You think JP is a nihilst?
life is suffering
- Jordan B Peterson
Also Jordan B Peterson: lobsters show dominance hierarchies are natural and therefore good.
Capitalism has left us with billions of people working upwards of fifty hour work weeks in order to barely scrape by. But rather than work towards replacing a system that promotes such emptiness, Jordan wants to keep everyone else trapped in it. Because misery loves company.
Jordan B Peterson is the politics of resentment writ large.
3 Likes
Yeah, life is suffering. But that’s not the same as saying life is meaningless. JP saying there’s no excuse for nihilism here.
And Peterson hasn’t said dominance hierarchies “are natural and therefore good.” The NBC made this same mistake, to which Peterson had to point out saying something exists isn’t the same as justifying it. Anyways, no point in having the capitalism debate anymore – that’s been addressed earlier. I think it goes without saying that capitalism is good. Lifting 130,000 people out of poverty per day? Tino, perhaps you forget that before the modern age, people were working around the entire clock to “get by.” People living today have better conditions than a king from a century ago. Plus Peterson is against resentment.
Nazism may have been an atheist movement (started by supernatural/occult believers) but it found fertile ground among the religious Christian population that was infused with anti-semitism of Luther and the RC.
3 Likes
My view
More things change, more they stay the same;
Society a game, and its rugged against us poor.
The working, enslaved masses, hungry evermore.
Now, brother, will you join us, to fight for due rest
Or Bray on like asses saying Jordan knows best?
5 Likes
Like Il Douche he certainly knows how to exploit the insecurities and sense of entitlement of millions of immature and maladjusted and delusional and damaged Americans. The most effective way to get their support is to promise (implicitly or explicitly) that the goal is to make everyone as miserable as they are. This is why Peterson promotes well-known engines of unhappiness like strict traditional hierarchy and enforced monogamy with one partner for life and not addressing gender dysphoria.
8 Likes
Nazism was not an atheist movement.
Yes, that was the point. Peterson is, as usual, wrong.
10 Likes
Exactly. With the exception of a relative handful of dissidents and resisters like Niemoller, “traditional Christian values” in Germany enabled (and were used by) the regime instead of stopping it.
7 Likes
Lobsters do a bang up job of demonstrating why a lobster world would be the worst, and conversely, demonstrates exactly why a progressive socialist one would be best.
7 Likes
You’re misreading again. The thread supports that you are Gish Galloping. Step up, and show you aren’t.
The burden of proof is on you here, obviously. An accusation has to be demonstrated before it can be defended from. By “gish gallopping”, you probably mean “you write long comments.” Yeah, I do, and they’re all in response to specific points made by the … ‘critics’ around here.
@KathyPartdeux has now suggested JP thinks men are limited as well?
My comment has to do with the fact that those “decreased levels” are often the results of violence not being properly measured. When you don’t count the violence done within the family unit, it certainly looks statistically lower.
Yes, you wrote this before. I’m asking why you think that these specific rate of violence was not measured by all the papers I mentioned. I’d be happy to agree with you, right, but I need to know the justification for the point here.
Keep throwing chum, chum.
3 Likes
Sorry Saint, burden of proof is still on you. Your comment “Keep throwing chum, chum” really stranged me out though.
EDIT: This is for @MalevolentPixy. I took a look through one of the papers, and it appears to mention that the external rate of violence between men changes when society becomes monogamous. From Kanazawa, Satoshi and Mary Still, Why Men Commit Crimes (And Why They Desist) (2000): pg. 443;
Monogamy, by prohibiting even the richest and highest status men from acquiring more than one wife legally, greatly reduces the extent of sexual competition among the rest of men. Thus, we expect the monogamous institution of marriage to reduce crimes; conversely, we expect the polygynous institution of marriage to increase crimes.
So the real question becomes this: why would marital violence increase in monogamous societies to counteract the external increased violence as a product of increased sexual competition among human populations?
Because papers don’t measure people wearing long-sleeved sweaters in 110 degree heat, or sunglasses indoors. Papers don’t measure doors walked into and stairs fallen down.
In case you don’t get it, those are common ways and excuses to hide or dismiss the bruises. Violence still occurs, but society tells the victims it’s not real. Abusers convince the victims (often with the help of society) that it’s the victims fault.
I am actually not surprised you can’t see it. I have only seen one instance in this entire thread where you looked at your own possible shortcomings and didn’t immediately leap to blame others (conspiracy theory!) when people don’t say “my gosh, you are right, what a genius you are.”
In other words, no, I can’t find you studies, not because the results are negative, but nobody collected the data to study it. That’s why it seems to be lower violence but is not. Kind of like a very dark and nasty magic trick, things aren’t always what they seem.
8 Likes
Something about the environment in this thread really isn’t lending itself to constructive discourse. Part of it being the patchwork of remnant quotes on deleted comments. Overall though, I don’t think you are holding up a reasonable standard of discourse either. Chucking walls of text and saying the burdon of proof is on everyone else is by definition Gish Galloping.
9 Likes
They also don’t measure countless years’ worth of the police and courts and society blaming rape victims for dressing provocatively, wearing too much makeup, not being monogamous, etc. – the sort of complaints made by the incels and MRAs to whom Peterson panders with complementary rhetoric about traditional values and relationships.
9 Likes
Your stultifying monomania is becoming boring to me. Please do not engage me or mention me in any way going forward. At all. Ever.
5 Likes
Science Daily is an American website that aggregates press releases and publishes lightly edited press releases (a practice called churnalism) about science, similar to Phys.org and EurekAlert!.[1][2][3]
Press releases, not exactly journal material. I am snickering at “churnalism” though. Entirely appropriate, I think.
6 Likes
This topic is temporarily closed for 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
Just a reminder - personal attacks are a violation of our community guidelines and something we take seriously. Don’t stoop to that level, indirectly or otherwise, and don’t reply further to anyone who has requested such.
If you disagree with a user’s opinion, communicate that. Don’t bring the user themselves into it.
The world is full of individuals with differing opinions and we’re happy to foster lively discussion here, but only if it can be done with respect and within the guidelines we’ve set.
Thanks.
16 Likes
This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.
