💊 Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
If you wanna dissect 2 long quoted comments maybe don't focus on "accept inherently" you linguistic autist.
To be fair, you have to have a really high IQ to utilize the word "inherently" liberally. The word is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical linguistics most of @Zero Day Defense's wisdoms will go over a typical @Gorilla Tessellator's head. There's also @Justtocheck's empathetic outlook, which is deftly woven into his John F. Kennedy characterization - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Jordan Peterson's Benzos addiction, for instance. [...]
 
To be fair, you have to have a really high IQ to utilize the word "inherently" liberally. The word is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical linguistics most of @Zero Day Defense's wisdoms will go over a typical @Gorilla Tessellator's head. There's also @Justtocheck's empathetic outlook, which is deftly woven into his John F. Kennedy characterization - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Jordan Peterson's Benzos addiction, for instance. [...]

And my jordan peterson tattoos are for ladies eyes only.
haavdw0hlux21.jpg
kkd57gn46gj01.jpg
 
Last edited:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms:105 Just for a small example.



Hard disagree. It's all the fault of cocaine. What cocaine does to a man...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=n_4UFMp19tE:55
Me for once I'm hoping for a second debate of Peterson and Zizek. This time both will speak unintelligible words, one due to accent and sniffing and the other 'cause of drool. The greatest minds of the west. Just makes me smile imagining in it.



I thought you didn't have a problem with ego, and you didn't want to act like an aristocrat man.
That video on postmodernism is gold. I've been so confused about how this conflation happened between postmodernism and Marxism, or even weirder, "cultural Marxism," the origin of which appears to be an offshoot of Nazi era "cultural Bolshevism" related to supposed cultural inferiority and degenerate art and such. I'm not as familiar with Derrida and Baudrillard, but Foucault is actually hated by many Marxists because he was seeking to replace the Marxist school of thought, even writing on neoliberalism in his late years. Peterson's idea of postmodernist "power" would also probably be hated by actual postmodernist philosophers because they were against the idea of rigid, unchanging structures/categorizations. I'm still not really sure what Peterson gets out of perpetuating this specific piece of misinformation or why the connection was made to begin with. Maybe he's just very misinformed. No idea.

I didn't watch the debate when it first came out because I hate both Peterson and Zizek, but I ended up watching it earlier this afternoon out of curiosity and holy shit I felt second-hand anxiety for JP. Why the fuck did this guy choose to debate against a Marxist scholar on the topic of Marxism having only read The Communist Manifesto last minute? he was making obviously uninformed false statements and bullshitting like it was a school book report lmao

I agree there is a lot you can argue with him about. There are a lot of semantics and opinions in philosophy, there is also a lot of posturing from him AND the people who want to refute Jordan Peterson about abstract ideas. In reality like you pointed out with his debate with zizek, a lot of it is just semantics and wasting time.

I don’t know what’s more embarrassing, following his ideas to a T or wasting time disliking this guy for any reason. In reality he’s quite mediocre and boring, but I would still say he communicates his ideas more effectively than most.
He was a charlatan that espoused pseudoscience and factual inaccuracies and has no place in academics. There's also an argument to be made that his ideas are actively harmful by pinning all turmoil on personal responsibility. He discourages people from taking any sort of collective action because "you can only suffer alone" or some equally weird doomer shit. If the company you work for royally assfucks all of its workers and you're struggling to make ends because of it, the right thing to do wouldn't be to use collective bargaining to demand better conditions, but to look inward and figure out what you did wrong. It's not only unhealthy, it's just bad advice. So it's deserving imo, and he's probably brain damaged and headed into early retirement and irrelevance anyway, so we might as well have fun with it while it lasts.
 
To be fair, you have to have a really high IQ to utilize the word "inherently" liberally. The word is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical linguistics most of @Zero Day Defense's wisdoms will go over a typical @Gorilla Tessellator's head. There's also @Justtocheck's empathetic outlook, which is deftly woven into his John F. Kennedy characterization - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Jordan Peterson's Benzos addiction, for instance. [...]
There is very little wisdom in what @Zero Day Defense wrote, but I see some ambition I definitely applaud.

His writing is inherently sophomoric. He, of course, meant to say "to accept as inherent". Adverbs, my dear wanna-be linguist, are used to add some flavor to verbs. I see some feeble attempt to obscure lack of deep meaning by overusing all the important sounding words he once memorized, and to stay on topic Jordan Peterson is much more skillful in this ignoble craft than his ardent defender.

Here are some other of his mistakes that suggest he is first generation who went to college, there were few good books in his household, and he tries hard to rise above his humble beginnings (again, no shame in that):

"I thought I asked you to consider that you're importing by yourself an attitude absent from what I actually convey"

Here our dear friend is using two words without full understanding of their meaning. This kind of understanding comes from reading many books, living life, and talking to many different people. Don't despair, @Zero Fucks Given' you're getting there, some day...

The problem with "convey" here is that how message is understood does not depend on the communicator alone. Exactly the same message can be understood differently by different people. Therefore, one cannot authoritatively state that he conveys certain message, but alas, only what he tries to convey.

Of course "import" also makes him sound like Bertie Wooster. Only the archaic meaning makes some sense in this context, but there are other words that would fit here better. I would rewrite this sentence preserving pretentiousness and the big words in following way:

"I thought I asked you to consider that you are interpolating an attitude absent from what I tried to convey".

But... we are still left with one small problem. Why someone on the internet would ever think that him (rhetorically) asking for anything has any importance whatsoever? I don't want to be cruel to this boy, because I recognize in his musings some deep seated longing for good old times where people were truly educated.

Unfortunately, we live in 21st century and such a washout like JP is considered a grand intellectual. What a shame!

To sum it up as true Gorilla would say: he talks like 19th century fag and his shit is r.etarded.
 
That video on postmodernism is gold. I've been so confused about how this conflation happened between postmodernism and Marxism, or even weirder, "cultural Marxism," the origin of which appears to be an offshoot of Nazi era "cultural Bolshevism" related to supposed cultural inferiority and degenerate art and such. I'm not as familiar with Derrida and Baudrillard, but Foucault is actually hated by many Marxists because he was seeking to replace the Marxist school of thought, even writing on neoliberalism in his late years. Peterson's idea of postmodernist "power" would also probably be hated by actual postmodernist philosophers because they were against the idea of rigid, unchanging structures/categorizations. I'm still not really sure what Peterson gets out of perpetuating this specific piece of misinformation or why the connection was made to begin with. Maybe he's just very misinformed. No idea.

I didn't watch the debate when it first came out because I hate both Peterson and Zizek, but I ended up watching it earlier this afternoon out of curiosity and holy shit I felt second-hand anxiety for JP. Why the fuck did this guy choose to debate against a Marxist scholar on the topic of Marxism having only read The Communist Manifesto last minute? he was making obviously uninformed false statements and bullshitting like it was a school book report lmao

I could be conspiratorial and refer you to what Lenin said - "You look for the person who will benefit and, uh... well... you know what I'm trying to say."

But I won't. The fact is he doesn't take Communism seriously enough to actually learn about it. It's bullshit, he thinks. I don't need to know anything about it because I can just point out how capitalism is better and that's that. But, as everyone saw, Zizek schooled him because he didn't do the work. The lesson, kids, is that you should always study.

He was a charlatan that espoused pseudoscience and factual inaccuracies and has no place in academics. There's also an argument to be made that his ideas are actively harmful by pinning all turmoil on personal responsibility. He discourages people from taking any sort of collective action because "you can only suffer alone" or some equally weird doomer shit. If the company you work for royally assfucks all of its workers and you're struggling to make ends because of it, the right thing to do wouldn't be to use collective bargaining to demand better conditions, but to look inward and figure out what you did wrong. It's not only unhealthy, it's just bad advice. So it's deserving imo, and he's probably brain damaged and headed into early retirement and irrelevance anyway, so we might as well have fun with it while it lasts.

This is a tactic that self-help books generally use - it is all your fault when you suffer a setback in life. Think differently or display a different attitude and things will go your way. For authors of self-help books, nothing ever seems to be someone else's fault.

Peterson, essentially, could have been on Oprah if he'd tried to target a different audience.
 
I read part of Dianetics, by our friend L. Ron, in the high school cafeteria many years ago. Scientology did a big push and the media complied. There were images of volcanoes everywhere. I guess marketing works. I bought the book.

From what I remember, it mostly talked about how accomplished the author was. So respectable. The ideas pushed were vague, but promising. Science! You can be better! Movie Bob was born too late.

I wish I'd picked up on the anti-psychiatry thing. Maybe I quit reading the repetitive nonsense too soon. Jordan Peterson rhymes.

I don't hate the man, and I don't celebrate the consequences of his condition. Sadly, he fucked up his daughter hard with his expertise. The psychiatrist in my family ruined his two sons. One is probably lost forever. The other is a recovering addict.

The best advice I never got - Don't trust anyone you don't have to.
 
Mikhaila's inclusion in the title is long overdue, the two run interdependent cons and now that daddy is drooling on his collar she will be in charge of PR for both for some time.
 
The Stanford Prison Experiment, along with pretty much every "zomgz xbawx hueg revlolutionary" social psychology experiment (Milgram's authority horseshite, the original bystander effect paper), is total bollocks. Total, utter bollocks. SocPsych has been in a disarray ever since they found out how Zimbardo et al faked their shit.

People are absolutely capable of being asshole by their own volition, but take a look at the literal millions of antifa keyboard warriors spouting "look ma I'm killing nazis!" on their pathetic twitter feeds, and then take a good hard look at what they actually do when push comes to shove. This obviously goes for a lot of MRAs, alt-right cuntnuggets, etc.

Kitty Genovese tho
 
Kitty Genovese tho
The report was a grossly exaggerated piece of gobshite. The only thing it got right was that she got murdered.
Neighbours tried to "scare away" the perp, called the cops multiple times, tried to give her first aid, or at least some comfort, whatever. Most of the alleged witnesses didn't even see or hear the incident go down.

There's absolutely something going on there. Most people will indifferently walk over a (presumed) fallen drunkard, waiting for anyone else to call for help. However, most people will stop and help an acquaintance in trouble.

It's also a mechanism to reduce felt responsibility - that stranger didn't die because you personally didn't call for help, he died because another hundred passer-bys wouldn't call help either, so your responsiblity is practically non-existent. Bullies use this as a defense - "You can't prove my bullying pushed the victim to suicide out of the whole class!"
 
You see this kind of stuff among high class twats and eggheaded intellectuals a lot, they think they are so superior because they or their ancestors were so succesful that they were so succesful in Academia, they think they can come up with amazing stuff that nobody has figured out but that is so obvious and simple to them.
It's depressingly achievable to be successful in academia while being completely incompetent. I'd say at least the large majority get their status through relatively decent means, but I think the avg person would be shocked at how slimy it is, and how many know-nothing professional-grant-writers there are that take all the credit while doing next to nothing. At least in science I've seen this a couple times, and I'd argue even seeing it once is too many.

I wish people would stop fetishizing anyone who has a Ph.D. to their name, and conversely those people should also probably stopped fetishizing themselves so much.
 
I wish people would stop fetishizing anyone who has a Ph.D. to their name, and conversely those people should also probably stopped fetishizing themselves so much.

TBH one of the most awkward parts of the Peterson Vs Zizek debate was at the start when they were naming the titles and achievements of each one. At one point Zizek seemed as annoyed as anyone and seemed to want to punch the speaker.
 
is Peterson really the problem or is it mostly just his fanbase and daughter? if people didn't hold him up as some kind of revolutionary thinker I think it would be much less annoying
 
is Peterson really the problem or is it mostly just his fanbase and daughter? if people didn't hold him up as some kind of revolutionary thinker I think it would be much less annoying

He very willingly and with intentions of monetary gain exposed himself into the public eye by being in every youtube interview and TV news show he could find. Had he only been the guy from the Pronouns thing it he would be mostly forgotten now.
 
Back
Top Bottom