peterson. But I also recognize that the majority of the 6 billion people on Earth have world views and belief structures more in line with Peterson’s, and these belief structures have been the foundation of successful societies that have stood the test of time, so I Think it is a big mistake to be so dismissive and condescending of his perspective.

For all we know this whole liberal experiment we have been living in the last century or so will be a spectacular disaster and conservatism will win out. So much of what everyone knew was true 500 years ago we completely dismiss today. Who knows what know as truth today will be completely dismissed in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Believe what you want. I don’t listen to self-help podcasts, nor many that cover the social issues that Peterson is notable for getting into the middle of. I was on a Sam Harris podcast kick at the time, and wondered who JP was that he had such an devoted following.

Also, it wasn’t “one 2 hour podcast”, but two separate episodes of Harris’ poscast. Which begs me to ask: Did you take the time to listen to them?

---

I listened to the podcasts in question when they came out, not yesterday like you probably did. I also have listened to a lot of Harris and Peterson since then, so the specifics of those exact podcasts escape me, although I do remember both of them admitting their first podcast together wasn’t very good because they got bogged down arguing about the definition of truth.

Generally I view the world more like Harris than Peterson. But I also recognize that the majority of the 6 billion people on Earth have world views and belief structures more in line with Peterson’s, and these belief structures have been the foundation of successful societies that have stood the test of time, so I Think it is a big mistake to be so dismissive and condescending of his perspective.

For all we know this whole liberal experiment we have been living in the last century or so will be a spectacular disaster and conservatism will win out. So much of what everyone knew was true 500 years ago we completely dismiss today. Who knows what know as truth today will be completely dismissed in the future.

---

Re first bolded statement: Childhood brainwashing into cult beliefs is very effective in perpetuating both good and bad ideas. Witness how resistant Roman Catholics are to disciplining the Church over pedophile priest abuses and cover-ups by complicit bishops and higher-ups. Hell! One of my siblings who was sexually molested for years while serving as an altar boy and who broke away the faith, and considered the RRC an evil organization for years, is now a devote conservative Catholic.

Re second bolded statement: If you couldn’t recognize from those podcast episodes that JP’s definition of what is true is logically flawed, then you aren’t very clear in your thinking. That probably explains why you give credence to his arguments.

P.S. Just because someone becomes popular among the masses for being a gifted rhetorician doesn’t mean they speak coherently about the notions they promote. Case in point:

https://youtu.be/QORg1u2Hbqk

jordan peterson is well known because of his views on political correctness and social justice warriors. while critics (typically uber-liberal) generally say that he's wrong, they usually don't back that up with any specific challenge of something he said. most of the critics in this thread fall under that category.

i'm not sure about his views on self-help, diet or anything else he may talk about, but on political correctness and the sjw movement, he's dead on correct

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

jordan peterson is well known because of his views on political correctness and social justice warriors. while critics (typically uber-liberal) generally say that he's wrong, they usually don't back that up with any specific challenge of something he said. most of the critics in this thread fall under that category.

i'm not sure about his views on self-help, diet or anything else he may talk about, but on political correctness and the sjw movement, he's dead on correct

---

His highly publicized claim that misgendering someone would be a hate crime under that new law was grandstanding bullshit that got him a lot of publicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

jordan peterson is well known because of his views on political correctness and social justice warriors. while critics (typically uber-liberal) generally say that he's wrong, they usually don't back that up with any specific challenge of something he said. most of the critics in this thread fall under that category.

i'm not sure about his views on self-help, diet or anything else he may talk about, but on political correctness and the sjw movement, he's dead on correct

---

His highly publicized claim that misgendering someone would be a hate crime under that new law was grandstanding bullshit that got him a lot of publicity.

---

Not exactly.

Jordan was criticizing Bill C-16, and its summary is as follows:

Quote:

---

The bill is intended to protect individuals from discrimination within the sphere of federal jurisdiction and from being the targets of hate propaganda, as a consequence of their gender identity or their gender expression. The bill adds "gender identity or expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. It also adds that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a person's gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance for a court to consider when imposing a criminal sentence.

---

You are correct that the bill does not mention the requirement to use anyone's preferred gender pronoun.

However, note that this law adds "gender identity or gender expression" as a protected group from "hate propaganda".

Unfortunately, "hate propaganda" is very subjective, and could possibly be stretched to include intentional refusal to refer to someone as their preferred pronoun. It could be claimed that a professor calling you "he" when you want to be known as "she" is deliberately provocative and hateful, and thus violates Law C-16.

At the very least, even if not prosecuted, this could be used against professors like Dr. Peterson when it comes to discipline at the university.

In general, laws against "hate propaganda" are very dangerous to any country which cares about free speech, as these laws can be perverted into a weapon of suppression of opposition speech.