The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

Still got nothing, thought so. Well, thanks for playing, gn.

By your approach to losing, I can tell that you are favouring a protection of ego through levity rather than attempting any self-evaluation and improvement in light of your cognitive dissonance brought about by a lack of ability to find reinforcement for your worldview. No surprise, but a great shame that cowards like you exist, having not been taught valuable life lessons on how to deal with losing, to enable you to deal with it in a constructive way. You’re unable to see me as a teacher of such lessons, much to your disadvantage, but at least it seems as though you are able to see JP as one. Keep watching his videos and seeking help on how to develop into a mature human being - I might have zero faith that you will develop at all here, but I wish you luck in the long term and in general. It would be worth you noting that you are using this place as a crutch, to validate your self-worth at the cost of imprinting upon it an idealised expectation of its inferiority to you, to which you attempt to fit everything you encounter whether or not it actually does fit this ideal. This explains why you keep coming here and act in the way you do, but we both know you lack the ability to admit this or even entertain its truth for a single second.

Feel free to drop another meme if it helps you cope.

I think he’s 100% right about the free speech issue and he’s correctly identified the source of the problem and is fighting the good fight against the SJW nutters, but whenever he starts talking psychology or philosophy he comes across as confused.

To be fair, I find the entire discipline of psychology to be a confused… So this is not to say he seems uneducated or gets the facts wrong, but that the methodology used to interpret the data into a model of the human psyche is entirely without merit and results in him (and other psychologists) to be dependent on metaphorical language to describe observed facts and then confuse those metaphors for explanations.

In other words he confuses the descriptive metaphorical language with a prescriptive truth or more accurately “reality”. But of course the metaphors cannot be “real” in a physical way, so he now has to subscribe to a metaphysical realm in which they can be thought of as real.

Otherwise, why lend them any predictive or prescriptive power?

Confused nonsense, that we would be better off without… but otherwise he seems cool.

Idiots are a nice compliment to this world. Like an appetizer. Begins to show you what is really going on, at the core of things.

About what in “psychology or philosophy” am I “confused”? What specifically have I said that you object to, and why?

You don’t say. So I call bullshit.

Just another douche cunt.

A lot, apparently. He wasn’t even talking about you :laughing:

Douche cunt.

I guess you demonstrate this pretty well.

Why are you still here?

I like to study the insanity, the mindless deathfetish that ‘people’ like you represent. For some reason it fascinates me, the morbid nothingness of it. Probably because I am the exact polar opposite value as you, I represent and value pure life itself, truth, being; therefore whatever manages somehow to do literally none of that, would arouse my curiosity.

I am indeed an expert on such things, having studied them up close for so long.

Of course I would be tempted to say that you would do well to get over yourself and start doing the real work. Ask real questions, for one thing. Pause, think, re-evaluate. Get into a legitimate conversation. But I won’t say it, because I recognize there is zero chance of you saving yourself from the hell-vortex trip you are on. This is fate. Idiocy and non-being are facts of this existence, thanks to strange eddies in how valuing logistics manage to unfold in complex multi-tectonic environments; you are free to acquire value (existence) from others at their expense, and so you do that. Never learning how to actually… exist.

Haha, yes.

Humanity could well turn out a failed species. Indeed, it either amounts in the Superman or the Last Man.

What makes you think that the exact opposite isn’t true - that the words you say above don’t in fact apply precisely to you instead of me, and that I couldn’t just as justifiably say the exact same thing about you? I genuinely think the exact same thing about you. Why exactly is it more justified coming from you rather than me? Explain yourself properly for once.

The modal number of lines you’ve written in each of your posts for the last 25 you’ve made is 1. You average 4 lines and your median is 2.

You say next to nothing, if anything at all. What you do say is formulaic and unoriginal, and that one time I remember posting something of length, probably uncharacteristically spread out over more than 1 post I seem to remember, it was literally pure description of just a small number of your views with zero explanation, simple reiteration of the same sentiments that were already quite predictable from just a few of your shallow previous 1- or 2-liner posts. There is pure nothingness to justify your absolutely bafflingly high opinion of yourself. I explain the logic behind my analyses, go through contingencies, advance conversations and am agonisingly self-critical in all of my opinions, willing to re-think them - even actively trying to disprove them myself and to draw out disproofs from others. I have never seen you do any of these things. I’ve even evidenced these things in the post I’m currently writing, whereas you simply state that you think the same of me with absolutely nothing to back it up. Anyone can do that.

This is what justifiably demonstrates me to represent truth, and by extension, life and values that are in line with it. Your approach of simply stating things, either minimally, or repeating the same minimal statements over and over is exactly the same kind of nihilism and death shown in religion, particularly Islam, that states that one simply need to take the words of the Quran for what they are, and that it says the final truth and that no more thought is needed. As for existing though, both you and I appear to do that fine…

You can go ahead and say something along the lines of “is there a point in there at all?” like you usually do (also with zero analysis or justification of any meaning to such a question), or just drop a meme, but this is more of the same of what I have just described about your style - you will only be proving my point. Equally, if you simply make re-iterated statements about how great you think you are (it’s YOU who needs to get over yourself) and give descriptions of what your views are in numerous different ways without explaining anything, then you will also only be proving my point.

In short, you have zero reason to accuse me of any of the things you have accused me of, and I have every reason to accuse you of them.

Good to know we still have some jesters to laugh at around here… :smiley:

You use a lot of words for saying less than nothing.
Get on the fucking topic. This is my thread and I don’t want your wretched apologies here.

I disagree with Jordan Peterson about a few things.

First of all, he bitches about theories using big words. He started doing that immediately after I sent him some stuff on Value Ontology 2 years back.
I am pretty much convinced that he incorporated the logic anyway and that this turned his temperament a bit more flammable.

Zizek has written a few good books, most notably the one about Christianity and Lacan, which I won’t reveal the title of so as to make it easy for scum to find the gems. Do the work.

The difference between Zizek and Peterson is that Peterson is not a metaphysician and Zizek isn’t a citizen of any real world.
Zizek is brilliant in his analysis of the history of psychoanalysis. He is a psychoanalyst-analyst. JP is the opposite, he is a pragmatic scientist in the guise of small town teacher that doesn’t believe in all that Freudian bullshit.

Zizek, like most orphans of Communism, has his genius based on Russian existentialism but tries to apply it to the fables of Hollywood. It doesn’t work. Yet, being prolific, he makes peripheral points all the time and many of these points are worth taking note of.

JP errs quite often but always on the side of caution. This means his errors aren’t interfering with his successes. They are just standalone statements too conservative to apply to this insane world.

Dude it was DIRECT fucking response to what your lackey said, sticking solely to his terms, nothing more.

If you want to trump up accusations, drop your stupid tribalism and direct them to the instigator - at least pretend to be objective.

Aside from falling straight into my demolition of him yourself: simply stating that I am saying less than nothing with zero explanation - the fact that you think my actual explanations of my views is “less than nothing” is really quite telling. You’ve really gone downhill, mate. Disrespect.

And this post thus far is also nothing more than a direct response to what YOU have just said to me - if you don’t want me to respond to some off topic baiting, don’t continue it by directing your own off-topic things to me. Stick to leading by example like you did in your next post. We done now? It’s up to you and your partner from here - he has nothing on me anyway so we ought not to expect more of his actual “less than nothing” (as actually explained by me rather than merely stated like by both of you).

Now, “on the fucking topic”, at least by reference to JP, I am honestly not surprised in the least that I’ve not heard him even hint at VO thus far - and claiming he incorporated into his temperament is straight-up Narcissism. I agree with some of what you say about Zizek, and like the term psychoanalyst-analyst. But quite clearly his application to Hollywood fables has worked given his fame exceeding that of Peterson - though I am not sure if JP won’t overtake him seeing as he is riding right on the crest of a wave of fashionable thought whether intentionally or not. Also, JP does the exact same thing to Disney fables and perhaps to as wide a range of film as on which Zizek comments - I don’t remember listening to him extending his commentary to Hollywood just yet but I would be extremely surprised if we wasn’t interested and opinionated on it though - seeing as it would be highly applicable to his line of work. However, perhaps your beef was not in the application to Hollywood, but in the way Zizek does it where JP’s application might be a bit more up your street - assuming his take would be of any interest to you at all.

Because I happen to be right, and you happen to be wrong. On this issue anyway.

What lies? Please identify them. Unsourced statistics are… boring. At least cite your sources or make your point coherently.

I ask you to make a point because… you don’t actually make one. You make assertions, with nothing to back them up.

Fixed Cross wrote:

A good example of this is when asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: “I think the proper response to that is No, but I’m afraid He might exist”.

Something happens to a person when they have an overload of intellectualism and Peterson is ‘guilty’ (for want of a better word) of this. What he dismisses is and what Jung wrote that to understand the world only by the intellect limits our perception of it, it cannot be denied that we apprehend it just as much by feeling. "Therefore the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy,” something I could not see Peterson agreeing with, although my understanding of the man is limited to date. I find the man sort of “stressful”, similar to Camille Paglia and to my surprise there is a vid with both Peterson and her in discussion. I challenge anyone to watch it to the end, all 1 hour 43 minutes. She is the perfect example of the liberated woman who falls into the trap where she loses the vital link with her feminine identity, consequently finding herself in a double bind situation. I found nothing new or unique in either of them, in fact I suspect there is more wisdom in the man on the street, than either of them.

Modern Times: Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson
youtu.be/v-hIVnmUdXM

I have seen that video, a couple of times. I think it’s great and I saw nothing wrong in what Paglia said, where do you think she is mistaken? What “double bind” is she stuck in?

He states. Well, I’ll simply state that I happen to be right and you happen to be wrong, and I’ll be just as justified as you in simply stating such a thing. Still not quite got the hang of backing up statements with justification have you? - as evidenced by the fact that you don’t recognise them when I use them:

Let me formalise a lesson for you. An example of an explanation is what I say about JP’s understanding of Marxism:

  1. As I linked, he thinks Marxists are characterised by wanting to have a go at being in Stalin’s position, thinking they’d do the job better than Stalin.
  2. Both Socialism and Communism are defined by not having Totalitarian rulers like Stalin, with the State:
    (a) in Socialism ruled collectively by the working class, not by an elite leader or group of elite leaders, or
    (b) in Communism, as stated by Lenin, with the State “withered away”, with rule again collective but devolved to individual Communes that interact with one another in a decentralised way.
  3. “1” and “2” are incompatible by definition, therefore a Marxist is not characterised by wanting to have a go at being in Stalin’s position as JP states - meaning either
    (a) JP has got his definition of Marxism wrong or
    (b) he is mistakenly classing people as Marxists when they want to have a go at being in Stalin’s position.

Hopefully now you better see the structure of a logical explanation such as I have been using so far, and to which I refer when I say I am using explanations in contrast to your approach.

Also note the correct definition of Socialism that I used as opposed to how the American layman misuses it to describe their own indirectly democratically elected political elites assigned to moderate their Capitalism. The correct term for this is “Social Democracy”. Socialism is without Capitalism altogether by definition, because nobody is permitted to use money as capital: thereby making everybody working class as defined by their use of money not as capital but just for consumption. They are all thus able to be grouped together under this one term, however they retain all their individual differences in all other ways with all their inequalities in comparison to one another, and any inequality in reward is still present if such is the wish of the Commune, which they decide themselves, it’s not decided by any central State or State-like body. And yes, you can move to another commune or start your own if your current one isn’t to your liking.

The most depressingly funny thing is that once “anti-leftists” hear the actual definition of these terms, they are usually faced with the horrifying realisation that they actually fit with their own economic ideals! On the off-chance that you are one of these, welcome to the actual left.

Haha! This is gold, he can’t even read :laughing:

So… no sources then?

Urgh :icon-rolleyes:

Yes, primarily “The State and Revolution” by Lenin, Chapter 1, section 4, pg 19 in my book starts by looking into Engels’ words about the withering away of the state during the transition from Socialism to Communism.

Also the derivation of the word “commune” is from the suffix “co-” and “munis” which mean “together” and “working”. Not one guy ruling everyone…

Logic 101 can tell you all about contradiction.

And best of all, this thread is my source for you reading the word “line” as “lie”.

When have you ever quoted a source? If you ever didn’t, would it invalidate your argument? Where is your source on the definition of appeal to authority? :-"

So no actual… quotes, then? No ideas, no arguments?

Just, like, this one book on this one page like said it! Geez! Like, cmon like, dude do your homework!

T
O
P

K
3
K

I wish that you were not insane. I sincerely mean that.

I really do.