💊 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
Lucas Silva #4903141 said:
Just a clip that popped up on my timeline.

The title of the video has been changed to Jordan Peterson vs 20 Atheists.
Anyways, archive of the clip:
ssstwitter.com_1748195349546.mp4
Another thread with reactions to this.
Click to expand...
I watched the entire debate and I really hope that this is Jordan's entire legacy and what most people will know him for moving forward:
A 90-minute showcase of a brain damaged narcissist engaging in complete sophistry and wasting everyone's time because he loves the sound of his own voice.
Anyone who continues to support him in anyway after watching this deserves to be scammed.
Laughing Putin said:
"You're really quite something."
"Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing."

Destroyed.

I think this one little exchange with this kid may have officially ended Jordan Peterson's career.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=eGNFqVD6ArU:22
Click to expand...
This doesn't change anything about what happened, but I was surprised to find that the "kid" is 32 years old.
XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG said:
As hilarious as I find your meme, I need to say out of fairness that Peterson's rejection of the "would you lie to a Nazi officer to save Jews?" hypothetical is the only controversial move he did in this debate that's actually completely correct and righteous in my opinion.
Real moral decisions do not exist in vacuums, and every real life situation arises from a long chain of causally entangled choices, personality traits, social conditions, and prior actions. Saying "I wouldn't be in that situation" is not dodging the question, it's pointing out that the question is metaphysically incoherent.
Like, ethics is not some mental board game where you teleport into someone else's boots without any history, principles, and choices up to that point. Ethics isn't what you do in a fantasy some retard constructed to trap you, it's how you live, what you build, and what kind of person you become in a way that these dilemmas never materialize.
As retarded as Peterson is, this was the only good point he made. Namely, that these hypothetical questions are often epistemically useless. They ask you to imagine impossible scenarios with no connection to reality and ask you to draw moral conclusions for them. That's theater at best and "gotcha" traps at worst.
That was pretty much the only moment in this long-ass video where he treated moral reasoning with the seriousness it deserves.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this is stupid and should have no place in a debate or discussion.
Ethics are almost entirely based on hypotheticals. Yes there's probably no combination of choices I could ever make that would put me in a trolley problem situation in real life, but it doesn't mean I can't consider and share what choices I would make in the situation for the purpose of discussing a particular idea.
If it required breaking down the entire history of one's life in order to engage with any theory of ethics, the entire subject would be pointless because everyone has an entirely unique profile based on all their past choices.

If you cannot engage in a simple hypothetical then your input on any matter that doesn't have an immediately obvious answer is completely worthless. Even if you believe the hypothetical is flawed, there is value in giving your honest answer and then breaking down why it should not be misinterpreted. "Ok yeah I would lie to save them but here's why your hypothetical is flawed" is a perfectly valid response.
Making absurd statements like "well I would never be in such a situation" makes it clear that you know your honest answer will make your point look weak, and further exposes your own arrogance. Jordan, the man who got addicted to Benzos because he wasn't strong enough to support his ill wife and couldn't follow his own advice when it came time to rehab, wants us to believe he would live such a perfect life that he alone would warp reality so that he would never have to make a hard moral decision if he were living in Nazi Germany. Yeah ok.

Not sure if you watched the entire exchange but they got to the Nazi hypothetical because Jordan kept dodging and refusing to engage with much simpler ones. If someone can't even answer "would you lie to save your wife and kids?" without spouting nonsense like "I don't think lying would save them" then what else can you do but go to the absolute extreme?

No, this isn't some complex moral question that requires anything more than a few seconds of thought. It was a simple fucking hypothetical. "Would you lie to save lives?"
What really happened is that Jordan realized that his bullshit redefinition of the word "belief" was being exposed and that honestly engaging with the pen example would give his opponent a "win", so he decided to dig in his heels and not relent on the absurdity of his definition. It's incredibly immature to see from an academic who presumably has been debating for many years at this point.
TruffleSpark said:
You can say that in actual real world scenarios things are going to be more complex than an ethics thought experiment could ever let on, and as such ethics thought experiments can't ever be a 100% reliable guide to correct decision-making. i.e, maybe the Jewish family he is protecting is actually a family of serial killing cannibals, so whilst in general protecting Jews from Nazis is an unambiguous good there might be some extremely specific scenarios where the morality gets a bit gray.

But I don't think that's what is going on with Peterson. I think he's just being a weird autist. Autists love rules, they often have a strong sense of right and wrong and to them right and wrong means following The Rules™. Having to be in a situation where you have to break The Rules™ in order to do good is a form of torture to them. So I think what Peterson is saying is that despite knowing that he would have to break The Rules™ in order to protect the Jewish family hiding in his attic in this particular scenario. He would never put himself in that situation. As his commitment to The Rules™ is so strong that he would find a way to protect The Jews without having to break The Rules™. He thinks he would be able to pull this off because he has such a strong faith in his own intellect that he knows he can outsmart Nazis without breaking The Rules™. I think he imagines himself as an Oscar Schindler type figure who would find a way to use the Nazis own rules against them in order to save lives.
Click to expand...
This is giving him too much credit. He's a dishonest grifter who just didn't want to concede a point because of his fragile ego. His only aim is appearing intelligent and not being seen as wrong in any way.
 
Stanley Ipkiss said:
Sorry but this is stupid and should have no place in a debate or discussion.
Ethics are almost entirely based on hypotheticals. Yes there's probably no combination of choices I could ever make that would put me in a trolley problem situation in real life, but it doesn't mean I can't consider and share what choices I would make in the situation for the purpose of discussing a particular idea.
If it required breaking down the entire history of one's life in order to engage with any theory of ethics, the entire subject would be pointless because everyone has an entirely unique profile based on all their past choices.

If you cannot engage in a simple hypothetical then your input on any matter that doesn't have an immediately obvious answer is completely worthless. Even if you believe the hypothetical is flawed, there is value in giving your honest answer and then breaking down why it should not be misinterpreted. "Ok yeah I would lie to save them but here's why your hypothetical is flawed" is a perfectly valid response.
Making absurd statements like "well I would never be in such a situation" makes it clear that you know your honest answer will make your point look weak, and further exposes your own arrogance. Jordan, the man who got addicted to Benzos because he wasn't strong enough to support his ill wife and couldn't follow his own advice when it came time to rehab, wants us to believe he would live such a perfect life that he alone would warp reality so that he would never have to make a hard moral decision if he were living in Nazi Germany. Yeah ok.

Not sure if you watched the entire exchange but they got to the Nazi hypothetical because Jordan kept dodging and refusing to engage with much simpler ones. If someone can't even answer "would you lie to save your wife and kids?" without spouting nonsense like "I don't think lying would save them" then what else can you do but go to the absolute extreme?

No, this isn't some complex moral question that requires anything more than a few seconds of thought. It was a simple fucking hypothetical. "Would you lie to save lives?"
What really happened is that Jordan realized that his bullshit redefinition of the word "belief" was being exposed and that honestly engaging with the pen example would give his opponent a "win", so he decided to dig in his heels and not relent on the absurdity of his definition. It's incredibly immature to see from an academic who presumably has been debating for many years at this point.
Click to expand...
You're making a category error by assuming that all hypotheticals are equally valid or useful in ethical analysis. Some hypotheticals are structured so poorly that they obstruct, rather than support, rational reasoning, to the point that they are cognitively worthless. The Nazi attic example is a good example of a hypothetical that fails to be a genuine inquiry. It's nothing more than a rhetorical trap that pre-loads a binary construct that removes the causal and contextual structure necessary for ethical judgment.
Peterson's "I wouldn't be in that situation" response is a recognition of the fact that real-world ethical action is not contextless. You don't magically appear in that situation as a blank slate. Ethical responsibility includes the choices and principles that led you there. To evaluate the scenario ethically, you would need to account for how the conditions arose, what role you played in enabling or resisting them, and whether alternate paths were possible, none of which you are allowed in the hypothetical as framed.
Stanley Ipkiss said:
"Ok yeah I would lie to save them but here's why your hypothetical is flawed" is a perfectly valid response.
Click to expand...
I disagree because it ignores one of the basic principles of rational discourse. Answering a malformed question grants implicit legitimacy to its structures, even if you critique it after. If someone asks you "Would you punch yourself in the face to prevent an alternate version of you in a parallel universe from getting a stomach ache?", you are not required to play along just because the scenario is vivid. Some questions should be rejected before they are answered.

You need to recognize that certain scenarios strip away all the variables that give ethical reasoning its grounding, namely intention, causality, agency, and consequence. When you remove those things, all you have left is coercive rhetoric. The hypothetical no longer serves ethical inquiry.
Peterson was right to not pretend that a fictional construct with no causal plausibility could yield a meaningful ethical answer. Even if he's in so much cognitive decline that he wouldn't be able to explain it in the clear terms that I used.
 
Last edited:
In Clownworld Peterson is a standard issue academic shitlib. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have been a Nazi in 1930s Germany or a snitching little turd in Communist Russia.

But yes, in his mad brain he imagines himself being thrown into the camps for the crime of upholding 21st academic liberalism.
 
Turquoise said:
In Clownworld Peterson is a standard issue academic shitlib. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have been a Nazi in 1930s Germany or a snitching little turd in Communist Russia.

But yes, in his mad brain he imagines himself being thrown into the camps for the crime of upholding 21st academic liberalism.
Click to expand...
But he would have been adamant that he wasn't either a monarchist or republican. Then too he would be more preoccupied with not being a supporter of one of two defunct historical systems, while filling his home with artwork related to both sides of the french revolution to remind himself: Never again.
 
Turquoise said:
In Clownworld Peterson is a standard issue academic shitlib. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have been a Nazi in 1930s Germany or a snitching little turd in Communist Russia.

But yes, in his mad brain he imagines himself being thrown into the camps for the crime of upholding 21st academic liberalism.
Click to expand...
His victimhood is purely ego driven even pre benzos it showed.

He definitely would have had some huge long rambling about we need order so turning the Jews in makes him a good person.
 
scathefire said:
Geez that is creepy, it’s more of a flehmen response than a smile.
View attachment 7459601View attachment 7459617
Click to expand...
I have a skizo autismo theory about people who smile like this. It's a form of over-socialization. They probably used to laugh naturally at things that were not ok to laugh at, so they had to learn to control the reaction so much that they reach the point of complete sterilization. I don't mean they were laughing at dead people or anything, I'm thinking more of people I've known who at some point decided that politically incorrect humor is a no-no, that kind of stuff. Charlie Kirk is a politisperg so something similar could have happened to him. From then on they lose the capability of spontaneous laughter, but at the same time have learned to "laugh" on command, like actors. Some are good at it and you don't realize they're sociopaths, but just like you only notice a bad toupée, you only notice the fake laughter in pic above.
Or maybe he lost the ability to laugh because he suffers from crippling depression, I dunno, I'm not a therapist.
 
Grog said:
Nobody can win debates against flat earthers the same way you can't convince a christian that god doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Ideally, you're trying to at least educate people who believe in flat earth and expose them to some facts and arguments they may have otherwise never been exposed to in their echo chamber. Dave Farina just jacks himself off while picking on the lowest hanging fruit. Antagonizing people just makes them dig their heels in because they're not going to be inclined to find common ground with some pompous douche who is just being rude and passive aggressive. Dave may be entirely right in an argument, but it doesn't mean shit if he's so unlikable that nobody can even stand to listen to him, including his own audience. He's probably got some kind of autism and doesn't understand how human interaction works.
 
Nuclear Poisoning said:
I have a skizo autismo theory about people who smile like this. It's a form of over-socialization. They probably used to laugh naturally at things that were not ok to laugh at, so they had to learn to control the reaction so much that they reach the point of complete sterilization. I don't mean they were laughing at dead people or anything, I'm thinking more of people I've known who at some point decided that politically incorrect humor is a no-no, that kind of stuff. Charlie Kirk is a politisperg so something similar could have happened to him. From then on they lose the capability of spontaneous laughter, but at the same time have learned to "laugh" on command, like actors. Some are good at it and you don't realize they're sociopaths, but just like you only notice a bad toupée, you only notice the fake laughter in pic above.
Or maybe he lost the ability to laugh because he suffers from crippling depression, I dunno, I'm not a therapist.
Click to expand...

He was simultaneously in a adversarial debate with her, and trying to do that "look how nice and polite I am" shtick at the same time. You could see the pressure building up in the question before that. It's one of those things that can happen when you're under tension, like how walking straight for a cop might be hard even if not drunk, just from the anxiety.

I interpreted his smile of him feeling second hand embarrassment for how she was responding. Not knowing what fetus means is fine, but if your response to "what does fetus mean" is "what the fuck?", it's kind of embarrassing. He felt like he had a powerful gotcha. So it was this weird cocktail of pressure, trying to look nice, and feeling triumphant into that very creepy smile.
 
Lemmingwiser said:
He was simultaneously in a adversarial debate with her, and trying to do that "look how nice and polite I am" shtick at the same time. You could see the pressure building up in the question before that. It's one of those things that can happen when you're under tension, like how walking straight for a cop might be hard even if not drunk, just from the anxiety.

I interpreted his smile of him feeling second hand embarrassment for how she was responding. Not knowing what fetus means is fine, but if your response to "what does fetus mean" is "what the fuck?", it's kind of embarrassing. He felt like he had a powerful gotcha. So it was this weird cocktail of pressure, trying to look nice, and feeling triumphant into that very creepy smile.
Click to expand...

The art of debate interests me very much. The "look how nice I am" shtick is always a bad idea as it just comes across as insincere and inevitably disappears 20 minutes in. It is, or at least was, the staple tactic of the cuckservative grifter. Jordan Peterson by contrast does phony "not nice". He squints at his opponent like he's going to get up and strangle them. He thinks he's Clint Eastwood, and it might work if his opponents didn't know how easy is to make him cry.

The two best debaters I've observed are Richard Dawkins and Jared Taylor. Neither of them do the phony "nice" or "not nice". They're just polite and almost never get rattled.

I think one of the best and most underrated debate tactics is to keep things on topic and Dawkins and Taylor are both excellent at it. They each have an area of expertise in which they cannot be defeated and give pretty the exact same answers in every debate they do. They already know what their opponent is going to say, what they'll say in response and what their opponent will say in response to that. By contrast, internet debate bros allow themselves to be dragged down all kinds of rabbit holes and because they're too proud to admit to not knowing something, they find themselves googling mid-debate, monitoring the chat for assistance or just making shit up to avoid conceding a point.

Another thing that Dawkins and Taylor are excellent at is keeping their points as concise as possible. There's no need to lay out the terms, agree on the definitions, identify types of fallacies being committed or ask questions in a mathematical format (if x is y and y is z, then wouldn't it be fair to say that you don't have a source?).
 
Last edited:
Turquoise said:
He squints at his opponent like he's going to get up and strangle them. He thinks he's Clint Eastwood, and it might work if his opponents didn't know how easy is to make him cry.
Click to expand...
He pulled this from the same "win debates with questionable tactics" playbook Ben Shapiro pulls tilting his head forward and talking fast from.

Debate is both an art form and a science. There's always the classic "point, counterpoint" method of debate where you just lay out your arguments and the sources to back them up, relying on the facts to carry themselves. But the artistry of debate is much harder to master. The kind of debate tactics that Peterson uses are designed to directly intimidate the other debater, which (in theory) is meant to make them trip up or get flustered, or even reply negatively. That Peterson is a boomer, a former professor, and well educated *while also not knowing how to effectively debate* just shows how shallow his actual convictions are since he can't adequately defend them.

Don't get me wrong, though. The 20 on 1 debate format is for views and clicks, not intellectually rigorous debate. Of course, even in a format like the Jubilee debate you should be able to react quickly enough to the questions posed to you that you don't make yourself look like a fool. Unfortunately for Jordan, he seems clinically incapable of not making a fool of himself when posed simple questions like, "are you a Christian."
 
ADN_VIII said:
He pulled this from the same "win debates with questionable tactics" playbook Ben Shapiro pulls tilting his head forward and talking fast from.

Debate is both an art form and a science. There's always the classic "point, counterpoint" method of debate where you just lay out your arguments and the sources to back them up, relying on the facts to carry themselves. But the artistry of debate is much harder to master. The kind of debate tactics that Peterson uses are designed to directly intimidate the other debater, which (in theory) is meant to make them trip up or get flustered, or even reply negatively. That Peterson is a boomer, a former professor, and well educated *while also not knowing how to effectively debate* just shows how shallow his actual convictions are since he can't adequately defend them.

Don't get me wrong, though. The 20 on 1 debate format is for views and clicks, not intellectually rigorous debate. Of course, even in a format like the Jubilee debate you should be able to react quickly enough to the questions posed to you that you don't make yourself look like a fool. Unfortunately for Jordan, he seems clinically incapable of not making a fool of himself when posed simple questions like, "are you a Christian."
Click to expand...


And yeah, Peterson, Shapiro, Kirk, Crowder, they all like to debate college kids.

They are afraid to debate intelligent lefties because they're vulnerable to having their own "classical liberalism" turned against them, as seen when Jim Jeffries (who isn't intelligent) got Jordan to admit he'd bake the gay cake, even though he clearly wouldn't want to. It's principles over morals; the grift over the good.

And they are afraid to debate anyone from the dreaded far right because they'll have to talk about race, IQ and the ethnic group who fund them.
 
Last edited:
Grown ass men debating college lefties who just took political science 101 got tired in 2015, still doing it in current year plus ten is downright embarrassing.
 
His latest interview guest is Sam Harris. Strap yourself in for a piping hot nod along in reasons why we need to control naughty-think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom