Need a plate of generic, insipid platitudes with a giant helping of bad science and misogyny?
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
1375 points (91.9% liked)
Memes
45585 readers
1593 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tell me one thing he says (other than his religious takes or takes on trans) that you disagree with. I am curious why people would be against his statements as his 'clean your room' style is very general
I also believe nobody knows what he teaches and likes to circlejerk against him
I mean, that's like saying "tell me one thing Hitler says (other than racism and politics) that you disagree with"......
His "teachings" are completely entangled with religion and culturally conservative dogma. This aspect of his character isn't really separable from his teachings or his actions.
To be honest, his actual "philosophy" is just a bunch of word salad that individuals can gleem meaning from when it suits them.
Except hitler is known for his politics and racism. The meme was about mens health and how he is a bad resource for that view. I think you can dissect that from his philosophy and religious teachings.
And Jordan Peterson isn't famous for his anti-trans dogma, or crazy fusion of religion and "philosophy"?
And I am staying that his religious and anti-trans attitude is a key reason of why he is a bad resource for that view. His views of religion and trans people are a inseparable part of his world view.
Yeah JBP is famous outside of his mentor crowd for different reasons. Some people flock to him for guidance, and others look at his other takes and judge him as a whole. It would be akin to having a conversation about good leadership skills and bringing up Hitler as a good model for using effective communication skills for uniting his base regardless of the outcome. I am not talking about Hitlers history of racism or politics.
I just want you to acknowledge that many people dont come to JBP for his stance on religion or trans issues. They come for a fatherly role model. I want you to criticize that not his stance on whatever philosophical problem because they can be seperated. If you can show me an example where it needs to be together then that is acceptable.
I see what you're saying "you can dig through this pile of shit (racism, homophobia, and other bigotry) and find a nugget of gold (basic ass advice on self help and leadership)" and that's as true for JP as it is for Hitler.
I think what everyone else is saying is "WHY?!??" why are you fighting so hard to dig through the shit. There are many people handing out that gold with very little shit digging required.
When you fight so hard for the right to dig through that much shit to find small amounts of easily accessible gold, people are going to rightfully start to think it's not just the gold you're after.
Im losing confidence that you have anything to bring to the table other than dog whistle style messages. I am not trying to defend the guy on all moral positions, i am just looking for this one thing. Its either you know or you dont.
Nothing in what I said is a dog whistle. You clearly don't know what that term means.
This is the first time I responded to you and I was pretty clear: when you support heinous people so ardently you can't blame people for assuming you support heinous people.
That's kinda how propaganda works......... Even if you don't come for the trans and religion dogma, you will be exposed to it.
Lol, it's the same model....... Invent a boogie man, lie, cheat, steal, and hurl abuse at those who oppose you. Yes, it would be like bringing up hitlers "leadership skill". But, then ignoring the reality of what that "leadership" really entailed.
You can't separate the two because he does not separate them. His philosophy leads him to believe in, and justify his own dogmatic views.
This is not a "separate the art from the artist" as this person's art is getting people to embody his own philosophy.
Thats not how propoganda works. Im asking you to formulate an opinion on one subject matter. I can talk about the bible on how it is the most important piece of literature of all time and not be indoctrinated.
You can take a quote of his, show me that it is both intended to bolster his dogmatic philosophy while also empowering young men. That would be an acceptable example. If you can show me that he does this I will give this to you.
Lol, so telling people what they want to hear under ulterior motivations isn't propaganda?
You are, but JP isn't..... That's the whole point. His ideology involves embodied cognition, one which implores you to adopt a new set of behaviors and practices. He doesn't just want to change how you think about one subject, he wants you to make systemic behavioural changes.
Yes, and I can talk about JP without being indoctrinated. However I can't practice Christianity or JPs ideology without being indoctrinated. Practice in action is part of the indoctrination process.
His dogmatic philosophy was created to rile up young men, they are inseparable. The simple fact that you believe that young men need to be empowered is evidence of your indoctrination. What group of young people has more power and opportunities than young men in the west?
Just by being born in the US as a male makes me one of the most empowered beings on the planet. I have more influence over my government than most every other citizen on the planet. I will create and capture more wealth than nearly any other citizen on the planet. I have more opportunity in education and job placement than nearly any other person on the planet. There are nearly 8 billion people on the earth and the only other people who have an opportunity better than me are maybe a hundred million dudes who were born with more wealth. You haven't had your opportunity or "power" taken from you, you're just lazy, which is perfectly fine. The only problem with laziness occurs when you are also massively entitled.
Jordan Peterson's entire scam is giving young economically disadvantaged men something to blame for their woes. Instead of blaming the shareholder, the management, or even economic policy, it's because "men aren't just allowed to be men anymore". He takes that idea and mixes it with actual bits of stolen philosophy and pop psychology.
If there is anything meaningfully beneficial in his teachings, it's scaffolding was erected by someone else. Why dig through the massive pile of shit when you could just go read the people he scavenged it from? Why read JP when you could just read Descartes or Heidegger, hell if you wanted the pop application of Enactivism go read Marie Kondo. She will also tell you to clean your room, but with 100% less transphobia.
Its pretty sad to hear someone outright bully someone. Its not fair to judge the people desperate for compassion. Some of these guys have grown up without a father figure or they are at the edge of suicide and you tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
I am not arguing that you cant find it somewhere else. I am arguing that he exists with this purpose and that he is an easy resource that provides a guiding substance young men desire. I dont even listen to him, i am asking why do young men flock to him if he is not what they want? Is it because they dont know about Heidegger of Marie Kondo or is it that they arent as widely known/popular? (Tbh this is the first time in my life ive heard those names.)
Stop assuming these young men have a burning desire to sift through hundreds if not thousands of options. These guys that seek out guidance are the types that are generally desperate. JBP might not be the best person but hes a figurehead for this space currently.
Lol, me disproving your unsupported claim that young men need empowerment is totally bullying.....
Huh, have you told Jordan Peterson that? If those people are utilizing their "empowerment" to displace the power of other actual disenfranchised groups.... I'm totally fine with judging them.
On a side bar, being desperate for compassion has nothing to do with empowering young men. To seek empowerment is to seek power over people, you don't connect to people by gathering power.
And what does that have to do with empowering young men? They aren't sad because they aren't masculine enough, or disciplined enough. They have emotional baggage and should be seeking guidance from an actual therapist, not through some parasocial relationship with some bigot.
I don't think you can speak for him or other young men.... Nor can you really claim that he's benefitted anyone with his ideology. I'm sure lots of people thought Jim Jones was helping them at the time. I've known people who got into JP and they thought he was helping him "make gains", he wasn't, he was just loosing friends.
Because it easier to blame scapegoats like wokeism and feminist than it is to blame something more enigmatic like our current economic system.
The vast majority of JPs fans are young white men from the western hemisphere. People who 50 years ago would have been almost guaranteed the sweet middle class life if they could just learn a trade or go to college.
Well that's not the case anymore for anyone. After the destruction of unions, the ever increasing profits reserves for shareholders, and the popularization of aggressive labour cutting management, were all in the same boat. If history has taught us anything is that to the privileged class, equality feels an awful lot like oppression.
These young men need a reason why they aren't as successful as their grandfather's, but they're not ready to give up seeing the world in rose tinted glasses. They don't want change, they want to revert back to the time where young white dudes got to catch the free ride.
Then why would you state "I've never heard him state that"? Wouldn't that have been redundant if you haven't actually listened to him?
You don't have be dishonest, you are entitled to have an opinion. However if you are engaging me with that opinion than I am entitled to explain why I think it's wrong.
Quite possible, our education system is a hot pile of trash. Heidegger is one of the fathers of embodied cognition, A philosophical and psychological theory that puts forth the idea that cognition is a dynamic development between an organism and it's environment.
Basically, physical engagement with your environment is the most important aspect of cognition. This is why JP has you clean your room, it gets you to physically engage with your environment in a way that is manageable and achievable for everyone. Teaching people that physical engagement(embodiment) is the first step towards metaphysical problem solving.
The reason that this is dangerous is because it requires young men to embody(practice) the teachings enable to understand them. Which can be devastating if the teachings are being given by a insane person.
Marie Kando is kinda the nice version of JP. She utilizes embodied psych as well, but she's responsible enough to limit what she teaches to practical things around the house hold. She is way way more popular than JP and is one of the best selling authors in recent history.
If these young men were actually in need, they would find actual help. The simple fact is that their needs are no greater than anyone else in the same age bracket. They're just being told that they need help, because someone wants to sell them "help".
Yes, because he's one of the people who created the space in the first place. Jordan Peterson is just Andrew Tate for the pseudo intellectual, I could literally use your same exact arguments to support his popularity among young men. Do you hold the same respect for a literal human trafficker?
Without writing a thesis and deepdiving into his rhetoric - He's not a philosopher, yet often makes references to well known philosophical platitudes from people like Gödel in efforts to argue conservative and religious viewpoints. For example: Argument on Existence of God Notice how he takes a common sense observation, and then applies it to an idea. That's okay, your supposed to do that. My issue with him is that he then makes another assumption, then another...then another. And soon, he's making conclusions built upon a shaky bridge of assumptions that lead back to a small kernel of actual wisdom.
If your paying attention to him, it's very similar to how conspiracy theories are created, you take a solid kernel of truth or seed of wisdom that you can use to anchor the idea....to someone that doesn't know better, that's all they need to believe everything else.
Jordan Peterson is not always wrong, I think he makes genuine points on some subjects when it's based on his actual areas of expertise, but he's sort of a smart sounding jack-of-all-trades when it comes to anything else. For example, he's a psychologist....why did he come up with an all/mostly-meat diet? Because it worked in a niche case with his daughter? It's entirely anecdotal, not researched, divergent from common sense dietary advice, and frankly dangerous.
I said dont give a religious example as that is open to much criticism. I am talking in reference to his points on self-improvement and how everyone here believes they should be ignored. Please give an example on that.
I gave you an example of his argument style that I have issues with, not specifically an argument about religion that I disagree with. I noticed that a lot of his arguments try to use a strong basis on moral or objective reasoning and then provide flimsy but intellectually sounded deduction to stretch further and further towards his ultimate objective. I've given an example of it, and technically a second in regards to his promoted dietary practices. Do with them what you will. :)
So your answer is "no i dont have any examples" then am I right?
Ugh, my bad for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were genuinely asking and not just looking for a gotcha. (also, for the record, I'm not the person you originally responded to)
Im not looking for a gotcha lmao, i asked something specific and i want a specific answer. Stop generalizing
Women wear make up ONLY to signal sexual arousal. Healthy women want kids (so do unhealthy women; healthy women can also want kids). "Sorry, not beautiful" about a woman. Telling people on Twitter to off themselves.
The dude is in trouble for calling himself a neuroscientist and evolutionary biologist ffs. I mean, do I need to go on? Or do you think it's fair to say that his religious and trans arguments aren't the only issues he's currently facing removal of his licensure over?
This has nothing to do with empowering young men.
This comment has nothing to do with your original comment, but if you need me to tie together how his misogyny hurts young men that follow him we can go over that
Show me an example of misogyny, please
Show me you can read my first comment, please.
That wasnt in respnse to what I said though. You just started spewing misogyny stuff
Oh, ok you're illiterate, my apologies.
Its true. Im also a dumb brown native american and male so im like the trifecta
Well good luck to you out there Pat. I believe in you. You'll slay the chaos demon someday
Yaaasssss
You'll be happy to know that JP has falsely claimed numerous times that he is a member of the native Kwakwaka’wakw tribe of Ontario!
"The cure for that is enforced monogamy."
About Alek Minassian, a man accused of killing six people after running them over with a van in Toronto: “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Oh, some incel murdered 6 people, must of been a woman's fault somehow.......
Is defending a literal misogynist terror attack enough evidence for you?
Send link if you can
Sure
I just read this and although i think its extremely biased you are still the only person to share some sort of evidence so thank you. I would recommend getting a more direct source to criticize in the future so im not considering opinion articles from a peoples magazine as a source
The direct source is the video linked in the article. Arguing the quality of a source material in a subjective debate is just admitting you don't have a counter argument. This isn't a scientific debate, the quote I gave you is directly from the primary source. You can choose not to believe the subjective information in the article, but I didn't make any claims that weren't direct quotes from a primary source.
Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn't empower young men? That is literally telling young men that women are subservient to them.....
Who exactly is stealing the power away from these young men? And what exactly are they taking away?
Can you give us a example of how JP actually empowers men?
I have never heard JBP say this. I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable... but thats not the same thing.
Dont turn this on me. I asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men(which is the point of this meme). You cant reverse uno and ask me the same question
I mean you asked for a quote and someone provided a quote. You can look up the quote and find articles about it.
It's just one of the misogynistic lies he spews on the regular. I believe in the same interview he stated that high heels were invented to lengthen the legs of women to make them more attractive...... In reality high heels were first worn by men to keep shit from getting in their shoes.
Lol, so much better..... It's your fault you are being stepped on, not the generations of oppression and systemic disenfranchisement. Does that apply to everyone? Is he saying that Africans were just to agreeable so we had to enslave them...... Broken as logic.
Yes, I'm going to first prove God doesn't exist, then I will work on proving the negative with JP ..... You can't prove a negative my dude. If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it's up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.
Im just going to respond to this because im kinda over this. The claim was initially made by the meme. I am questioning this, yet you are here asking me for proof of the contrary.
The claim was made by a meme with no supporting evidence, and thus can be dismissed without evidence.
The meme is also inanimate and cannot defend it's own affirmation. However, you chose to substantiate this affirmation, which means you now have the onus of burden of proof.
That literally makes no sense. You have a good day.
Let me explain then. If there was an ancient tablet found with the words "God is dead" on it. Would we take that at face value? No, it doesn't have any evidence to support it, there is no reason to engage in debate.
However if you suppose the tablet is correct, you would have to support that affirmation with additional supporting information. The statement of the tablet isn't self evident, so it not really a serious claim. You are making it a serious claim by supporting it, and thus must be the one to provide evidence for that claim.
This is pretty basic debate, which is usually structured into the form of affirmation vs negation. The side of the affirmation is the one making a claim( god is dead), the side of the negation responds by denying the claim and responding to supporting evidence by proposing counter arguments.
It doesn't matter that you didn't make the original claims, only that you choose the side of the affirmation.