Jordan Peterson or something whatever thread.

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Jordan Peterson was on the Joe Rogan podcast. He apparently told an amazing story about a speech or debate/discussion he had with an American feminist writer and animal rights advocate named Carol J. Adams who has penned such exceptional books including The Pornography of Meat and The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory among other undoubtedly laudable works.

 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
Jordan Peterson was on the Joe Rogan podcast. He apparently told an amazing story about a speech or debate/discussion he had with an American feminist writer and animal rights advocate named Carol J. Adams who has penned such exceptional books including The Pornography of Meat and The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory among other undoubtedly laudable works.

man the media spin I have seen over this interview is insane.

Like, I don't expect anything better from the media, but Newsweek has a "5 craziest takes from JBP's interview," and it's just insane.

They claim him and Joe are policing blackness, saying a black man isn't black. They were actually talking about the meaning of words and how black people are actually a shade of brown, just like how they are levels of tan and not literally white.

They claim he says climate doesn't exist, but he was criticizing climate science because climate means "everything," and the climate scientists are using narrow datasets that excludes too much stuff.

They just make this list of "crazy" stuff he says, but as usual that's only if you just cut out a small clip and take it out of context.

JBP could work on being more direct and not saying things in such long and roundabout ways, and make this harder on the media. But the level of dishonesty is disgusting.
 
Last edited:

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
LOLOLOLOL

Some disgraced former politician named Gerald Butts (snigger) has stated he's going to bring legal action against Jordan Peterson for calling him "corrupt" in a Tweet in reference to Mr. Butts (snigger) characterization of the Trucker protest and says its defamation of his character.

Here's Jordan Peterson's "defamatory" tweet:

Jordan Peterson said:
"You are a stunningly corrupt and incendiary fool @gmbutts and the story will be the cowardice of your leader @JustinTrudeau and the lies of your damnable lying calumnous cronies."

Mr. Butts (snigger) stated he would give Jordan Peterson only a LIMITED time to apologize and retract his statement about saying he is "corrupt" which Professor Peterson declined.

So this is the result... DUN DUN DUNNNNNN!




Mr. Butts (snigger) resigned in disgrace as a top Trudeau aide a while ago over various allegations of corruption, so this case if it's brought to court should be fun to see and what could be discovered.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member

I especially like this part of the second article:

Whether or not Western liberalism should return to its more classical roots is a topic for another day. In any case, such a pivot cannot be the answer to the current crisis in Ukraine if only because of how long it would take to happen. But Peterson has some short-term proposals, too:
Perhaps the declaration of Ukraine as a neutral state for a minimum period of twenty years.
Perhaps a new election in Ukraine subject to ratification by joint Russian-Western observers.
Perhaps a pledge on the part of the West to not offer to Ukraine any membership in NATO or the EU that is either not simultaneously offered to Russia or moving forward on terms acceptable to Russia.
Peterson concedes that his suggestions might be wrong and even “dreadfully naïve,” which is probably the most accurate thing he says in this entire piece. Consider their substance: His first proposal would directly reward Russia for its naked aggression.

The second is an arrangement Russia would only accept if it were facing imminent, ignominious defeat and desperately needed a deal to save face. (Any election in Ukraine today would hand a resounding victory to pro-NATO, anti-Russia candidates even in those parts of the country where pro-Russia sentiment and skepticism toward NATO were widespread before the war.)

As for the third proposal, it too amounts to a reward for Russia’s invasion, granting the country a veto on Ukrainian membership not only in NATO but in the European Union. What’s more, by Peterson’s logic, an offer of NATO or EU membership to Russia should be seen as a menace to the country, not a friendly overture: Didn’t he just tell us that Russia is going to war in Ukraine partly to keep the scourge of Western liberal decadence from its door?

The reality is that, for all the West’s culture-war problems, the defense of Ukraine is both the most genuinely liberal cause (in the classic sense of the word) and the most genuinely moral cause that exists in our public and political space right now. And, be it reflexive contrarianism, pandering to his fan base, or genuine conviction, Peterson now finds himself on the wrong side of that cause—which arguably reduces all his talk of defending of Western civilization and upholding strict moral standards of good and evil to, yes, “shallow posturing.” The worrying question, given his large fan base and his status as a conservative celebrity, is how many people will follow him there.

Why exactly should Russia be offered EU membership if it views the EU as a web of decadence, as Peterson allegedly claims? Also, offering EU membership to an aggressor state would require it to clean up its house and engage in internal regime change first. Else, this would be like offering Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia EU membership back in 1999!
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
He's had some shit takes before, and this is just another one.

He's just upset that the West destroyed the gender binary so that it's now bois and grrrls in addition to just boys and girls lol! :D But I really still don't see why or how exactly this warrants Ukraine being invaded by Russia! Russia itself could use more bois and grrrls, after all!
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
This is fairly obviously a hit piece. Either link his complete statement, or don't presume to understand what he's actually said from someone who's blatantly trying to smear him.

Even as an attempted smear job, it isn't very effective, after glancing through things.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
This is fairly obviously a hit piece. Either link his complete statement, or don't presume to understand what he's actually said from someone who's blatantly trying to smear him.

Even as an attempted smear job, it isn't very effective, after glancing through things.

Can you please elaborate on how exactly this is a piece hit on him? As in, how exactly were his words misinterpreted here?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
It tells us something that the stuff peterson says which would be considered basic common sense 70 years ago is treated like great wisdom. Truly we live in the most retarded of ages.

The West's decadence makes Russia's invasion of Ukraine logical?
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Can you please elaborate on how exactly this is a piece hit on him? As in, how exactly were his words misinterpreted here?

To quote the tagline:

"The Canadian pop-psychologist’s descent into tired and predictable right-wing rhetoric continues apace. "


To quote the article:

"Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and “anti-woke” crusader who has stirred controversy and garnered praise, opprobrium, and ridicule for his pronouncements on postmodernism, “neo-Marxism,” gender, morality, and the rules of successful living, has donned a new pundit hat to opine on Russia, Ukraine, the war, and the West. The maverick professor lays out his thoughts on the subject in a 50-minute video that garnered over 1.4 million views in the week since it was posted; the transcript can be found on the Daily Wire, where Peterson is now a regular contributor. Unfortunately, the main conclusion one can derive from the video is that creeping pro-Kremlin sentiment is a real problem in certain social conservative quarters—and it’s an ugly thing."


The first giveaway is that it calls him a 'pop' psychologist. This is supposed to denigrate him as less of a psychologist, and more of someone with a piece of paper simply parroting popular views. The man has decades of work as a professor, clinician, and counselor, which he has talked about at length in his publicly posted lectures.


The second giveaway is 'descent into tired and predictable right-wing rhetoric.'

This is an attempt to dismiss what he has to say before you even get to what he has to say. Given that what he has to say is an incisive critique of the failings of the modern left, and they use 'right-wing' as a negative term, that also tells you exactly where they're coming from.

The third giveaway is that they have "anti-woke" and "neo-Marxism" in quotation marks, indicating that you're not supposed to take such things seriously, that they're farcical and nonsensical.

Finally, just for this little bit anyways, they give you the conclusion, that the right has a rela problem with 'creeping pro-kremlin sentiment,' before actually getting into what he said, demonstrates that they're here to tell you what to think, not here to actually discuss something intelligently.

I'm going to start watching the video now. I have some other things to do this evening, so I won't get back soon, but I'll post again after that.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
So, I went through it, then went through some more of the smear article.

First off, Peterson presents 4 different 'schools of thought' on why Russia invaded.

1. Imperial Ambition/Putin's ego.
2. The 'Security concerns' argument that Russia sees NATO as expansionistically threatening Russia.
3. Significant oil deposits were discovered in eastern Ukraine about a decade ago, and Russia created the Luhansk/Donbass puppet regimes then invaded to 'liberate' them in order to keep its own chokehold on oil/natural gas supplies to Europe.
4. His own additional hypothesis, which is that Russia is seeing the madness of post-modernism, cultural marxism, and the like running rife in the West, and the invasion of Ukraine is in part a violent response to seeing this madness. Most of the video focuses on this. He particularly focuses on the moral responsibility to defeat the ideological movement of CRT/post-modernism, on the part of those of us who live in the West.

Notably, he does not claim any of these are exclusive motivations. He doesn't try to say one is right and the others are wrong, but most likely they've all contributed together.

And most of all he is extremely aware of the threat of escalation to nuclear conflict, and believes that this is something that we should go to great lengths to avert.


Now, looking further at the article, it drops this line:

"The notion that the West’s moral standing vis-à-vis Russia in 2022 is undercut by some uniquely terrible moral “degeneracy” and irrationality does not pass the laugh test."

And then it moves on to quote David French. I may be conflating him with someone else in my mind, but IIRC, he's one of those 'experts' who is famous for being wrong on basically everything?

Either way, what is extremely egregious in the article, is that at no point does it address Peterson's driving concern about the escalation to nuclear war. Nor does it treat the idea that the West is in serious moral decay as something to be seriously addressed, much the consequences of that decay as something to be explored.

It is very clear that this article is written by someone who is either willfully misunderstanding Peterson, or is so blinded by their own ideological bias that they lack the capability to understand Peterson without first letting go of that bias. It's a smear job, a hit piece, something designed to get others not to take what Peterson is saying seriously.

As a final note, it carries a theme acting like Peterson is in some way 'siding with' Putin, or treating him as the 'good guy' in the conflict, when Peterson most certainly does not. He states outright that what Putin does is wrong, and the article even mentions this, but still(!) acts like Peterson laying out the west's failings somehow makes him pro-Russian.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Jordan Peterson generally has well constructed statements and cogent arguments. I've rarely seen anyone attack his positions on the basis of logic. As most things from the Left, they attach him with pure emotion.
To be fair, it take a great deal of effort to not react emotionally to someone disagreeing with you on something you care very deeply about. We are creatures of emotion, after all; not logic. The Regressive Left just don't bother even trying, by and large; as they've been brainwashed into believing that logic is heretical trickery.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
To be fair, it take a great deal of effort to not react emotionally to someone disagreeing with you on something you care very deeply about. We are creatures of emotion, after all; not logic. The Regressive Left just don't bother even trying, by and large; as they've been brainwashed into believing that logic is heretical trickery.

And in the long run this will cost them everything.

Going on pure emotion is a good short term tactic it lets you get outraged mobs to attack in mass, the problem is you cant control it, and every time you unleash the witch hunts you end up pissing people off. Sooner or later it hits critical mass and then your fucked.

and now you have to deal with every one you wrong who is rightfully looking for payback.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top