The (great/abject) Views of Professor Jordan Peterson

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.

The beginning of the section is an entire quote of Engels by Lenin, douche.

I bet you didn’t even check. Geez! Like, cmon like, dude do your homework!

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

I really do.

Yep, I just looked again, and no quote. Maybe you are delusional?

You do realize there is no quote in this, right?

Remind me to never underestimate how much you need babysitting, of course you don’t own a Leftist book, never mind this one. Have you even read one and bothered to find out the actual position of the left that you are so certain you are against? I’ll hold you to the same standards and assume that if you can’t quote one then it never happened 8-[

Also, it’s incredibly funny how you’re asking me for direct quotes when your current signature is “Reality is just a racist lie, invented by male troglodytes.” --Feminism
Not a person, not a source, and nobody ever even said that, right? No wonder you are so suspicious of others just making up shit they took out their own asses - it’s because you habitually do it yourself! Classic projection.

The entire section I mentioned is packed full of commentary about the withering away of the State as Socialism transitions into Communism, no need for a single quote, but if it will shut you up and help you to realise that your whole cause against the left is utterly unfounded (haha, yeah right, as if that would even cross your mind even if you were shown proof)…

The section literally starts:
“Engels’ words regarding the “withering away” of the state are so widely known, they are so often quoted, and so clearly reveal the essence of the customary counterfeiting of Marxism into opportunism that we must deal with them in detail.”
Marxism involves the withering away of the state in Engel’s own words as quoted by Lenin - how does this reconcile with state-authoritarian oppression by a Totalitarian leader like Stalin - as told to you by opportunists. Yes, let’s delve into this one in detail…

How about this gem in the same section:
“The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’, it withers away.”
There is no government of people, no egalitarian oppression. Not people, but THINGS and their production are planned, and again not by any state which withers away. He is referencing Anarchism when he contrasts Communism to the State being ‘abolished’.

He describes the State thus:
“as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state.”

Need I go on? There is nothing more to repress once the class domination of Capitalism (the anarchy of production existing up to now/the struggle for individual existence) is eliminated, as opposed to being present and merely moderated as under Social Democracy e.g. in the contemporary USA and much of the more developed countries of the West.
THERE IS NOTHING NECESSITATING A STATE UNDER COMMUNISM.

Now Jordan Peterson:
And then when the Marxists say “well that wasn’t real Marxism”, what it really means, and I’ve thought about this for a long time - it’s the most arrogant possible statement anyone could ever make. It means “If I would have been in Stalin’s position I would have ushered in the damn Utopia instead of the genocidal massacres because I understand the doctrine of Marxism and everything about me is good”. It’s like “well think again, Sunshine”.

Excellent punchline, ignorant content: youtube.com/watch?v=rSzpc2vh8Ow 4:44-5:09

Do you even remember who told you that Stalinism was Communism? Sources? Quotes? I would be completely unsurprised if you weren’t aware of the particular point when you were indoctrinated because it happens over a long period of time and is undetectable by fools, even until the point where they believe it blindly, unrelentingly and will even fight for it without even the slightest doubt and urge to fact check. Wake up.

UrGod wrote:

I gave her as an example only of how she gives her presentation similar to Peterson, I have no interest in debating her wisdom or lack of and it would deviate from the OP’s original topic.

To answer briefly your question of her double bind, there is only one way, I think, and that is to put it colloquially, she is a ball buster, mimicking what seems like a male attitude, insisting with that annoying unstoppable flow of talk her unyielding convictions and to me she appears to be someone who pursues and values only the intellect. Coupled with intelligence, women do have a specific biological identity which is nurturing and receptiveness, but she seems more concerned with liberating women from the feminine and down playing their intuitiveness. Simone de Beauvoir is also a member of this sisterhood. I think women in general should be warned against sacrificing their personal instincts and feeling for ‘ideals’, that doesn’t mean we have to surrender any modicum of intelligence given to us.

:-k there are women on this Forum who may or may not disagree with this, but it probably should be located in another topic not this one. wouldn’t want to incite the wrath of the OP.

You never knew a good, truly feminine woman who is a ball buster?

Man, that sucks for you. Your loss.

youtu.be/qzt6Q-LHbFg

Jordan Peterson in Australia, that was news for many, had no idea he was here.

A rather disjointed interview with Bettina Arndt an Australian sex therapist, journalist and clinical psychologist.

UrGod wrote:

Let me tell you, there’s not one man out there who enjoys having his balls busted by a woman.

Ball busting women only bust the balls of men who deserve it. And rightly so.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfskeOIDQMU[/youtube]

Modern day Morrison.

This guy has a truly beautiful soul.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4oQfexX0j0[/youtube]

Here he is speaking publically about liberals (from 20:30) and how they are creative, open to experience, they lead the vanguard and are the ones who change/transform the world, they drive the economy forward, are absolutely necessary, you need them at the top and getting conservatives (who aren’t/don’t do these things) to understand is like discussing colour with someone who is colourblind - all his words.

Truly a beautiful soul indeed.

I think his understanding of what creativity is is quite crude. He repeats the Romantic idea that creativity is something mysterious and irrational, which I think is non-sense. Creativity is simply the ability to create things that are original, which means things that are different from everything that preceded them. The act of creating things that are original, you will note, is a task like every other; it is in no way lacking in form. It’s a labor is what I want to say. There is nothing that is inherent to creativity that stops employers from creating creative job positions and filling them with creative people. The notion that creative people can’t follow orders is dumb. If people can’t follow orders it’s not because what they want to do is formless, it’s because what they want to do is different from what they are asked to do. The problem is that noone is offering them the kind of job they would like to do which simply means that no employer thinks they need their contribution. It does not mean that employers are lacking in creativity, it means they don’t need it, that they don’t think they would benefit from it. Creativity isn’t inherently good. Past a certain point, innovation makes no sense and you’re better off repeating with pinpoint precision what has been done in the past.