grteJordan Peterson learns that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences
I’m not sure he’s “learned” anything. Good article otherwise!
Good article?
The comments that formed the basis of the complaints against Dr. Peterson included comments on a podcast in which he commented on air pollution and child deaths by saying “it’s just poor children…”
This quote is the most disgusting out of context character assassination I've seen in a long time.
I got suspicious because while Jordan does say things that women and/or trans people often find deplorable. I know that he's a strong supporter of the poor (at least in rhetoric) and as a family man I assume of children as well.
The full context can be found on Spotify. Episode #1769 of "The Joe Rogan Experience" start from about 15:30. He's the one that brings up how 7 million poor children die from indoor particulate pollution. Joe doesn't believe him and gets a fact check, which eventually leads to Jordan sarcastically saying "Well, it's just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyway..."
It's such an insane mischaracterization of what he said, you can't take the article seriously. Probably would have to write off the entire website that article is from, honestly.
nicktronHe’s a horrible piece of shit regardless of what that article says.
Maybe, I don't know. How do you know? You seem so eager to believe lies. How do you know that everything you think you know about Jordan Peterson isn't all lies?
Because of the things he says and does? Right wing nut jobs can fuck right off.
gianniBecause he actually says this shit out loud:
- twitter.com/…/1526279181545390083
- twitter.com/…/1628292293173342208
- Peterson suggests “enforced monogamy” as a solution to male isolation
This is only a small fraction of the crap that this guy said with his own mouth/twitter account.
Wow total shocker that the dirtbag peterson lovers in this thread have no response to you.
Because thinking in absolutes isn’t scientific. Is it possible some of the reported are lies? Sure. What do we do with that? Verify. But you’re phrasing the question in a black and white way, awfully reminiscent of petermanston himself. Do you know people wear lipstick for more reasons than signaling sexual arousal, as an example?
Please read this: currentaffairs.org/…/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Not only does Jordan Peterson say dumb inflammatory shit, but he’s also apparently an intellectual fraud.
DessertStormshe's a strong supporter of the poor (at least in rhetoric)
"Well, it's just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyway..."
Never mind how laughable that first quote is, it is inherently incompatible with the second, since the entire Malthusian myth is based in classist eugenics
https://www.theworldmind.org/home/2021/12/10/the-dangerous-myth-of-overpopulation
https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/03/how-racist-myths-built-population-growth-bogey-man/
Imagine still jumping to the defence of this bigoted useless hack...
Overconsumption, not Overpopulation: Debunking the Overpopulation Myth and Eco-Fascism
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, as hundreds of thousands of people passed away from the virus, statements such as, “Mother Earth is cleansing herself,” or “The earth will be better off without so…
Jordan is an asshole, but misinformation is misinformation. We aren’t trying to become Fox ‘News’ here
My guy, they don’t care and you aren’t going to convince them to care. This isn’t about misinformation. This is about their little civil war they’re gearing up to kick off next year. That’s all they care about because their minds are made up.
Classic Florida Man
Yep, that’s what they are.
I think Jordon Peterson is a giant pile of shit, but you’re being downvoted for calling out a shitty article for misrepresenting obvious sarcasm, and that’s bullshit. Misinformation is misinformation regardless of whether or not it confirms our bias, if the Fediverse community doesn’t want to learn this it has no business pointing at misinformation on other platforms like Reddit.
No, he’s being downvoted because he’s adjacently defending JP. If you don’t know how JP is human garbage at this point, and you’re willing to come to articles to defend him, you’re a fan. And therefore, a twat.
ikiddCorrecting dishonesty is defending someone.
What a load of shit.
It is if you’ve already made up your mind that Jordan Peterson, for example, is a piece of shit and therefore nothing anyone says about the matter really matters anymore.
The people downvoting him already made up their minds. They already came to the conclusion they think is correct, and so debate is no longer needed. To them, you’re needlessly drawing out an argument that has long since ended in their favor, and why would anyone do that unless they had an ulterior motive?
That’s how they think. They’re not really wrong; whether they’re upvoting misinformation or not really IS irrelevant to the grander question and that grander question is whether JP is a fraud, and to them that answer is unequivocally yes, debate over.
Don’t waste your time arguing with them. Their battle lines have already been drawn.
I mean, in the other comment he then went even further beyond and actually did started to defend JP. So, you know, I guess he was right in calling him out in the end :p
His reasons were shit.
You’re looking to make an argument where there is none. Go outside.
You know just as well as I do that he’s cherry picking the article for inaccuracies to defend JP. Nobody is defending the article ffs.
Yea the article is shit, we already established that (and I don’t recall anyone stating otherwise in our exchanges). That’s not what we are talking about. If you continue to make it about that, you’re just as much of a twat as the idiot above.
No matter how much of a wanker Peterson is, and I agree he is one. You should always be wary of misinformation. By spreading something so easily disproved because it feels right, you just give him ammunition to argue that people are lying and defaming him when defending himself. The bloke has said tons of stupid stuff worth criticism, focus on them.
That, and it’s just a terribly nasty thing to do.
Nothing turns my stomach more than misinformation.
NelotsWhat the hell were they supposed to say? Should they have agreed that the article was good just because JP is a PoS? Despite the clear and disgusting BS inside it? Is that really what you want?
Misinformation is misinformation and needs to be cleared up, no matter who the target is.
I don't know how to reach these people or whether they're reachable at all. Yes, my main motivation by a very long shot was to correct absurd levels of misinformation in a community where I believe most members care about not spreading misinformation.
What worries me is that so many people seem to be living in an echo bubble that's radicalizing them to hate people they shouldn't be hating.
So yes, there's a lot of not so great things about Jordan Peterson. But all things considered he's not that bad. And I haven't paid attention closely for the last few years, but I wouldn't be characterizing him as a piece of shit.
The author of the article is a worse piece of shit than Jordan Peterson. People who seem to take pleasure out of Jordan's suffering due to his Benzodiazepine addiction are even worse.
But, looking at some of Jordan's twitter comment, he's definitely a bit of an asshole. But 95% of people seem to be assholes when they go on twitter.
The only really bad thing about him is his political views. But even there, there seems to be less malice and less self serving talk than most right wingers (other than the apparent or effective grifting). But even the grifting, in my opinion, is not as bad as most people (both on the left and on the right). Still, right wing ideology is a very problematic from a liberal perspective (which is my perspective). But at the same time today's mainstream and increasingly radical left ideology is also problematic from a liberal perspective. Regardless, I still don't think that someone's anti-liberal social views necessarily makes them a piece of shit regardless of if they're on the left or on the right. But it does make it easy to become one.
Sorry but I have to vehemently disagree. I find this views on transgender people abhorrent. He misgenders and deadnames people out of spite and disguises it as intellectual honesty.
His views on the role of women are outdated as hell, he disparages the humanities despite his participation in them, promotes toxic masculinity, and is a climate change denier. He holds all these views while wearing a mask of impartiality and aloofness, but his talking points are no different from and scarcely better supported than any other bigot’s.
So while I am against misinformation, I still feel quite confident in calling him a piece of shit as I believe he promotes hateful and backwards ideals.
How can we expect anyone to critically examine the media they consume if we fail to do the same when it suits us? Peterson is a flaming pile of pseudo-intellectual garbage, but there’s plenty of ways to prove that without intentionally taking sound bites out of context.
That and body shaming people you don’t like really aggravate me. Shit humans do shit things, attack that and leave the rest alone.
amniotic druidThe double-standards on body shaming drive me up the wall on this website. The number of “ugly, fat, small penis” comments I see from the same people who say you can’t call a medically obese person “obese” is insane to me.
The number of “ugly, fat, small penis” comments I see from the same people who say you can’t call a medically obese person “obese” is insane to me.
Cite one of your many examples of being unable to call a medically obese person “obese” because of objections from people engaging in body shaming.
Would you throw out Nietzsche because he said one thing you disagree with?
I am sorry, but I dont understand where is the misinformation? The article doesnt state nor imply that JP has said that poor children deserve to die. It stated, that that particular comment was used in a complaint against him in court. So if you are upset at the people who formed the complaint then thats fair. But why be mad at the article? They only stated what has happened, unless I misunderstood?
This is why I’ve kinda stopped consuming other people’s political writing, and only shitcomment about it. People of all stripes cannot resist the urge to make the story just a liiiiiitle better.
It’s not because of his drug addiction, interesting. It’s because he was being shitty towards poor and trans people. Glad to see he’s being reprimanded for something.
bloopernovaWhat is it with those guys and insultingly weak legal arguments?
“I was off duty as a psychologist when I made public statements”.
Off duty, but still fully willing to be introduced as a clinical psychologist at the start of the podcast, and to consistently refer to himself as a practicing clinical psychologist in these interviews.
He wants to have it both ways clearly
It pained me to discover that my brother liked one of his books in 2020. I’m very careful to not stress our relationship because he’s otherwise a decent person. I shudder to think what other content he might expose himself to over time and what that will mean for our relationship.
bob_wileyHow does liking a book make your brother any less of a decent person? I assume it’s 12 Rules for Life, as that seems to be the book Peterson best know for. From Wikipedia, these are the rules. Nothing here seems vile or like something that should make you question your brothers decency.
“To stand up straight with your shoulders back is to accept the terrible responsibility of life, with eyes wide open. It means deciding to voluntarily transform the chaos of potential into the realities of habitable order. It means adopting the burden of self-conscious vulnerability, and accepting the end of the unconscious paradise of childhood, where finitude and mortality are only dimly comprehended. It means willingly undertaking the sacrifices necessary to generate a productive and meaningful reality (it means acting to please God, in the ancient language).“
Pseudo-intellectual drivel that’s void of substance and sounds “smort” to less critical readers.
By walking with your shoulders back, you:
It’s airy fairy, vague platitudes bereft of substance or value that prays upon readers who just see fancy words and thus follow the advice that was ultimately presented with such a weak argument that it would struggle to hold up a fart.
If the fluffy language was removed from the actual “points” Mr Peterson was making, all that is left is flavourless Biblical bubblegum.
Want some real advice?
Stand up straight with your shoulders back; it presents to others that you are confident. By presenting yourself as confident, you will be treated by others as if you were confident. And thanks to that feedback loop you have created (look confident, be treated like a confident person), you afford yourself the opportunity to feel confident from within. Oh and God hates you if you slouch.
It’s sanctimonious, hang in there cat poster stuff. I’d tell my brother to spend less time online if he shared this with me.
It’s a 400 page book, I posted what amount to chapter titles. Everything sounds generic at that high a level.
I don’t know how good it is, as I find his writing too verbose to really consume, but clearly his popularity for his kind of stuff (and not the political stuff) is something people are looking for and feel they need. They either aren’t getting it from other places or it’s not packaged in a way that speaks to them.
If it helps some kid clean themselves up, get a career, and get out on their own, and generally get their life together and pointed in a better direction, how is that a bad thing?
If it helps some kid clean themselves up, get a career, and get out on their own, and generally get their life together and pointed in a better direction, how is that a bad thing?
A lot of sects can help you clean yourself up and get your life together. Is it a good thing if you’re being brainwashed into strange believes (like transphobia) at the same time? Maybe it still is but maybe there are better ways to help people.
Sometimes you can hear the same thing 100 times, but when someone frames it in a slightly different way, or just uses slightly different words, it clicks.
Some people have found Ryan Holiday’s books on Stoicism to be helpful, but all he’s doing is retelling Meditations and it’s lessons with a more modern voice. Should we tell him to stop writing? I don’t think so.
The books, videos, etc about getting your shit together aren’t full of transphobia, they’re about getting your shit together. One person can speak on different topics. Even the trans stuff, it all started as a free speech thing, when the Canadian government made a law telling people how they had to speak. That’s what he took issue with, not trans people. Things may have spun out of control from there for various reasons, which isn’t a debate I’m interested in having.
Have you read my comment? I’ve said that maybe it’s good but maybe you can teach those things in a better, less toxic and less sectarian way. I don’t have issue with his old teachings but I think following anyone blindly is stupid and with JP from the very beginning I’ve seen a lot of it.
Have you read my comment? I’ve said that maybe it’s good but maybe you can teach those things in a better, less toxic and less sectarian way.
Yes, I read your comment, that why my reply was about the value of hearing the same things from different sources and in different ways, because you never know which one will click for a person. I don’t see how Peterson saying “clean your room and here is why” is any more or less toxic than a mother yelling at her kid to clean up their room. What his version included was the why, so you’re not cleaning just to clean it or appease your mom, but for a reason that can help other areas of life. I’m keeping the messages separate and not infusing everything he ever posted on Twitter into a college lecture from 10 years ago, as those things were completely separate, and I’ve never follow him on Twitter or read any of that stuff. I have watched some videos of lectures from his psyche class on YouTube, just like I’ve watched countless other things on YouTube, I don’t idolize any of them. When I see a news article about something he posted on Twitter, my response is usually one of, “huh, that was weird…” I don’t run out and start trying to kick people out of bathrooms; that’s something a crazy person would do.
I agree that no one should be followed blindly. I also think that people are imperfect, and we shouldn’t throw away everything they’ve done because they have an unpopular opinion, or have said things inelegantly, in some other areas of their life. We should be able to hear what someone says and say, I agree with X, but not with Y, so I’ll leave Y behind and integrate X into my life. We all do this every day. That’s what it means to not follow someone blindly. Those who agree with 100% of what anyone says aren’t thinking for themselves.
I agree that there are a lot of resources to learn things from, but for whatever reason, the way he frames certain things is working for some people, where other things haven’t. I feel like I’ve said this several times now and it keeps getting ignored. We can’t always wait for the perfect source of information, it might never come or not show up at the right time. For example, I was curious why he always skirted the question about if he believes in god, so I watched some of his lectures on the bible. It took 6+ hours for him to get it out, which could have been a 15 minute TED talk, so I wouldn’t really recommend it (it wasn’t an easy watch), but I understood his point, it made sense, and it changed the way I think about “god”. I still don’t believe in an actual god, but I can now understand where the idea likely came from and the value of something akin to god in a society, even if it’s been co-opted by people seeking power at various points in history. Maybe I could have heard that somewhere else, but it’s been many decades, and gone down many religious rabbit holes, and it took those lectures for me to put that mental model together. Growing up in a religious family I have a lot of issues around god and the church, and I think if I had heard those lectures, or those ideas, when I was much younger it would have been extremely helpful. Hearing it now is still helpful as it provides me a more nuanced view of the issues, rather than just “religion == bad”, which is where a lot of people land. Maybe somewhere, someone else is saying something similar, but will I ever chance across it? If I do, would I have been able to understand it in the same way? Probably not. Did any of the stuff he talked about in those 6+ hours have anything to do with divisive politics? Nope.
It looks like you believe I have some issue with you personally finding some value in Peterson’s writing. I don’t. You’re basically paraphrasing the same thing I’ve said. Can his writing help people? Yes, probably. Can you approach it in a healthy way, avoiding the toxic part and not becoming part of a cult? Yes, I’m sure it’s possible. Did most people approach it like this? Well, my sensation is that no, they did not. The community that grew around him became part of the right wing toxic masculinity and transphobic movements. And he never renounced it, it keeps playing a right wing guru. So yes, I don’t have any issue with people that read some of his books and found something valuable in them. But I also believe (and I think most people that are against him think the same) that he did more harm than good overall and that the world would be better without his philosophy. But of course it’s impossible to measure, it’s a subjective point of view and you can disagree.
This thread started when I questioned someone who seemed to question his relationship with his own brother because he read a book of Peterson’s 3 years ago which he liked, but says he is otherwise decent. I don’t really know how to put it into words without talking in a bunch of circles, but that bothers me a lot. Not because it’s Peterson, I’d be bothered no matter who the author was. I hate that we’ve come to a place where someone’s entire character is put into a box based on a single action or thought. I get it with strangers to some degree, but with brothers… that’s really bad. Whatever ideology is feeding that is just as toxic as any of these other toxic things being mentioned, maybe even worse. I think that has done much more harm than good.
I cannot understand how you folks who love to defend this cretin can overlook this utter malarkey and focus on ‘make your bed’.
If he was as bad as you say you wouldn’t need to make stuff up or willfully misinterpret him in order to discredit him.
People are complicated. Just because you disagree with someone on one topic doesn’t mean everything they’ve ever said is bad.
Look at some of his old tweets. He’s racist and not as intelligent as he wants you to believe. It’s not complicated in this case.
Ad homiem is a logical fallacy.
It sounds like you have something in mind, why don’t you link me to it instead of sending me on a wild goose chase.
You can look in this thread, mate. There are screenshots a few comments up or down…
Wait. He wants us to believe that he is intelligent? I’ve known toddlers that have an easier time getting words out.
I thought his whole shtick was portraying a bumbling idiot to appeal to the hyperemotional crazies who get worked up about people not being just so?
Absolutely he wants to and a lot of people buy it.
For sure. A lot may even be an understatement for how many hyperemotional crazies have bought into his schtick.
How did you get that out of the book?
I believe the lobster bollocks is actually Rule # 1. ‘Stand up straight’ or some shit (which lobsters also do not do because, well, they are lobsters).
Have you read the book?
I have read the book yes, and the lobster stuff is in chapter 1 indeed.
I don’t think that chapter was particularly enlightening, as far as I know it was mainly about how evolutionary selection results in hierarchies in al species (hence the lobsters), and standing up straight gets you higher in the hierarchy because of something something confidence.
The evolution stuff is not wrong, and the stand up straight is… Eh… weird psychology stuff? However it didn’t mention women or gays as you said.