It’s an opinion piece, actually, and the meat I was talking about paints a picture of Peterson using his own words, mostly:
For those unfamiliar with JP, yeah, there’s meat on that bone. Not sure what it says about me, but I’m sure someone is willing to tell me.
Are people upset that the article presented truths about JP? Or that it did it in a mocking way that also mocked his followers that ignore a lot of that stuff?
Mostly that the mocking was terrible and came off petty/jealous. Honestly terrible 'opinion pieces' like this just give more credence to whatever they're against. Complete waste of time to have read it imo, any meat in there got overshadowed by going after Peterson instead of his opinion.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to indes For This Useful Post:
Mostly that the mocking was terrible and came off petty/jealous. Honestly terrible 'opinion pieces' like this just give more credence to whatever they're against. Complete waste of time to have read it imo, any meat in there got overshadowed by going after Peterson instead of his opinion.
The troubling arguments presented by JP are actually viewed more sympathetically because the opinion piece is so inflammatory.
Man for a bunch of guys who would probably mock an SJW for complaining about "tone policing" you sure do take umbrage with the tone of criticism rather than the content.
Also it's pretty amazing that someone being a big meanie sways your rock hard opinion towards a terrible person.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
Man for a bunch of guys who would probably mock an SJW for complaining about "tone policing" you sure do take umbrage with the tone of criticism rather than the content.
Also it's pretty amazing that someone being a big meanie sways your rock hard opinion towards a terrible person.
I don't recall anyone mentioning tone? Ironically your post is the same as the article - pick a position, make a clear wrong assumption about what someone with a different position is talking about, then attack the person. Good job!
I don't recall anyone mentioning tone? Ironically your post is the same as the article - pick a position, make a clear wrong assumption about what someone with a different position is talking about, then attack the person. Good job!
I don't recall anyone mentioning tone? Ironically your post is the same as the article - pick a position, make a clear wrong assumption about what someone with a different position is talking about, then attack the person. Good job!
I don't recall anyone mentioning tone? Ironically your post is the same as the article - pick a position, make a clear wrong assumption about what someone with a different position is talking about, then attack the person. Good job!
I agree with your previous post on some of the issues with the article, I get t (even if it didn’t bother me), but “make a clear wrong assumption about what someone with a different position is talking about” is not an accurate description of the article. Some of the assumptions go further than necessary, but outright wrong? Not one of them. 99% of the quotes the article mentions are indefensible imo.
I’d be happy to hear alternate explanations for the quotes though, if anyone is interested in enlightening the group.
Man for a bunch of guys who would probably mock an SJW for complaining about "tone policing" you sure do take umbrage with the tone of criticism rather than the content.
You’re the first and only person in this thread to use this term. So congrats on successfully becoming what you hate.
Also it's pretty amazing that someone being a big meanie sways your rock hard opinion towards a terrible person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indes
Ironically your post is the same as the article - pick a position, make a clear wrong assumption about what someone with a different position is talking about, then attack the person. Good job!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
The truth hurts dude.
This, in three posts, demonstrates what someone captive to their own ideology looks like. First make an over the top, morally charged statement about someone whose views are anathema, declaring them to be evil. When someone points out that you're not being reasonable, don't for a moment question yourself; simply double down on what you have already pre-decided is automatically true. Any cult leader would be proud to instill this kind of rigid loyalty to the doctrine.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Offering online services for $10 is "indefensible"?
Why don't you just admit you hate the guy instead of cloaking your criticism in hyperbole and save all of us a lot of reading
I don’t hate the guy, I just don’t think much of him.
Trying to monetise this silliness isn’t really defensible, he’s clearly doing it to capitalise on the most easily manipulated of his followers. Do you think anybody actually benefits from paying for his offerings? Or do you think he’s exploiting the insecurities of his followers?
And trust me, nobody is putting your face to the screen and forcing you to read posts from people you do nothing but take issue with. If there is, hopefully the mods can send help ASAP. Hope you’re ok!!
I don’t hate the guy, I just don’t think much of him.
Trying to monetise this silliness isn’t really defensible, he’s clearly doing it to capitalise on the most easily manipulated of his followers. Do you think anybody actually benefits from paying for his offerings? Or do you think he’s exploiting the insecurities of his followers?
And trust me, nobody is putting your face to the screen and forcing you to read posts from people you do nothing but take issue with. If there is, hopefully the mods can send help ASAP. Hope you’re ok!!
Many of his followers claim they pay for his offerings because he benefited them, not the other way around. To a large extent it doesn't matter if you or I think he helps anyone, as there there are literally thousands of people that believe he helped them and are more than happy to pay for it, not just in advance, but after the fact on patreon.
Further, there's plenty of silliness that that helps people; just look at all the people that turn their lives around with the help of religion.
The Following User Says Thank You to sworkhard For This Useful Post:
I’d be happy to hear alternate explanations for the quotes though, if anyone is interested in enlightening the group.
Quote:
...he does retweet Daily Caller articles with opening lines like: “Yet again an American city is being torn apart by black rioters.” He has dedicated two-and-a-half-hour-long YouTube videos to “identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege.”...
He essentially says that although on average white people may have more privilege, he doesn't like the term being assigning a collective guilt to a group of people based on skin colour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZK9h_Mzmu8
I don't know so much about the Daily Caller retweets, but it's possible that he wanted to show how the recent emphasis on white privilege is fuelling racial unrest. Personally I think this is another ad hominem attack by the author saying that anyone who would dare retweet this conservative website obviously endorses anything that they say. The Daily Caller isn't my cup of tea, I don't often read their stuff because I think they have a huge bias, but I hardly think they're abhorrent.
Quote:
...Petersonites can get access to the Self Authoring Suite (a USD $119.92 value!). Those looking for further opportunities to give him money can pay USD $9.99 for “100 question phrases” which “can be found, along with similar question sets, elsewhere on the web” so that they might learn how your personality compares to 10,000 others...
I think there is nothing at all wrong with him monetising his work as a clinical psychologist. I think it's another attack from the author, who simply thinks that making money is somehow not virtuous. I have also heard that his self authoring program which is essentially a guided writing exercise has helped people learn more about themselves. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote:
...when explaining things like men are helpless before “crazy women” and “harpies” because it’s not socially acceptable for men to hit women and that this is “undermining the masculine power of the culture” in a way that will prove “fatal”...
The author cherry-picked from this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL3Hrwg3A3w&vl=en
I really do not think at all that Peterson is advocating violence against women. I think he's saying something about that the social consequences of hitting a woman have changed so that a man can't ever put his hands on a woman even if it threatens a mans safety. I think he could have worded it better though.
Quote:
...In July, he posted a video on his YouTube page laying out a plan to launch a website on which students and parents could have courses rated for them by artificial intelligence that could detect a “postmodern cult course.” His aim, he explained, was to cut off “the supply to the people that are running the indoctrination cults.” Ultimately, the champion of free speech said, he hoped the project would shut down whole departments that upset him....
...He’s already concluded that the entire fields of “women’s studies, and all the ethnic studies and racial studies groups” “have to go,”and that sociology, anthropology, English literature, and education are all “corrupt.”...
He's obviously not a fan of the current state of humanities programs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI1QEGKNMuQ
I find it funny how the author tries to paint Peterson as hypocritical in terms of free speech because he's trying to "shut down university programs". But that's not true, he doesn't want programs shut down by fiat, but rather he wants to help identify programs that he sees as "running the indoctrination cults" so that people won't enrol. Essentially he wants these programs to die due to lack of interest.
Quote:
...”“I was going to put an end to your pomo-Marxist plotting once and for all but a third of respondents to a Twitter poll advised against it, so you’re safe… for now!” ...
Yeah, pretty sure he never said that. Sounds like the authors impersonation of Peterson. He did though realise that folks were split on his idea of him setting up a an app that would identify "postmodernist" courses at universities. He gave up on that idea, but I think it was mostly because he really couldn't deliver such a product.
If your introduction to Jordan Peterson is through hit-pieces like that MacLeans article, I can see how you may see him as an abhorrent. There is a lot of distortion of what he is actually saying. I suggest that you perhaps watch some his longer youtube videos. You might find what he has to say interesting. At the very least you'll have a better understanding of your "enemy".
It's almost as if you can share an idea that someone else had made without it being an endorsement of everything they've ever said or done.
Boom. Academia!
It’s almost as if ideas aren’t generated in a vacuum, and are in fact heavily influenced by world views.
I’m willing to play on the rules of “don’t like the package, forget the message” like you’re suggesting with the Macleans opinion piece.
I’m also willing to play on the rules of “forget the package, and value the ideas” like you’re suggesting with JP/MC.
Having separate rules is odd though. Are we dismissing the macleans article as drivel and thus dismissing Peterson and Christiansen as drivel? Or does the package not actually matter, just the key takeaways, thus forcing people on both sides to validate the other?
Admittedly bias makes it easier to pick and choose, but I’m willing to put mine aside if others are for the sake of conversation.
I have no issue with dismissing the opinion of others if you find fault in their prior statements or opinions, I just don't think it's always wise. I follow quite a few varied opinions on YouTube on these subjects, from Sam Harris to Matt Christiansen and beyond. As much as I agree with many of the things they say, I also disagree with them a lot as well. I don't know of a single individual that shares my perspective on all these topics.
With that said, I still don't recall any instances where Matt Christiansen trashed gay marriage, used anti-gay insults, or supported hate speech. That statement is actually pretty frustrating because I'd consider Christiansen to be fairly moderate, fair, and constructive. When somebody like him is given those labels, it's difficult for reasonable discussion to follow.
