On 12/31/2018 at 12:58 AM, frenchkiki said:

Jordan Peterson is the handmaid's tale on is own

This guy is will be laughable if the bullshit he says wasn't that dangerous.

 

 

+1

 

I just don't understand why he is taken seriously as an intellectual?

7 hours ago, Stromboli1 said:

 

What about the facial tattoo trend?

Still trying to figure that one out. 

4 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

+1

 

I just don't understand why he is taken seriously as an intellectual?

 

I must confess, I'd never heard of him until the now-infamous Channel 4 interview took place, but I'd imagine that he would only be considered a genuine intellectual by folks for whom the Twitter style of debate has become a way of life. He essentially operates like an experienced stand up comedian, well-practiced ‘schtick’ with clearly defined ‘bits' and therefore can bat aside any 'hecklers' with relative ease. Where he falls down is that he seemingly tries to combat so-called 'undergrad' identity politics with Fox News identity politics, basically just bucketing together large groups of people that he doesn't like. 

These questions are answered in the ensuing discussion................he is not for social democrats and liberals. 

 

He's for conservatives and he has a significant fanbase of young men, many of which bought his books which have sold millions.  More significantly he is seen as a pseudo"father figure" by young male fans.

14 hours ago, CandleVixen said:

My take is that tattoos are popular, and thus everyone should have them. 

A lot of bad tattoos (that will be regretted later in life) that cover large portions of the body are happening.

 

Looks like a mess of blue ink

 

I'm not against Tattoos in general but people change during their lives and a tattoo they made now could easily be very unappealing 10 years later.  Tattoos must be very carefully selected.

 

11 hours ago, Stromboli1 said:

 

What about the facial tattoo trend?

 

pretty bad.  Full-on Neck tattoos are also very bad.  

14 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

+1

 

I just don't understand why he is taken seriously as an intellectual? 

 

Most mainstream media usually consider that left-wing thinkers are the only thinkers. They are blind to their own bias. By bringing an other viewpoint, this Peterson brings critical thinking in the confined mainstream media. They should thank him for that. Diversity of thought is like fresh air in closed room.

 

Both left-wing and right-wing thinkers should consider civil disagreement as a gift. They should all listen to each other, instead of treating one another as outcasts.

 

This Peterson has his place in the debate, whether he's right or wrong; at least he brings openness in a sad media world. Even when he's wrong, he makes us think. I prefer one intellectual who goes against the flow (even when I disagree with him), than a thousand intellectuals who say the same things every day... (even when I agree with them)

We are lucky enough to live in democracies. We should fight for people who don't think like ourselves... we should fight for them to be able to express freely.

 

This used to be a key creed in our world: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Let's keep our faith in it.

10 hours ago, Michael* said:

 

I must confess, I'd never heard of him until the now-infamous Channel 4 interview took place, but I'd imagine that he would only be considered a genuine intellectual by folks for whom the Twitter style of debate has become a way of life. He essentially operates like an experienced stand up comedian, well-practiced ‘schtick’ with clearly defined ‘bits' and therefore can bat aside any 'hecklers' with relative ease. Where he falls down is that he seemingly tries to combat so-called 'undergrad' identity politics with Fox News identity politics, basically just bucketing together large groups of people that he doesn't like. 

 

His interviews are not interesting at all. It's either a journalist trying to trick him.... or him trying to trick journalists.

 

It's part of one of my earlier points: both left-wing and right-wing thinkers should make use of "civil disagreement"... but at the moment, they don't. They either pat their peers on the back or they insult their opponents. That's why the media world has become boring . Fox news guys on one side, CNN guys on the other, and the rest of the world is constrained to pick sides (and if you don't, someone will assign one to you).

 

You should try one of Peterson's conferences. Even if you disagree with him, you'll see that it's interesting.

I think quite a lot of men copied the Ragner haircut for a couple of years. Also the Samurai top knot.  Looks cool but 100% out of place in this world. 

 

13 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

His interviews are not interesting at all. It's either a journalist trying to trick him.... or him trying to trick journalists.

 

It's part of one of my earlier points: both left-wing and right-wing thinkers should make use of "civil disagreement"... but at the moment, they don't. They either pat their peers on the back or they insult their opponents. That's why the media world has become boring . Fox news guys on one side, CNN guys on the other, and the rest of the world is constrained to pick sides (and if you don't, someone will assign one to you).

 

You should try one of Peterson's conferences. Even if you disagree with him, you'll see that it's interesting.

 

That's more or less what I meant by 'Twitter style debate', as in that little game of trying to box your opponent into a corner where they’re perceived to have said something stupid or objectionable. That lack of reasonable discourse is usually what happens when opinions and gut instincts are treated with equal importance to facts and context. We seem to have found ourselves in an age where people get to claim that the truth doesn't tell the whole story, which is completely insane.

 

Peterson's own takes on practical everyday stuff are probably where he's on the strongest ground and of course, if he didn't resonate with people, he wouldn’t have an audience. A lot of the other things he says are obviously silly, but he says all of it with similar gusto and conviction, which as a result makes him fairly easy to criticise. At the same time though, I get that sinking feeling that if it hadn't been for the silly stuff, he wouldn't be anything like as popular or famous as he is now.

 

Plus, he once posed for a photo with Mumford & Sons. I'd like to see even his most ardent supporters try to justify that.

 

https://local.theonion.com/woman-didn-t-know-progress-on-toxic-masculinity-would-t-1831869468

On 1/19/2019 at 9:08 AM, Michael* said:

 

That's more or less what I meant by 'Twitter style debate', as in that little game of trying to box your opponent into a corner where they’re perceived to have said something stupid or objectionable. That lack of reasonable discourse is usually what happens when opinions and gut instincts are treated with equal importance to facts and context. We seem to have found ourselves in an age where people get to claim that the truth doesn't tell the whole story, which is completely insane.

 

Peterson's own takes on practical everyday stuff are probably where he's on the strongest ground and of course, if he didn't resonate with people, he wouldn’t have an audience. A lot of the other things he says are obviously silly, but he says all of it with similar gusto and conviction, which as a result makes him fairly easy to criticise. At the same time though, I get that sinking feeling that if it hadn't been for the silly stuff, he wouldn't be anything like as popular or famous as he is now.

 

Plus, he once posed for a photo with Mumford & Sons. I'd like to see even his most ardent supporters try to justify that.

 

This is rather unspecific, you could be describing EVERY public intellectual  (the vast majority are social democrats) involved in politics out there and pushing their own agenda.  In the media it's all about rhetoric and sophistry in order to gain a fanbase, not dry academic discussion.  What exactly (in the details/viewpoints) do you find objectionable about him?

 

The right wing like JP because he says what they want to hear (he is "secular" traditional conservative in disguise)and he is a rare breed- a right wing academic pundit.  The left wing academic pundits probably outnumber the right 20 to 1, or more.

 

I'm more curious about why the left wing hates him-  do you hate him because you absorbed anti-JP media or did you spend some time looking at his youtube snippets?  Take away the politics and he is a college professor that specializes in Jungian psychology - is this objectionable?

On 1/24/2019 at 1:54 AM, Cult Icon said:

This is rather unspecific, you could be describing EVERY public intellectual  (the vast majority are social democrats) involved in politics out there and pushing their own agenda.  In the media it's all about rhetoric and sophistry in order to gain a fanbase, not dry academic discussion.  What exactly (in the details/viewpoints) do you find objectionable about him?

 

The right wing like JP because he says what they want to hear (he is "secular" traditional conservative in disguise)and he is a rare breed- a right wing academic pundit.  The left wing academic pundits probably outnumber the right 20 to 1, or more.

 

I'm more curious about why the left wing hates him-  do you hate him because you absorbed anti-JP media or did you spend some time looking at his youtube snippets?  Take away the politics and he is a college professor that specializes in Jungian psychology - is this objectionable?

 

I had no clue who he was until about a year ago when the Channel 4 interview happened, after which I read up on him a little. Honestly, I'm not convinced he has an overarching philosophy beyond some fairly routine takes on gender roles, self reliance and not expecting the world to owe you a favour. The rest feels more like of a mosaic of notions, gathering together his observations on evolutionary biology, a pinch of Nietzsche and Jung, and a rather stern biblical take on creation.

 

I think his biggest error is to hold up the west as a paragon of virtue, which obviously chimes with his traditional take on things, but doesn't acknowledge that the same set of values has also failed to prevent some of the worst behaviour that the relative modern world has ever seen, or allow for the possibility that those values might easily be subverted, to a catastrophic extent. That's not to say that some of what he dislikes completely misses the mark, but he seems downright myopic about the myriad of flaws in a system he values so much.

 

As for his railing against Post Modernists and Marxists (two groups which aren't nearly as interchangable as he imagines), he appears to make a very simplistic leap of logic from his disdain for some Marxists and academics to an apparent supposition that some kind of totalitarian cabal is responsible for most of the ills of the 20th century, and has subsequently mutated into a potent force in education trying to unpick all the glue that holds western civilisation together. If that is indeed what he's saying and not just how I'm interpreting things, then there's more than a whiff of silly conspiracy theory there and frankly, I don't buy it for a minute. Of course, the problem with that sort of thing, as with flat earthers, climate change deniers etc, is that it's actually quite difficult to engage without acknowledging an alternate reality on which it's based and spending a lot of time unpicking it, and doing so seems to confer some sort of spurious credibility.

 

Anyway, hopefully some of that was coherent, apologies for what is essentially a stream of consciousness rant.

At least USA Powerlifting is sane, needs to happen worldwide in all athletic competitions.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/usa-powerlifting-ban-transgender-women-competing-1316259

On 1/28/2019 at 6:03 PM, Michael* said:

Anyway, hopefully some of that was coherent, apologies for what is essentially a stream of consciousness rant.

 

I think that it's always good to express your ideas and it's even better if it's to argue with (or about) people you  fundamentally disagree with. Plus, someone who likes Laura Marling can't be a bad person.

 

On 1/28/2019 at 6:03 PM, Michael* said:

I think his biggest error is to hold up the west as a paragon of virtue, which obviously chimes with his traditional take on things, but doesn't acknowledge that the same set of values has also failed to prevent some of the worst behaviour that the relative modern world has ever seen, or allow for the possibility that those values might easily be subverted, to a catastrophic extent. That's not to say that some of what he dislikes completely misses the mark, but he seems downright myopic about the myriad of flaws in a system he values so much.

 

I think that a lot of the politically correct behaviour has to do with cultural self loathing in the West. PC is basically a set of strong lexical/cultural barriers (a newspeak, so to say...) whose point are to supposedly avoid reproducing the errors of the past. This thinking is based on a biased belief: the West is supposed to be "intrinsically bad".

 

This belief is at best very inaccurate, because other cultures have brought the same (or worse) catastrophes. I don't know any country that is morally pure. There has been  lots of horrible things within the West, but also lots of horrible things outside the West, like: Maoism and Stalinism that killed tens of millions, Turks that slaughterd Armenians, the Khmer Rouge regime that slaughtered its population, slavery happened in the West, but also in the Middle East and in Asia, etc.

 

The world sometimes sound like this...

Spoiler

 

 

Moreover, even if people have made bad things in the past, self-loathing is definitely not a way to prevent bad things to happen in the future (quite the opposite, I think). Critical thinking is the only way to make people smarter and less prone to massive bloodsheds.

 

I think that Hannah Arendt is the philosopher who is the most accurate and interesting on these catastrophes. Do you like her work on the banality of evil? I think it's very interesting.

 

@Cult Icon  A follow-up on our discussion on PC ads.

 

It seems that Gilette's advertisers have an interesting postulate on the male population: they think that we have rotten lasagna in our cranial cavity. So, their genius marketers need to fill our empty cavity with good thoughts

 

This ad is ridiculous. It is a juice concentrate of sexism (against both men and women), it's a goo of good intentions... in short, it's the modern world

Spoiler

 

 

 

Advertisers are now the thinkers of the new world... and with them, come manichaeism, reeducation and the end of critical thinking.

Well, we don't need no thought control!

Spoiler

 

 

 

SERIOUSLY????

All I see is some kind of modern art homage or even surrealist art (Jean Cocteau's art too)

and some uneducated idiots see black face 😣🙄😶

And the worse in that is that the brand APOLOGY to the morons and removed the shoes from the stores.

 

 

@frenchkiki when I read upon this I couldn't help but role my eyes and laugh. The segment of our population who keeps this hyper sensitivity to all things being some sort of attack on a group need to put a plastic bag over their head and breath heavily for 5 minutes!

3 hours ago, frenchkiki said:

 

SERIOUSLY????

All I see is some kind of modern art homage or even surrealist art (Jean Cocteau's art too)

and some uneducated idiots see black face 😣🙄😶

And the worse in that is that the brand APOLOGY to the morons and removed the shoes from the stores.

 

Welcome to outrage culture and good luck discussing facts with them.

 

A company caves again to public outrage and issues and apology because survey says they don't give a fuck about the outrage just about the money they'll lose.... happens all the time.

@frenchkiki I agree.

Our society is hyper obsessive about gender and ethnic issues. It could be for the better, like by creating intellectual and rational debates on these issues.... but in the end, it often ends up being for the worse. Hyper obsessive debates spawn inward-looking attitudes and outrage reflexes.

Spoiler

 

 

Look at "la ligue du lol" in France. They were journalists who wrote PC things in their journals and... disgusting extremists things while they were under aliases on twitter.    Critical thinking should be the first thing to be taught in schools, it would help people to self-cure their impulses.