| 19:31 - Nov 30 with 4406 views | _ |
|  | | |  |
| Jordan Peterson on 21:23 - Nov 30 with 1291 views | caught-in-limbo |
Peterson wouldn't stand a chance in a 3-way debate with TWTD's very own intellectual powerhouses Mullet and Darth Koont. |  |
| |
| Jordan Peterson on 21:23 - Nov 30 with 1295 views | wellhungphil |
| Jordan Peterson on 20:51 - Nov 30 by jaseitfc |
he was great in that interview
I dont agree with him fully about his view on the gender pay gap; he makes valid points but I think there are traditional societal pressures on women that have led to their working decision - thats another discussion though.
In that interview, he outclassed Cathy Newman, who is one of my favourite news anchors to be honest. She was aggressive and he was relaxed, leaned back and reasonably answered her questions. The best part was when he was talking about university activists and the right to offend...
its a must watch interview I think - its a great snapshot of today's discourse |
You've got the tone of the Cathy Newman interview down to a tee, and it most certainly is a snapshot of today's discourse!
From what you say about the gender ____ gap, I'm also quite sure Peterson's view is very similar to your own. What you describe there when you say "traditional societal pressures on women that have led to their working decision" is not a "pay" gap, however - it's an "earnings" gap, which is not the same thing at all.
A woman can choose to stay at home and mind the kids, there's a lot to be gained on a spiritual level from that, or they can have kids and go back to work asap, or they can not have kids and enjoy the equality of opportunity and pay enshrined to them in law. A "pay" gap, unequal pay for equal work, is illegal in the UK and in many other semi-civilised countries. |  | | |
| Jordan Peterson on 22:31 - Nov 30 with 1257 views | LankHenners |
He's a charlatan and a fraud who talks a load of sh!te. A pseudo-intellectual who knows his way around a dictionary but not an encyclopedia. He's a hero to the hard of thinking and has been given a boost by people who love to complain about 'PC gone mad', 'can't say anything any more' etc. No surprise that his core base is made up of incels and other lowlifes angry at women for not falling in love with their repulsive nature.
Have you ever seen him be challenged on the most basic of his arguments? He gets unstuck every time, often having to concede that he didn't think it through (surprise, surprise) and was probably wrong, which inevitably gets chalked down by his fans as 'showing humility'. A different breed to the Tommy Robinsons and Gavin McInnesses of the world but no surprise he's thriving (or was - people are gradually starting to see through the verbose language and tortured metaphors) in an era where what people actually say or do isn't important, more so 'triggering libs' and 'upsetting people'.
This article is balanced but absolutely skewers him for all he's worth:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Also he sounds unerringly like Kermit. |  |
| |
| on 22:40 - Nov 30 with 1248 views | _ |
| Jordan Peterson on 22:31 - Nov 30 by LankHenners |
He's a charlatan and a fraud who talks a load of sh!te. A pseudo-intellectual who knows his way around a dictionary but not an encyclopedia. He's a hero to the hard of thinking and has been given a boost by people who love to complain about 'PC gone mad', 'can't say anything any more' etc. No surprise that his core base is made up of incels and other lowlifes angry at women for not falling in love with their repulsive nature.
Have you ever seen him be challenged on the most basic of his arguments? He gets unstuck every time, often having to concede that he didn't think it through (surprise, surprise) and was probably wrong, which inevitably gets chalked down by his fans as 'showing humility'. A different breed to the Tommy Robinsons and Gavin McInnesses of the world but no surprise he's thriving (or was - people are gradually starting to see through the verbose language and tortured metaphors) in an era where what people actually say or do isn't important, more so 'triggering libs' and 'upsetting people'.
This article is balanced but absolutely skewers him for all he's worth:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Also he sounds unerringly like Kermit. |
| | | |
| Jordan Peterson on 23:47 - Nov 30 with 1214 views | jaseitfc |
Totally agree with this
It's better to be challenged and get diverse opinions. | | | |
| Jordan Peterson on 00:09 - Dec 1 with 1206 views | wellhungphil |
| Jordan Peterson on 22:31 - Nov 30 by LankHenners |
He's a charlatan and a fraud who talks a load of sh!te. A pseudo-intellectual who knows his way around a dictionary but not an encyclopedia. He's a hero to the hard of thinking and has been given a boost by people who love to complain about 'PC gone mad', 'can't say anything any more' etc. No surprise that his core base is made up of incels and other lowlifes angry at women for not falling in love with their repulsive nature.
Have you ever seen him be challenged on the most basic of his arguments? He gets unstuck every time, often having to concede that he didn't think it through (surprise, surprise) and was probably wrong, which inevitably gets chalked down by his fans as 'showing humility'. A different breed to the Tommy Robinsons and Gavin McInnesses of the world but no surprise he's thriving (or was - people are gradually starting to see through the verbose language and tortured metaphors) in an era where what people actually say or do isn't important, more so 'triggering libs' and 'upsetting people'.
This article is balanced but absolutely skewers him for all he's worth:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Also he sounds unerringly like Kermit. |
What on earth gives you the impression that that piece by Nathan J Robinson is in any way balanced? He clearly identifies as a "leftie" (see his Twitter page), even though what exactly left-wing (or indeed right-wing) politics is anymore is anyone's guess - a guess which is as easily argued for as it is argued against.
The way I see it is that the only honest identity remaining is the identity of the individual. Left, right, centrist, etc, it's all pick'n'mix, fill your shovel full of the sweets you want and leave the horrid ones for those who enjoy them. Because Nathan J Robinson identifies as a leftie, he's already lost the most basic of intellectual arguments - "are you really yourself or just a puppet for what you've read/been taught?"
I'm about a fifth of the way through his one-sided prejudiced (look that word up if you need to) rant. The author has made no effort to be balanced at all.
Nathan J Robinson is trying (in the bit I've read so far) to argue with the writings from self-help books. Now, I've never read self-help books - I find the idea of them very unappealing, and I'd even go so far as to say I'm hostile to them. Why? Well, I've spent a great deal of time introspecting - "hello me, nice to meet me, tell me all about myself" from about age 12. I find self-help books, for the odd page I've read in them, to be full of the "obvious truths", and I don't want my mind changed or influenced in terms of what makes me tick if I am happy with what I've already discovered.
Who wants to read what's obvious? Answer = Putting my own prejudices aside, I can say well, when I read about genomes and genetics and how they can be researched through bioinformatics, I want that whole thing to be made as obvious as possible, because I'm trying to get into that as a career (I'm already a computer programmer with almost two decades experience if anyone wants my CV!). I need to start off at Point Zero.
A self-help book is not meant to be provable or disprovable. Read it, and if you get anything out of it (as millions have regarding 12 Rules for Life) great. A lot of people don't know themselves at all, and thus when seeking to discover themselves, a self-help book starting at Point Zero can be very useful.
There are as many holes in Nathan J Robinson's rant as there are in a piece of Swiss Cheese that's been hit in a drive-by shooting, and to be honest, the same can be said of your equally unbalanced couple of paragraphs, LarkHenners.
"No surprise that his core base is made up of incels and other lowlifes angry at women for not falling in love with their repulsive nature." - What a botched, facile and nonsense thing to say! How on earth do you know who his core base is. What is a core base, even? And to judge that group (which you don't even know) in your rather disgusting language makes you appear to be a bit of child, I think. Have you thought any of this stuff up for yourself or are you just repeating insults that you've read elsewhere, concocted by equally uninformed and biased individuals?
"Have you ever seen him be challenged on the most basic of his arguments?" - Yes I have, both in the Cathy Newman interview and in the GQ interview. Both of the bigots he was debating with challenged him fiercely.
"He gets unstuck every time" - No, he doesn't get unstuck "every time"! He wiped the floor with these two idiots.
Who he is and what he does goes far beyond the picture you've painted of him here.
Like Libero, the only point I'd agree with is the one where he sounds like Kermit :-)
The first time I ever heard anything from Peterson was when I was in the kitchen peeling potatoes, I had just gone out for a 50 kilometre sprint through the Hertfordshire countryside on my bicycle, I was in my shorts, topless, sweating, cooling down both body and mind, with the back door open, and I was listening to this weirdo on the radio almost in tears talking to Nihal Arthanayake on BBC 5 Live. Peterson was getting all emotional about the reactions of people who had thanked him for his work, who had never heard a word of positivity in their lives from anyone, but who were being encouraged basically to look after themselves better, to take responsibility for themselves and to improve their lives that way.
His emotional wavering and Kermit voice irritated me slightly at first, but since my mind is open and generally free of indoctrination, or at least I like to think that it is, I gave him a chance and I'm really glad that I did. His self-help books will never be of any use to me, I won't read them and I don't need them. But I like the way he speaks: good sense, honest, clear enough and most importantly complete enough, by which I mean if someone misunderstands what he says, or deliberately re-hashes his opinion in an incorrect way, he lets them know.
What the hell is wrong with that? I don't need an answer from you, and I'm rapidly losing respect for Nathan J Robinson as I read more of his article, but here's the right answer: Nothing is wrong with that. | | | |
| Jordan Peterson on 00:18 - Dec 1 with 1195 views | LankHenners |
| Jordan Peterson on 00:09 - Dec 1 by wellhungphil |
What on earth gives you the impression that that piece by Nathan J Robinson is in any way balanced? He clearly identifies as a "leftie" (see his Twitter page), even though what exactly left-wing (or indeed right-wing) politics is anymore is anyone's guess - a guess which is as easily argued for as it is argued against.
The way I see it is that the only honest identity remaining is the identity of the individual. Left, right, centrist, etc, it's all pick'n'mix, fill your shovel full of the sweets you want and leave the horrid ones for those who enjoy them. Because Nathan J Robinson identifies as a leftie, he's already lost the most basic of intellectual arguments - "are you really yourself or just a puppet for what you've read/been taught?"
I'm about a fifth of the way through his one-sided prejudiced (look that word up if you need to) rant. The author has made no effort to be balanced at all.
Nathan J Robinson is trying (in the bit I've read so far) to argue with the writings from self-help books. Now, I've never read self-help books - I find the idea of them very unappealing, and I'd even go so far as to say I'm hostile to them. Why? Well, I've spent a great deal of time introspecting - "hello me, nice to meet me, tell me all about myself" from about age 12. I find self-help books, for the odd page I've read in them, to be full of the "obvious truths", and I don't want my mind changed or influenced in terms of what makes me tick if I am happy with what I've already discovered.
Who wants to read what's obvious? Answer = Putting my own prejudices aside, I can say well, when I read about genomes and genetics and how they can be researched through bioinformatics, I want that whole thing to be made as obvious as possible, because I'm trying to get into that as a career (I'm already a computer programmer with almost two decades experience if anyone wants my CV!). I need to start off at Point Zero.
A self-help book is not meant to be provable or disprovable. Read it, and if you get anything out of it (as millions have regarding 12 Rules for Life) great. A lot of people don't know themselves at all, and thus when seeking to discover themselves, a self-help book starting at Point Zero can be very useful.
There are as many holes in Nathan J Robinson's rant as there are in a piece of Swiss Cheese that's been hit in a drive-by shooting, and to be honest, the same can be said of your equally unbalanced couple of paragraphs, LarkHenners.
"No surprise that his core base is made up of incels and other lowlifes angry at women for not falling in love with their repulsive nature." - What a botched, facile and nonsense thing to say! How on earth do you know who his core base is. What is a core base, even? And to judge that group (which you don't even know) in your rather disgusting language makes you appear to be a bit of child, I think. Have you thought any of this stuff up for yourself or are you just repeating insults that you've read elsewhere, concocted by equally uninformed and biased individuals?
"Have you ever seen him be challenged on the most basic of his arguments?" - Yes I have, both in the Cathy Newman interview and in the GQ interview. Both of the bigots he was debating with challenged him fiercely.
"He gets unstuck every time" - No, he doesn't get unstuck "every time"! He wiped the floor with these two idiots.
Who he is and what he does goes far beyond the picture you've painted of him here.
Like Libero, the only point I'd agree with is the one where he sounds like Kermit :-)
The first time I ever heard anything from Peterson was when I was in the kitchen peeling potatoes, I had just gone out for a 50 kilometre sprint through the Hertfordshire countryside on my bicycle, I was in my shorts, topless, sweating, cooling down both body and mind, with the back door open, and I was listening to this weirdo on the radio almost in tears talking to Nihal Arthanayake on BBC 5 Live. Peterson was getting all emotional about the reactions of people who had thanked him for his work, who had never heard a word of positivity in their lives from anyone, but who were being encouraged basically to look after themselves better, to take responsibility for themselves and to improve their lives that way.
His emotional wavering and Kermit voice irritated me slightly at first, but since my mind is open and generally free of indoctrination, or at least I like to think that it is, I gave him a chance and I'm really glad that I did. His self-help books will never be of any use to me, I won't read them and I don't need them. But I like the way he speaks: good sense, honest, clear enough and most importantly complete enough, by which I mean if someone misunderstands what he says, or deliberately re-hashes his opinion in an incorrect way, he lets them know.
What the hell is wrong with that? I don't need an answer from you, and I'm rapidly losing respect for Nathan J Robinson as I read more of his article, but here's the right answer: Nothing is wrong with that. |
I can see why you like him - all those words to say absolutely nothing at all. | |
| |
| Jordan Peterson on 00:21 - Dec 1 with 1187 views | wellhungphil |
| Jordan Peterson on 00:18 - Dec 1 by LankHenners |
I can see why you like him - all those words to say absolutely nothing at all. |
Is that really the limit of your intellectual capacity to engage in decent and honest conversation?
Yourself and Nathan J Robinson are a fine match in that case.
I'll respond to you again when you have something useful to add. Meantime, do try to grow up and start thinking for yourself. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jordan Peterson on 00:28 - Dec 1 with 1177 views | LankHenners |
| Jordan Peterson on 00:21 - Dec 1 by wellhungphil |
Is that really the limit of your intellectual capacity to engage in decent and honest conversation?
Yourself and Nathan J Robinson are a fine match in that case.
I'll respond to you again when you have something useful to add. Meantime, do try to grow up and start thinking for yourself. |
I love showing my intellectual capacity to engage in decent and honest conversation by being insulting and talking about peeling potatoes in the half nude. | |
| |
| Jordan Peterson on 09:11 - Dec 1 with 1099 views | caught-in-limbo |
"Some of the lads I play football with believe some crazy stuff, flat earth, pizzagate, etc. I really enjoy talking to them about their theories, working the conversation from points that I consider absurd to points of connection and mutual agreement."
In the case of flat earth and pizzagate, did your connection and mutual agreement involve some sort of compromise on your part? If so, how? | |
| |
| Jordan Peterson on 10:22 - Dec 1 with 1055 views | BrixtonBlue |
Blimey, I've never met a genuine flat-Earther.
I'd never heard of Jordan Peterson before this thread but he sounds interesting after a bit of a google. I'm going to watch 12 rules for life in 20 minutes over breakfast... |  |
| |
| Jordan Peterson on 10:31 - Dec 1 with 1051 views | Devereuxxx |
I'm also tempted to give his books a read, but only because I'm intrigued rather through any tacit agreement with his points of view that I've so far come across.
Having only seen a few clips, he does put his points across well, but there are definitely some holes in many of his arguments. Some of his views are fairly reductivist, but as you say, reading his book might be a bit of an eye-opener. You don't have to agree with his views to say he's an interesting operator. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
