IP suggestion: Jordan Peterson

More
18 Aug 2019 17:45 #341421 by rugadd
How would you define strength?

rugadd

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Aug 2019 21:39 #341428 by Manu
Replied by Manu on topic IP suggestion: Jordan Peterson

steamboat28 wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: If you view Jordan Peterson as a bigot. You probably don't understand his point of view, or the word bigot..


Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Nope. Pretty sure I understand the word.


At what point do we draw the line as to what kind of intolerances are actually acceptable? For example, someone might make a case that being intolerant of white supremacists is a form of bigotry. Yet I find it perfectly acceptable to promote the "punch a nazi" banner, as I see it as a justified form of prejudice.

Of course, this is when dealing with groups. In an ideal situation, you should be able to have one-on-one interaction with a neo-nazi or white supremacist and actually talk about what is really at the core of his interests, hopes and fears, moving him into identifying with the group. In many cases there may be genuine bigotry, but in many others it just might be that the person feel disenfranchised and saw no other group that was fitting enough.

Peterson is consistently critical of both the extreme right and the extreme left, where he identifies "collectivist culture" as fueling division. He has time and time again identified as a liberal, and admits both the "right" and "left" are necessary, as they are both right (and wrong) some of the time. He advocates for actually conversation between different opinions, but states this becomes impossible when individuals are engaged in collectivist thinking (what we were discussing in the "tribalism" thread), as they are simply trying to "win" at all costs. It becomes impossible to actually have a dialogue when you have already made up your mind due to an identification with the group, in a dynamic where the person is in the "victim" group, and thus the other group must be the "victimizer".

He admits this happens both on the right and the left.

Now, I've seen you (and others as well) be fairy anti-capitalist and put up the "eat the rich" banner from time to time. To what degree you are actually serious about such a position, I have no idea, but wouldn't this anti-rich stance be a form of bigotry, as per your definition?

If he sees something as uninformed, then that's his opinion, not a fact. And this nonsense about "If people's feelings are offended by correction, that's not reasonable thinking," sets up an implication in which everyone who disagrees with him is inherently wrong, which is not only a logical fallacy but it's dangerous and cultish.


The only logical implication is that arguments should not tried to be won based on "how offended I am". There are a fair degree of people who value agreeableness and getting along without conflict, which is actually quite good and a reason why people would defend empathy as being so paramount. And perhaps you could argue that Peterson is a harsh (and maybe a bit of dick about it), but Peterson has not implied that because someone is offended, they are thus wrong. Instead, he recommends pushing through the discomfort of having to deal with the offense, to delve deeper and see exactly what bothers you about it, to be able to continue dialogue.

I keep seeing a lot of reacting to Peterson, based on misconstrued points of views from him. He may be wrong about some things (for example, the use of postmodern social marxism might be ironically fostering some tribalism rather than preventing it, and is easily picked up by the alt-right as an excuse to declare a non-existant leftist conspiracy against western values), but so far, I still see no bigotry.

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Step aggressively toward your fear. - Jocko Willink

TM: Bruno Moreira (Kyber) | Public Journal
The following user(s) said Thank You: Adder

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Aug 2019 21:47 #341430 by Manu
Replied by Manu on topic IP suggestion: Jordan Peterson

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: The West is HIGHLY propagandized.. but that's the only way to steer democratic societies. Manipulation of public opinion, "Pop culture"..


... and now you know why I detest democracy. :) It results in... this.


Detesting something is easy. What's your alternative to democracy?

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Step aggressively toward your fear. - Jocko Willink

TM: Bruno Moreira (Kyber) | Public Journal

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Aug 2019 21:51 #341431 by Phoenix Vidensia

Manu wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: The West is HIGHLY propagandized.. but that's the only way to steer democratic societies. Manipulation of public opinion, "Pop culture"..


... and now you know why I detest democracy. :) It results in... this.

Detesting something is easy. What's your alternative to democracy?


Empire.

... Meh ...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Aug 2019 01:06 #341433 by Rex
Replied by Rex on topic IP suggestion: Jordan Peterson

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

Manu wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: The West is HIGHLY propagandized.. but that's the only way to steer democratic societies. Manipulation of public opinion, "Pop culture"..


... and now you know why I detest democracy. :) It results in... this.

Detesting something is easy. What's your alternative to democracy?


Empire.


Lol ok

IP Team Lead
TM: Carlos Martinez
ὁ δὲ ἀμυχηδόν νεξέταστος βίος γίγνομαι βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Aug 2019 11:55 - 19 Aug 2019 11:56 #341448 by Brick

Manu wrote: At what point do we draw the line as to what kind of intolerances are actually acceptable? For example, someone might make a case that being intolerant of white supremacists is a form of bigotry. Yet I find it perfectly acceptable to promote the "punch a nazi" banner, as I see it as a justified form of prejudice.


This is what I was getting at when I was talking about Flat Earthers earlier, and also ties into what Uzima Moto was saying about JP combating what he sees as uninformed thinking.

If someone says 'The Earth is flat', and I respond with 'Well then you're an idiot because *insert abundance of historical evidence, going back thousands of years, which proves beyond any and all reasonable doubt that the Earth is not flat, here*' - does that then make me a bigot?

By some of the definitions presented, yes. But I personally think no, it does not, and to suggest that it does is in itself (ironically) somewhat bigoted lol.

Welcome Team, IP Team, and Apprentice to Maitre Chevalier Jedi Alexandre Orion

IP Journal / IP Journal 2 / AP Journal / Open Journal

'The only contest any of us should be engaged in is with ourselves, to be better than yesterday'

- Knight Senan
Last edit: 19 Aug 2019 11:56 by Brick.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Manu, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Aug 2019 16:18 #341458 by ZealotX

rugadd wrote: www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-...-rules-for-life.html


Like others I stayed out of this thread for a time. And probably like others I've probably posted a video or two from Jordan Peterson without considering his full body of work.

When Steamboat, who I do respect, introduced some concerns I immediately wanted to see if they were true. And typically, I'll try to dig something up before I respond because I don't really enjoy egg on my face or saying something that can easily be proven invalid.

And when there seems to be left vs right influence it can be more difficult to get a clear view IF the person being viewed is more moderate. Because then what happens is their views are used by the right AND left but when the left hears the right using those views it has a particular spin because the RIGHT has a particular spin (already spinning in that direction). And so there is a strong chance that what is interpreted by the left as being problematic is actually the right-wing spin that is using Jordan Peterson to make it's points and support its stances.

But you could say the same thing about Jesus, right? Jesus is used by both right and left. The left and right are so divided right now that we even question whether the other side has a heart. We become so left and right in our views that we become, as a society, cross-eyed.

Now what I'm not going to ever do is simply dismiss someone's argument. I care about what everyone thinks and would rather assume that there is an interesting way to look at it that perhaps I haven't seen yet and so let me investigate WHY that is and HOW to see it from that perspective. Let's not simply assume that it isn't valid just because we don't YET see it that way.

However, does that mean I'm going to listen to the Daily Stormer? Hell no. I don't care if there is an article there that says Jediism is the best and Zealot X is a brilliant and handsome man, second only to Idris Elba. Why? Because if they have a high enough opinion about racism and white supremacy then their opinion about me, positive or negative, has no value. They could be right. But their opinion.... understand? The credibility of their thought process... has no credibility. It's not the same as "I don't like you and therefore you're not credible". No, it's not that. It's not "you offended me or you threw what I call a tantrum and therefore you're not credible". No, it's not that. It's not that I don't like racism because it affects me. I don't like racism because its a terrible and terribly ignorant idea that is the product of bad and negative thinking. So intellectually, if you support that, then yes you lose intellectual credibility with me because its like you're trying to talk about climate change while arguing that the Earth is flat. No, no, no. Disabuse yourself of that ignorance, FIRST. And then maybe I can start taking you seriously again in the realm of intellectual thought and observation.

But with the many pages of this thread there really hasn't been proof one way or the other. There were assertions about Jordan Peterson but instead of substantiating them the argument became about the assertions, not proving them wrong. Kind of like... "how dare you call the kettle black" okay, but what color is it though? Ironically, I think Jordan Peterson would address each issue and offer his own words as to why he was mischaracterized, not be like "omg you said I was a bigot. Off with yer head!" That... to me is dangerous because no one should be above scrutiny just because they said some things you like or agree with.

(cont'd)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Aug 2019 16:18 #341459 by ZealotX
My impression so far, of Jordan Peterson, CAN BE WRONG. It might be. So if I'm going to debate with anyone about Jordan Peterson I think this is something we all deserve to know. And guess what? EVERYONE is in that same boat. You can all be wrong. I'm not saying you are. I'm saying we should embrace that possibility as a part of fighting against bias and arrogance.

So, "it seems to me" that Jordan Peterson is misunderstood. For example... on transgender pronouns


He says he'll use whatever the person presents themselves to the world to be so if they say "I identify as a man" he'll call them "he". However, and I agree with him so crucify me too if you must, if a person wants to invent their own word or force you to use some new vocabulary term that doesn't exist in the dictionary, I believe its up to the individual how much to accommodate that person before it's actually an infringement upon free speech. If you want people to call you rainbow unicorn starfish... that's you. And if you want to call yourself that more power to you. If you want me to call you that, that is a REQUEST, not something I NEED to do or should be forced to do. Now if transgender people are not okay with that maybe they might spin what he's saying to be anti-trans but its not anti-trans. It's simply a disagreement with individuals wanting individual special treatment based on their own psychology and chosen identity. And that's where I'll push back on them because there are a lot of things we don't get to choose. That's life. No one's oppressing you by not agreeing with what you want to call yourself.

On Gender equality...


He talks about differences between men and women in the workforce. Again... same thing. Feminists could argue that he's promoting some anti-feminist agenda. But that's only if the feminist agenda is to live the exact same lives as men and men also have sex with women and a lot of women like that feeling of strength and domination (to varying degrees). So does that mean women should also have sex with women and be strong and dominant? Who then becomes submissive? Of course surely this doesn't have to be a gender biased thing. But perhaps a lot of the gender conflict and confusion is a result of a stray interpretation of feminism that makes women want to be men. And that's different from wanting equality with me. You can be equal and still have doors opened for you by a gentlemen without getting upset because you can open your own doors and don't need their help.

There is nothing wrong with the natural strength of a man being used to serve his female counterpart and her natural strength serving her male counterpart. But their strengths don't need to be the same. Because if she's trying to prove (someone's going to misinterpret this) that she doesn't have to be the cook in the family, then either there is a conflict or there is compromise. They can both cook. I cook. I think most chefs are men. But... if we're talking about roles best suited to raise kids... men can't breast feed so it makes more sense that if the baby needs one of them at home that it should be the one who's lactating. I think that's just common sense but I think Jordan's whole "thing" is challenging the zeitgeist with common sense. I've personally seen negative effects of a woman working hard trying to be a single mom and have a career. It's incredibly difficult to both things well. And if the man already has a job, sure once the baby is old enough then they can take turns, but it would obviously be more efficient for him to stay in his job or career and keep getting raises and focus more on that while she can focus on raising the kids. Now once they're all in school... but then women who stayed home are then at a disadvantage in the job market compared to all the men who didn't. So there are just some issues of practicality. I myself, had a stay at home wife for awhile and financially it didn't work. The economy is now adjusted to 2 wage earners in the home so it's actually harder for families trying to have one parent who takes care of the home and kids full time. Now UBI would combat this but there's no reason not talk about this issue or not to voice that feminism has some ill and unintended effects that have hurt women and families. That doesn't make you anti-feminist.

Tlaib wants to boycott Bill Maher for what he said about the protest she's involved with. No, people need to be able to have a different opinion, and express it, without retaliation. If you want to retaliate, produce a better argument.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Manu, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Aug 2019 16:22 #341460 by ZealotX
As far as being included in the IP...

authors in the IP are people who you aren't always going to agree with. If Peterson is actually, against people, and not ideas, then that's different. I don't yet find this to be the case. I could be wrong.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Aug 2019 17:31 #341463 by Carlos.Martinez3
Just a note - any of his subjects we might think about. Not saying yes or no but since we are in the JP in the IP - rather than if the person is worthy - which subject of his would you or any one say would be worthy of an IP idea. This isn’t to say again a yes or no to things just discussion. Rather than say the dudes a dud or stud - how about what’s taught ? What is it about him that makes his ideas so ... well worth 14 pages.

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.