Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
Peterson generally doesn't work towards a common definition though, he mostly just deconstructs the definitions other people are using without offering a better alternative.
What do you mean "alternative?" Alternative to what? Someone asks a question, you ask for clarification, you explain why you need it, and you explore the problem... Why would someone need to randomly swap in their own interpretation to further impede the exploration? "I want to know what you mean by X, so how about you explain what you mean by X and while you do I'm going to assume you mean Y." I really don't understand your issue here.
Your problem, as it stands right now, is that you think he doesn't answer the question on your terms. That seems to really bother you, and it seems to bother you that he tries to dive deeper into it.
I mean even right here, he goes into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0

So if you want, go and criticize his answer here, but he does provide one. And if you're opposed to his definition based on the setup, in my opinion you have a low-resolution concept of God and most likely everything else since your only interest appears to be playing conversation referee.

This could be forgivable if his purpose was to highlight the error in another person's thinking, but the sad reality is that his ruminations usually obfuscate far more often than they elucidate.
It's ironic you are using such pretentious language cause you're doing exactly what you accuse him of doing.

Articulating the complexities of something and overwhelming the listener with semantics as a substitute for genuine insights are not mutually exclusive. Language is a complex thing; so complex that if you had to define every word before uttering it, you would never be able to finish your sentence. Still, would this really be a worthwhile use of language?
I continue to be a loss at what you are actually trying to say here. "Exploring complexity and making something complex in the interest of avoiding it aren't the same thing." Thanks professor, now can you explain why he did the latter instead of the former? We all know what it's like when someone is pretentiously avoiding a thing with flowery language. Deepak Chopra comes to mind, you also come to mind right now, but just go ahead and say where he is fucking up in the problem.

See you started by saying he is avoiding the issue completely, then I argued that he is delving deeper into it, now you're saying yeah he does delve deeper but he is using words you don't like. Okay, so where is he going wrong? Cause by the way, it's not his language or terminology. Both are fine, it's pretty plain spoken, it's pretty straight forward.

Your problem seems to be he doesn't answer the question on your terms, but like I said earlier in this thread it would be like me asking you if you believe in "truth." You would be an absolute idiot if you just immediately treated it like a binary true or false question.

You say things like "he generally doesn't work towards a common definition." Generally how? Are you implying on the odd time he DOES answer the question and they find a common definition, but not most of the time? See words matter.
 

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
Okay, so where is he going wrong?
When he says "I act as if god exists" being a good enough answer to "do you believe in god?"

He has said in that atheist discussion that atheists aren't atheist and actually believe in something, because they act as if they believe in something.

So although he doesn't like to be boxed in, as he says in your link, he has no qualms about boxing others in.

But more importantly, he has no problem defining "what you act like" as belief. So his resistance to say whether he believes in god probably has a different reason, or he would have had similar protests in that atheist discussion case (I can look up the link if you need it).

And I think he answers it honestly in the first part: "I don't like that question." And "I don't like to be boxed in", I believe those both. But not the motive he describes after for the aforementioned reasons.

What else could explain the discreprancy between his self-description and his description of the atheists?
 

Hellbound Hellhound

kiwifarms.net
What do you mean "alternative?" Alternative to what? Someone asks a question, you ask for clarification, you explain why you need it, and you explore the problem... Why would someone need to randomly swap in their own interpretation to further impede the exploration? "I want to know what you mean by X, so how about you explain what you mean by X and while you do I'm going to assume you mean Y." I really don't understand your issue here.
Your problem, as it stands right now, is that you think he doesn't answer the question on your terms. That seems to really bother you, and it seems to bother you that he tries to dive deeper into it.
You are reading your own interpretation into what I wrote. I don't care if Peterson answers questions on my terms, or anyone else's terms for that matter, I simply expect that he answer them in clear terms.

My repeated criticism of Peterson is that he is often unclear about what his position is, and if he is going to state that other people are using imprecise or flawed definitions for the concepts they're discussing, then the least I expect of him is to elaborate upon what he thinks would be a more appropriate definition. The fact is, he never does.

I mean even right here, he goes into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0

So if you want, go and criticize his answer here, but he does provide one. And if you're opposed to his definition based on the setup, in my opinion you have a low-resolution concept of God and most likely everything else since your only interest appears to be playing conversation referee.
I have never mentioned God in this thread, nor have I revealed what my own personal beliefs are. Once again, you are reading your own interpretation into what I have wrote. I am glad you cited that video though, because I was about to cite it myself as an example of what I have been talking about.

Specifically, I would like to focus on what Peterson has to say about Hell:
"People who believe in Hell are terrified of Hell, about/for themselves, and in my estimation they should be, because I also believe in Hell, although what that means, again is, you know? subject to interpretation. Lots of people live in Hell, and lots of people create it."
For the sake of context, the above quote was made immediately after Peterson dismissed the position that Hell is merely "a convenient place to put your enemies" as an "absurdly cynical" position. Does he explain why such a position is absurdly cynical? Does he explain why said position is wrong? I'll let you come to your own conclusions, but for me it's a 'no' on both counts.

I also remain largely perplexed by what Peterson means when he speaks of Hell in his otherwise baffling non sequitur of a statement. Does he conceive of Hell as a metaphor for self-inflicted personal strife, or does he conceive of it in the traditional sense of the afterlife? I would argue that his position is unclear, and his statement that it is "subject to interpretation" can easily be read as an attempt to avoid having to pin oneself to a definite position.

It's ironic you are using such pretentious language cause you're doing exactly what you accuse him of doing.
What is ironic or pretentious about anything I have said? Where have I attacked Peterson specifically for the undoing of being pretentious?
 

Judge Dredd

10 Gaschamber 20 GOTO 10
kiwifarms.net
If this thread wasn't already tagged Manosphere it would be diseased/infected no doubt.

This is a thread?
So what, he's super tedious and wide-ranging in the points he makes?
It's all absolutely true, even the contentious stuff is true in his qualification of the accuracy of perceived research.
It's only true because he's so tedious and cautious.

The only dubious claim he's made is about the success of his purely carnivorous diet and I forgive him that because it's for his daughter.
Even then, he makes an interesting point about dietary science considering how much diet bullshit is out there and how much we fully understand about what food does to us.
I agree with what other kiwis said earlier on that the focus of the thread should be his detractors and fanboys. It's like Trump Derangement Syndrome but for a guy who's crime is that he talks about fairy tales and tells people to clean their room.

I liked listening to his stories he's a pretty good (if verbose) storyteller - like every pysch teacher is.

But then someone asked him if he believed in God and he - with a straight face completely devoid of irony - said something like "what do you mean by "believe", what do you mean by "God" blah blah blah don't assume my gender philosophy, also don't ask me to explain it."

Just say "yes", "no" or "not sure" you fraud.
He's answered that before, and this goes to various similar discussions in this thread.

People try to box him in and pin labels on him for ease of dismissal. He doesn't let them do that easily and it drives them crazy.

What they want is something like this. "Do you believe it god?" "Yes." "So you hate gay people and believe in an invisible sky man that heals the sick if you prey enough."
What they get is something like this. "Do you believe in god?" "That depends on what you mean by god, and what you mean by believe." "...Fuck you lobster nazi!" Then the clip appears in a dozen YouTube 'pwning the libs' compilations.
 

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
I agree with what other kiwis said earlier on that the focus of the thread should be his detractors and fanboys.
I've looked into it, but it simply isn't as funny or interesting.

father.PNG

thirsty.PNG

shower.PNG



I've always thought and intended the thread to go into "internet famous", to leave room for some disagreement as you might see in the ethan ralph or jim thread.

----
----
----


As to the idea that either poking fun or having serious discussion about him is comparable to Trump derangement syndrome is laughable. Everybody wants to claim that these days (didn't Sargon talk about Sargon derangement syndrome?). But there haven't been examples of that since the cathy newman interview, when people readjusted their view of him.

You seem to ignore the earlier point: Peterson had no problem calling atheists believers, but when it comes to himself, he refuses to word it like that. Why the discreprancy?

Edit: I'm curious about answers to the above question and would read them, but I've decided to go in exile in regards to this topic for a while, lest I become like Gorka and start to catalogue Jordan Peterson's feet and weight throughout the years.
 
Last edited:

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
People might find it interesting that Peterson shared this new documentary himself, despite it probably being a bad idea for him to do so:

1548659922071.jpg


 
  • Late
Reactions: BigRuler

Buggins

kiwifarms.net
These people are so old-fashioned. Don't they know we solve things with MMA matches nowadays?

View attachment 651130
Peterson clearly isn't in shape to wrestle even a 5-year-old, we're speaking of a man who fell gravely ill for a month after having one sip of apple cider.

At least that's what Peterson claims to have occured. Though I'm pretty sure he's a pathological liar and made that up for some asinine reason.
 

Puppet Pal Clem

kiwifarms.net
If we had more fights between philosophers the world would be a better place.
Peterson and Fry teamed up in that Munk debate which was just a shallow facade to attack Peterson and call him racist and it did fuckall to actually convince anybody that political correctness or identity politics is exceptional.

 

Apoth42

Hehe xd
kiwifarms.net
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-jordan-peterson-meeting-appointment-1.4992909

Ontario Premier Doug Ford held a one-on-one meeting with Jordan Peterson a week after the controversial university professor publicly urged Ford to abolish the province's human rights commission, CBC News has learned.

The meeting was revealed in Ford's appointment calendar for October and November, obtained through a freedom of information request. CBC News made the request because Ford is not providing the media with his daily public itinerary, breaking from the practice of previous premiers.

Ford tweeted about several of his other private meetings around that date: with Dianne Martin, CEO of the Registered Practical Nurses Association, with Susan Le Jeune the British high commissioner to Canada, and with Tim Hudak, the former PC leader who is now CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association.

Ford met with Peterson "to discuss free speech on Ontario's university and college campuses," the premier's press secretary said Friday in an email to CBC News.

The meeting followed this Oct. 10 tweet by Peterson, calling for the Human Rights Commission to be abolished.

upload_2019-1-29_9-10-28.png


Peterson, who has more than one million followers on Twitter, was reacting to the Ontario Human Rights Commission joining the legal challenge against the Ford government's changes to the sex-ed curriculum.

He put out the tweet in response to an interview that Renu Mandhane, chief commissioner of the province's human rights watchdog, did on CBC Radio's Metro Morning.

Peterson has garnered international attention for his critique of what he calls "politically correct" limits to free speech. The Ford government ordered Ontario's universities and colleges last summer to put in place policies by the end of 2018 guaranteeing free speech, or they would face funding cuts.

Peterson has previously spoken out against the work of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the federal Liberals' move to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

"I know something about the way that totalitarian and authoritarian political states develop and I can't help but think that I'm seeing a fair bit of that right now," Peterson said in a lecture posted to his YouTube channel, which has 1.8 million subscribers.





Ford's calendar for October and November shows no one-on-one meetings with any other Ontario university professors. Peterson and his publicity firm did not respond to a request for an interview or to emailed questions about the meeting.

The appointment schedule also unveils another piece in the puzzle about Ford's request for a customized van, a controversy that erupted in December following the appointment of Ford's friend Ron Taverner, a Toronto police superintendent, to be the next OPP commissioner.



This entry from Premier Doug Ford's appointment calendar, obtained through a freedom of information request, shows he travelled to Mississauga for an appointment entitled 'OPP Car Meeting.' The company does automotive customization, primarily for wheelchair accessibility. (Ontario cabinet office)
OPP deputy commissioner Brad Blair alleges that Ford's chief of staff Dean French told a provincial police officer to obtain a "camper-van type vehicle" for the premier, have it modified by a specific company, and keep the costs off the books.

The calendar shows the premier travelled to Mississauga on Nov. 5 for an appointment entitled "OPP Car Meeting" at a business called A1 Mobility, which adapts vehicles for accessibility.

"The premier went to discuss options for a used OPP vehicle," said press secretary Ivana Yelich in an email. "It's not uncommon or inappropriate for a premier to ask for special accommodations for his/her vehicle."

The allegation that Ford's chief of staff asked for the cost of the vehicle to be kept off the books is "categorically false," said Yelich.

The calendar also shows that Ford had lunch with Taverner on Oct. 9, several weeks before he was named to lead the OPP. The province's integrity commissioner is investigating how Taverner got the job, as he did not meet the original qualifications.

Blair, who made the allegations about the camper van, wants a court to force Ontario's ombudsman to investigate Taverner's appointment as well. Blair's lawyer Julian Falconer could not be reached for comment.

Ford's calendar shows a flurry of activity around GM Canada's Nov. 26 announcement that it intends to cease production at its Oshawa plant by the end of this year.

In addition to phone calls with the CEO of General Motors, Mary Barra, the day before and day of the announcement, Ford got on the phone with the presidents and CEOs of Ford, Honda and Toyota the following day.

Cannabis legalization was another issue that Ford was focused on in October and November. He had a meeting entitled "Illegal Dispensaries" on the afternoon of Oct. 17, the day that recreational cannabis became legal in Canada.

It included representatives for the attorney general, the finance minister, the community safety minister and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

On Oct. 26, with delivery delays plaguing the province's online cannabis retailer, Ford spoke on a call with Finance Minister Vic Fedeli, the CEO of the Ontario Cannabis Store, and the CEO of Domain Logistics. It is the company managing the province's secret cannabis warehouse, although neither the government, the cannabis agency, nor the company has publicly confirmed that.

Then in late November, before revealing the province's plans to allow only 25 cannabis retail outlets in the first phase of storefronts, Ford was given two briefings on cannabis. One was labelled "high priority" and another labelled "restricted attendance."

Asked for more details, Ford's press secretary said the briefings were about "the general direction of the government's cannabis policy."



Other entries in Ford's calendar show the following meetings:

  • Neil Bruce, CEO of SNC Lavalin and William Pristanski, registered lobbyist for the company (Oct. 29).
  • Hazel McCallion, former mayor of Mississauga (Nov. 16).
  • Patrick Lilly, CEO, Ring of Fire General Partner (Nov. 22).
  • Toronto Coun. Michael Thompson and Transportation Minister Jeff Yurek (Nov. 28).
Ford's press secretary was asked to describe the topics of these meetings, but did not respond.
Peterson53.png


Perhaps this is the perfect time for Yaniv to get attention.
 

Cheetahman

When you kill your enemies but they don't win
kiwifarms.net
Perhaps this is the perfect time for Yaniv to get attention.
BC is pretty distant from Ontario (their parties are even all backwards), but I would be hopeful about this potentially setting off a chain reaction that leads to other provinces also killing their fake courts.

http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20130105111536/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/07/jonathan-kay-good-riddance-to-section-13-of-the-canadian-human-rights-act/#
For decades, Canadians had meekly submitted to a system of administrative law that potentially made de facto criminals out of anyone with politically incorrect views about women, gays, or racial and religious minority groups. All that was required was a complainant (often someone with professional ties to the CHRC itself) willing to sign his name to a piece of paper, claim he was offended, and then collect his cash winnings at the end of the process. The system was bogus and corrupt. But very few Canadians wanted to be seen as posturing against policies that were branded under the aegis of “human rights.”
This was regarding the now-defunct """hate speech""" section of the commission, the fact that Yaniv (and other lawfare goblins, some of which are members of the tribunals themselves) can harass businesses for free is proof that the rest of it also needs to go.
 
Last edited:

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

We are on the Brave BAT program. Consider using Brave as your Browser. It's like Chrome but doesn't tell Google what you masturbate to.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino