Beer o’clock, earthlings. Be back on the morrow prior to BBQ O’clock.
Keep the faith, tip your waiters.
Make sure to order the special.
8 Likes
Bro I guess I’ll spell it out for you: no one is taking you seriously. Like, at all. This is besides the point of whether or not you are right about anything. I don’t know how much free time you have, but it must be substantial for you to so stridently defend something in front of a group of people who don’t care, but it’s more free time than I’ve got. There’s no free lunch, don’tcha know!
8 Likes
This three ring circus is still going?
10 Likes
Of course Camille Paglia would have him on. Cue the New Yorker caption.
6 Likes
I guess we can count ourselves lucky, we could be dealing with some of the lobsters in this scree shot:
7 Likes
I’m not sure what site those comments are from (Facebook?), but it seems more like @Korvexius’s speed than this one.
[also you’ve come close to coining a new term: “screedshot”. And not a moment too soon.]
I won’t speak for him, but it’s definitely given us an opportunity to further dismantle the arguments and intellectual quality of both Peterson and his followers.
8 Likes
See, this is the exact thing I spoke about upthread; lobsters aren’t interested in learning, nor evolving, they see all conversations as an adversarial physical contest that must be dominated. This is why lobsters fail to gain support from us normies, every time.
Every time a lobster posts, an additional normie takes up a Fuck Peterson flag.
8 Likes
They make a pretty good bisque though.
11 Likes
Well technically, we make the bisque. Although I suppose, if you asked the lobsters, they would say they are the stars.
9 Likes
And again Kor demonstrates that lobsters do not understand primates; it is possible for activities to be cooperative, dominance hierarchies need not be the only way, and that normal people look on at lobsters and Jordan with disgust.
7 Likes
Peterson: No marxists are willing to debate me
Marxist: *points out they’d been challenging Peterson for months *
Peterson: I don’t make my schedule, also Ice never heard of you.
Zizek: Come at me, bro
Peterson: I want twenty five thousand dollars. Up front.
12 Likes
This whole thread…
Except the horse has gone zombie.
13 Likes
You beat me to it (so to speak). A zombie horse who moans out for “nerrrrvousss sysssstems…nerrrrvousss sysssstems.”
[ETA: and who constantly puts words in the mouths of others and repeats himself as a basis for declaring unilateral victory]
12 Likes
Looks like the chaos has increased since I’ve been here. For some reason, it looks like a lot of comments have disappeared in general. Either way, let’s move on.
After tino posted an absurd link to that Paul Thagard guy (that guy, if I remember, who posted a bunch of quotes from Maps of Meaning and proceeded to make an extrapolation from them that never appears in the actual book), tino tells us on;
He gives away Maps of Meaning, which surely represents an even greater time investment by Peterson, so why not this too? It’s simple: Peterson is not an altruist, but a capitalist.
The last line here is clearly dishonest when we see what tino was responding to that I wrote;
The rest of the comment is as nonsensical as that. The Future Authoring Program was developed by a team, not just JP. The team includes JP, Daniel Higgins (an Experimental Psychologist at Harvard University), Robert O. Pihl (a Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at McGill University), Michaela C. Shippers (she is an Endowed Professor at Erasmus University). Together, they’ve created a program which according to psychological research decreases leaving rates among students at universities/colleges/schools, especially students who generally have higher leaving rates (i.e. minorities). The idea of tino that JP and his colleagues should just give away these highly complex programs for free is as absurd as absurd gets.
In other words, as is obvious, the program was created by a team, and so in order to give it away for free, everyone has to agree. But the absurdity doesn’t end here. Tino so desperately wants to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon of “JP is doing it for the money!!!” (ignore the fact that all the money he’s spent so far has been on continuing to further his causes) that he thinks in order for JP to prove he’s not doing it for the money, he has to give away everything he’s ever produced for free. This argument hangs itself, such as when @gracchus (or I think it was gracchus?) actually suggested JP should donate 90% of all the money he makes to anti-racism causes to satisfy him. You can’t make this stuff up.
Bro I guess I’ll spell it out for you: no one is taking you seriously. Like, at all. This is besides the point of whether or not you are right about anything. I don’t know how much free time you have, but it must be substantial for you to so stridently defend something in front of a group of people who don’t care, but it’s more free time than I’ve got. There’s no free lunch, don’tcha know!
Aww, I’m not being taken seriously? Is this the same guy writing this that earlier argued Jordan is in favor of flat out discrimination against students in his class because JP doesn’t want his speech to be compelled?
@gracchus, such a creative guy that he enjoys making up refutations wholesale;
I won’t speak for him, but it’s definitely given us an opportunity to further dismantle the arguments and intellectual quality of both Peterson and his followers.
Sheesh. To also list our the previous ‘sins’ of gracchus, he’s previously claimed that ‘brain’ isn’t ever as vernacular for ‘nervous system’ for the sole purpose of creating one of these “dismantlings” and he has come to the conclusion, apparently without understanding a word JP says, that his lecture style is “superifically compelling” while Harvard decided to nominate him for the Levenson Teaching Prize and the University of Toronto named him one of the three life changing teachers. I think I’ve figured it out. JP’s lectures aren’t “superificially compelling”, these ‘refutations’ of him are. We’ve seen … not a single one stand. From absurd claims of JP being an alt-righter and nazi (claims made by tino, and when tino was shown alt-righters considered JP a jewish stooge, tino hypothesized the entire article was out of context) to things even more weird. Since tino is mentioned, I’ll add tino keeps saying things like “See, this is the exact thing I spoke about upthread; lobsters aren’t interested in learning, nor evolving, they see all conversations as an adversarial physical contest that must be dominated” as if Peterson is drawing a one to one comparison between humans and lobsters rather than a general reference to very far from us on the evolutionary tree to show the prevalence of dominance hierarchies.
Scrolled a little more, tino’s not even close to being done.
Peterson: No marxists are willing to debate me
Marxist: *points out they’d been challenging Peterson for months *
Peterson: I don’t make my schedule, also Ice never heard of you.
Zizek: Come at me, bro
Peterson: I want twenty five thousand dollars. Up front. 4
Slavoj Zizek? The guy who repeatedly, endlessly misrepresented JP a few months ago?
And I don’t know if it needs to be said since someone already mentioned it somewhere, JP doesn’t make his schedule. He’s had a staff for that for a few months now. By the way, I can’t tell whether or not tino has read his own link about JP wanting “twenty five thousand dollars” up front, because the link literally never says that. Anywhere. I read the link, couldn’t find it. So I put the number into a search function into the article. Found nothing. So I searched on Google the idea that JP wants 25K for a debate. Found nothing. Not on Google, not on tino’s own link where he made this claim. Witch hunt?
@TobinL there’s a lot more than one of those horses around here, eh? This is really some sort of circus at this point.
No only one that doesn’t seem to realize it is the horse…
9 Likes
Getting back to the original discussion amongst educated adults (zombie horses will be happily ignored going forward per the wise advice of the mods)…
Re-reading your excellent summaries, this quote from Peterson about divorce and monogamy caught my eye as a potential example of his narrow worldview:
Many children of divorce (myself included, and all of my Gen X peers in that situation) eventually mature, connect with their parents as adults, and learn from one or both why the marriage was so bad and why their staying together would have been a disaster for the entire family. Usually as we mature we also see cautionary examples of married couples who hate each-other but who stay together for various reasons (some valid, many not).
This may not be clear to Peterson because he seems to have a solid marriage himself and because he’s more used to dealing with cases of arrested development or children of divorce who have seriously dysfunctional relationships with parents. I believe he had a clinical practise at one time, so I’m sure he frequently encountered people like that long before he found an enormous popular audience made up for the most part of immature and socially maladjusted young men.
Of course, this perception would also bolsters what Denny_Crane convincingly concludes is Peterson’s advocacy of enforced monogamy for life (which supports his general push for “traditional family values” and also gives him a path to pandering to the incel/MRA subsector of the alt-right).
Peterson strikes me as one of those fellows who’s spent a lot of time with profoundly unhappy people and sees that as the default state of things, allowing him to position himself as an exception and saviour figure (to the point where he wanted to buy a church building so he could preach on Sundays).
7 Likes
I grew up profoundly unhappy, and you dont see me going around being a dick to LGBTQ folk. Peterson is a Christian Nihlist, essentially;he sees life as meaningless, but li vs to the legalistic rigid ways of Calvin.
To save Western civilization - to protect “It’s greatest achievement: individualism” he and his followers are attacking the very freedoms and expressions that allow such diversity of individual life to be.
And that’s such a crying shame.
4 Likes
The difference between you and the kind of people I’m talking about is that you eventually got beyond it and grew up. That’s why his 12 rules seem so obvious and trite to you and me.
He presents himself as an agnostic who believes in “traditional Christian family values”, which is just another way of saying he supports The Patriarchy (something he and his followers deny the existence of for obvious reasons).
4 Likes
Criticising Israel (which is a political entity) ≠ criticising or hating Jewish people on account of their being Jewish.
Individual people, regardless of their religious or ethnic bacground can be ultra-nationalist authoritarians. Criticising them ≠ criticising the entire religious or ethnic group.
8 Likes
A junk response. That faction of the alt-right calls everyone a Jewish stooge sooner or later.
5 Likes
