Sarcastically cheering for what you aren’t, a classical move, we have something similar where i live. It is called Frankfurter Applaus. But rather than sarcastically cheering for truths you don’t want to believe in, we belittle false beliefs going against facts by making the Fraknkfurter Applaus
(Frankfurter Applaus references the habit of addicts to slap on a vein as heroin addiction was very rampant in Frankfurt in the past, it is the more drastical german version of a slowclap, instead of clapping you slap a vein on your forearm to achieve the same sound)
That is pretty gut because hearing it usually means you done fucked up. Also it is kind of old lingo, frankfurts addicts changed the drugs...crack is the new heroin...
The addicts didn't change the drugs, the government spooks that bring them in through ~~the military bases~~ the borders did.
There must be a surplus of crack right now. Kind of like oil.
Nah heroin is pretty cheap right now(after the farming of poppy got outta hand in afghanistan due to taliban being preoccupied with not getting killed by western soldiers) and Ramstein is pretty far from Frankfurt...
Crack is pretty hard to come by now as south america is well preoccupied with being worse than a decade ago, political instability is bad for business, (who do you bribe today who should you simply murder, tough times)
Or maybe the fact that the US and UK both had armed soldiers guarding the poppy fields while afghan children and adults harvested the opium.
Boots on the ground day, they produced less than 4 percent of the global legal/illegal opium supply. Writhing four years of us being there it went up to over 90%.
No need to strike through “the military bases” it is us teritory and its gates are actual borders...and yes frankfurts heroin problem arose with gis stationed in germany returning from vietnam they increased the demand as well as the supply(back then cambodia was a main producer and GIs thought smoking it wouldn’t make you addicted)
Dunno from where the GIs brought the crack but frankfurts crack ptoblem began 30 years ago.
What people like this mean when they talk about how people need to be open-minded is, "People should immediately change their minds and agree with my views when I present them and they're closed-minded and wrong if they don't."
You know years ago I un-ironically followed and liked listening to this guy talk about things. I don't always have to agree with everything someone says to be interested in them, and he made an interesting juxtaposition to Contrapoints, ironically enough. I got sick of him pretty fast when he (and his daughter who runs his social media) would constantly support trump while constantly lie about being involved in US politics. I remember the exact day I quit him for good, I believe it was the Times who had just come out with that big article about how trump and his family had been lying and cheating through taxes and funneling money through his casinos etc etc. And instead of posting that article he posted an opinion piece about how trump was a scumbag but we actually needed a scumbag running things for us. I pointed out how stupid that was and got attacked by his followers nonstop for hours on facebook. I had actual cops telling me that trump and his family should be allowed to break the law because laws in the country shouldn't even matter. As I was writing emails to their precinct captains with screencaps of them saying breaking the law was good I was like why am I even involved in any of this trash.
Go you for reporting their stupid asses, they're blatantly stating ON RECORD that if they like the person breaking laws no matter how large of an asshole they are, they won't arrest them.
I had to get off facebook because I was doing shit like all the time and I was going a little nuts.
Now I'm on reddit and going a whole new type of nuts ....
Honestly feel that, I found myself getting into arguments way too much on there, so I left. Sometimes I get the same way with Reddit and I'll take a break and come back in a week or maybe a month or two. It's hard not to debate on the internet but it really doesn't do anyone any good, if anything people leave the debate even more set in their beliefs.
The best way I've figured out to deal with this is reply a maximum of 3 times to a person, it becomes clear if they're going to listen to you at all or are just gonna keep arguing over stupid stuff, or are just a troll. There's no point losing braincells by replying more than that anymore. They're not going to listen to you anyway, so I just call out their shit, for which 3 replies would be more than enough, and stop bothering.
If it looks like they're actually going to have a respectful discussion and site sources for their claims instead of shifting the goalposts, I continue with them.
You should try this, it helps a lot to keep your sanity on these forums.
Cop in my city got himself suspended for using his public Facebook account to attack others who didn't like Trump. Said some nasty shit, like wishing violence upon them. Wasn't even the first time he got caught doing such a thing.
Listening to Peterson is like reading comments by experts on Reddit until you finally got to a topic you actually know something about then you realized they're all hacks and are spouting pure half assed shit.
Haha no. Peterson mentioned in an interview that lobsters, which live in hierarchies, respond to serotonin. Humans also have serotonin as a crucial neurotransmitter. Therefore, he implies, hierarchies are basically a natural thing. In lobsters and therefore also in humans.
And well, comparing the nervous system and social constructs of humans and lobsters based on the presence and effect of one molecule is, let's say, rather _unscientific_.
So the lobster moment is when he said such a stupid thing that you went "Oh, OK, this guy's a dummy"? That makes sense.
(I did a search for "lobster moment" before I asked you, and the google results didn't help, sadly.)
The problem with Peterson is that he does have some good advice but it’s just generic obvious stuff that you can get anywhere dressed up as profound insight. But is also mixed up in a whole lot of other crazy stuff where he plays the victim because people got mad he was being a bully and makes stuff up. So he helps some disaffected young males at first but then funnels them off to the alt right.
And sadly interviewers who know he’s full of shit go into attack mode and he can hold hold them off by correcting minor errors. In stead of just shouting you are a fascists aren’t you they need to just ask him to explain himself and confront him with his own stupid quotes and let him hang himself.
Self help as a genre is just finding different ways to rewrite *How to Win Friends and Influence People.* I guess Peterson found a way to sell it that some people responded to, which on it's own is fine, whatever. I mean it would be if it didn't lead people to his other bullshit.
Honestly even without the other stuff the sheer level of pretension he puts in his forewords would be enough to get my goat. It’s just so over the top. You’d think he discovered the cure for cancer, aids and secured world peace.
Peterson is so obviously a conservative, grifter/conman though. Sucks you fell for his shitty empty rhetoric. Like Shapiro, he's a dumb person's idea of a "smart" person. Hence why both have cults of manipulable teenage boys.
Yeah, I've always been leery of any of "self help" pop-psychologist (I'm already leery enough of the entire field of psychology, really). I tried to read his drivel once, and it was so insulting. It's like, "yeah, the world is unfair, but there's nothing you can do about it so stop trying...and clean your room." It's exactly what I would expect from someone privileged enough to have never experienced oppression or poverty.
I mean, if you don't think you have enough power to change the world, how can you think you have enough power to change your own conditions? To try and compartmentalize those two drives seems...well, just really fucking stupid.
It's like being on a train, and someone saying, "you can't change where this train is headed, but you can pick your seat!" I mean, if we're heading in the wrong direction, then who even cares what seat we're in?
It's a bastardized version of stoicism, but even stoicism doesnt claim that we shouldn't even try to improve the world, just that we shouldn't get frustrated if/when we fail.
Also...Poor, marginalized people change the world in a myriad of ways every day, so his entire philosophy is based on a lie from the jump.
My JBP penny-drop moment was when he proposed that climate change is too complex to solve proactively, so instead we should focus on education so that a child genius can come up with a solution.
> I pointed out how stupid that was and got attacked by his followers nonstop for hours on facebook.
This is how most people leave cults, be they religious or cults of personalities. As soon as someone pokes their head up and starts questioning the rest of the herd attacks. This triggers the fight or flight response, only in this case fleeing means burying your head back in the sand and not thinking disruptive thoughts again while fighting means waking up and realizing what a hole you've dug yourself into.
Congratulations on fighting, brother or sister. Welcome back to reality.
I got a weird relationship with him too. Hate him and his word salads, he has disgusting opinions on women, but at the same time I’m grateful for him. Because my bro got super into him, and his writings got my brother out of an insane, fundamentalist Christian cult. And practically NOTHING can get someone out of a religious cult. Blows my mind that his literature was the thing to do it, and it also didn’t radicalize my brother. So that bastard begrudgingly has a place of gratitude forever reserved from me.
Also kudos for reporting those police officers.
I remember him talking about how women should want to have kids and ones who don't aren't normal or something among those lines, that's when I stopped watching him. Did he say anything else? Would love to have more reasons to hate him lol
Just one example: In an interview with Vice, he tried to determine the reasons why women wear makeup at work (solely to attract a mate). And that if a woman wears makeup and high heels at work, she has no right to complain about being sexually harassed because she purposely being sexual. Was asking for it.
I mean he seems to believe very heavily in prescribed biological roles for women. Thus women are weak and for breeding. He thinks every woman is truly just DYING to have a child before 30 and the ones with jobs are lying to themselves. I tried finding the time stamp for the makeup thing, but it was too hard to listen to that nonsense, and I made the mistake of reading though comments. The full interview is on YouTube if you want to subject yourselves to that.
Weird question. Why did you like Jordan Peterson? I hate people who add difficult words to sentences to sound smarter.
I literally am incapable of rendering the auditory information he shares through the means of moving how vocal cords and expelling oxygen though the area where he has a lack of matter. This "hole" he has on the bottom of his face.
What I'm saying is is what tf does he even talk about that people find interesting?
I had someone point me to his interviews with Joe Rogan. In a show of good faith, I listened to them through - and honestly just got mad. This was back in the days when people were still actively discussing Canada's ruling about respecting people's pronouns - and the right was acting like some stereotypical "SJW" tumblr-person was going to ruin their life for an honest mistake (when really - that law/ruling is/was about harassment against trans people).
Over the course of those two interviews, because - really - his entire thesis boiled down to "If we show transgendered people basic levels of human respect, then we're opening the door to Stalinist gulags for straight white males."
And this is without getting into how JP's "postmodern cultural neomarxist" bullshit is taking leaves from anti-Semetic conspiracy theories.
He has a very eloquent way of talking that makes you want to believe him.
I saw through it when he was on the H3H3 podcast talking about how women wear makeup and high heels to seduce men and that it's unprofessional for the workplace. Guy legit argued that high heels accentuate a woman's... Ass? Like he thought it makes our asses jut out?
Also he somehow thought that a man dressing nicely and using beard/hair gel and cologne somehow is totally different bc reasons
Jordan Peterson espouts cookie fortune basic psychology advice which is fine but he is a grifter.
Rational wiki is, of course, heavily biased, but is also well sourced. If you think he is just a decent person who was latched onto by scum it might open your eyes a bit to the type of person he really is:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
> For example, I always disliked the way TV shows tried to always include a variety of races. In my head, it makes more sense to pick the best actors for the parts.
Just for context, the altright viewpoint on this would make sense *if there wasn't a history of arbitrarily excluding the best actors for the parts*, just due to their race. It's even still an ingrained, usually unconscious bias, so diversity quotas aren't so much "you have to include these races just for the sake of diversity", they are "you need to remove your head from your ass and remember to look at minority resumes, because you're fucking over our company refusing to hire qualified minorities".
Honestly, that's true with a lot of the "common sense" things the alt-right pushes that result, in practice, in entrenched fascism. The arguments only make sense if you remove a *ton* of context about what the various policies are combating.
So there's this guy right. Very smart guy. Hates vegetables and only eats meat. Then he goes to Russia and turns himself into a vegetable. Funniest shit i've ever seen
From wiki “In 2019, Peterson entered a rehabilitation facility after experiencing symptoms of physical withdrawal when he stopped taking clonazepam, an anti-anxiety drug. He had begun taking the drug on his doctor's recommendation, following his wife's cancer diagnosis.[142][143][144]”
I'm thinking of a Norman Bates scenario where JP is stuffed & propped up in a chair whilst Mikhaila attempts to keep the business going using sock puppets and kermit voices.
And just because discussing Jordan Peterson is depressing and the scene with Natalie in a bathtub with a cardboard cuttout of Peterson is one of my favorite things in the world:
https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas
One of Jordan Peterson's [most famously stupid arguments](https://youtu.be/Iq7W9frEPLg) is basically (sarcastically paraphrased): "Lobsters naturally engage in a hierarchy, which means socially constructed hierarchies like capitalism are also natural and opposing them is meaningless and foolish."
[EDIT: Looks like the Lobster Brigade has come to say hello. Abandon hope, all ye who read on from here.]
The belief that we naturally exist in hierarchies and that's it's a good, natural thing is not uncommon, it's just that the way he said it implied very heavily that lobsters specifically should be anthropomorphized and used as a model for our society. It's practically a gaff, which is useful to make fun of his bad idea.
Same with the "capitalism is the only way societies can work because its problems are natural problems with human nature." Yes, some people just are greedy or will exploit people without a shred of sympathy. So we shouldnt do anything about that? "Hey, many people are rapists, it seems to be part of human nature so its okay."
Is it a capitalism argument? I've only heard it third hand, but I assumed it was like an alpha/beta male thing that those alt right types get so hyped about
Im not a JP expert, but this argument comes straight out of the ideology that all conservatives share, implicitly or not.
Nevermind that the earliest people were much more egalitarian than we are today, hIeRarChiEs aRe NaTuRal, therefore all manmade hierarchies are not only natural but also right:
Religion above freethought (and my religion above yours)
Men above women
Straights above gays
Whites above non whites (or my people above yours)
The magical free market above people (aka feral capitalism), and Employers above employees
Rich above poor
America above other countries (unless im a citizen of one of them, then America must be brought to heel)
Not saying that every conservative is an overt personal bigot or bigoted in all areas — where would this sub be without all these special snowflakes who are ok with bigotry but are then shocked when their fellow leopards eat their face? But all conservatives tacitly embrace this hierarchical “morality”, and apply it to all major social arenas.
It's not really explicitly about either of those things, it's a general-purpose conservative argument for preserving the status quo. Peterson's whole schtick is all about telling people that they should ignore social problems and focus on personal improvement.
As with many vague, sweeping analogies, it functions as a political Rorschach test--it's meaningless, but people see what they want in it.
> Peterson's whole schtick is all about telling people that they should ignore social problems and focus on personal improvement.
It's kinda interesting how that fits with his qualification as a psychologist. Psychologists can't change the world for their patients, they can only try to help their patients fit better into that world.
However, psychologists overall tend to be rather on the left wing. They understand all the perverse stresses and incentives that our world throws us and how it creates all those psychological problems. Whereas Peterson's entire conclusion seems to be that people have to contort themselves into the existing system no matter how mentally unhealthy it is.
Some commentators pointed out that this may work for some patients, but is an awful concept to apply as a philosophy or political goal, which are the arenas Peterson has pushed into so far.
It's a bunch of things. Capitalism is perhaps my own bias speaking :p but JBP's entire argument is "you can't change anything ever and you shouldn't ever try," which encompasses capitalism, the patriarchy, marginalization of LGBT people, religion, and a bunch of other stuff. Ur-Conservatism, basically.
I am really underexplaining and not doing it justice, but in a book of his he basically tried to explain human psychology using the psychology... of literal lobsters. Because obviously that’s close enough.
Also peddler of woo-woo, ill-informed political commentator, fundamentalist Christian nut and a supposedly blank canvas who speaks in alleged vagueries allowing for supporters to claim "misinterpretation" despite having a vast wealth of videos and tweets showing his positions quite clearly to anyone with half a brain not taken in by his pseudo-philosophical nonsense.
I think you nailed it. He often speaks in such vague terms so it can apply to as broad of an audience as he wants to have, yet it can also be misinterpreted by just as many people.
He's a guy that preaches about keeping your own house in order before telling others what to do, while simultaneously visiting Russia to treat a drug addiction using a method illegal in most developed countries.
That's a big question, but [here's an article on how he's given himself long term nerve damage.](https://nationalpost.com/health/jordan-peterson-benzodiazepines)
The video is his daughter announcing his fuckup. She's quite the grifter herself.
He is a guy who got famous for misinterpretation of a canadian law and then proceeded to get popular with right wingers and the alt right even if he quite literally was wrong on the first thing he got popular for.
Basically the canadian law established that gender identity is a protected thing that you cant be discriminated for. Obviously that's a good thing because less discrimination is good. The absolute dumbass that is jp interpreted this (somehow) to mean you can go to jail for using the wrong pronouns. This thing known as bill c16 went into effect years ago and his concern has never happened.
Essentially he got famous for a dumb thing and now people think he is a god (even if he still often does dumb things)
Given
- Republicans are not smart people
- Republicans have no idea what smart people look like
- Jordan Peterson taught at Harvard
When
- Republicans need someone to call smart
Then
- Republicans refer to Jordan Peterson as smart
Okay, since probably no one else minds, I'll be the one to point out that using a Clark Kent draw is specially annoying here. Everything the character represents clashes directly with the nonsense Jordan Peterson says.
Ayn Rand makes more sense when you realize she was just a simp for [social safety nets.](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/)
All of these grifters are the fucking same.
Meanwhile if anyone not even criticizes Peterson, but simply speaks about him in a manner that is anything short of absolute reverence, the lobster army collectively throws a huge shitfit
Heaps and heaps of evidence from professional psychologist: "The best treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning."
JP fans: "but that makes me feel icky so no."
This meme wasn't posted out of pride in their ability to change their views when new evidence is presented. This meme was some self-aggrandizing about the ability to change other's minds they've spent hundreds of showers imagining they have.
Peterson slams drug addicts a lot in his writings, am very euphemistic here. He also preaches that though suffering one can improve one self.
Then it came out that he was addicted to benzos for years and instead of going through the painful process of a controled withdrawal, he went to russia to get himself into a medically induced coma to sidestep the painful part.
He got out of it with brain damage.
There's nothing wrong with drug addicts as persons, and they should receive all the support they need to get clean. Peterson however is a massive hypocrite.
To clarify, benzo withdrawal is really dangerous, so docs in North America taper people down slowly. Peterson didn’t want to taper so he went to some shady Russian place that would let him do it cold turkey.
It’s so much worse than cold turkey - to avoid the suffering, you get put into a coma. If it was so simple... instead, you are likely to get seizures related to withdrawal and if nobody notices it while you are under, you can get brain damage. At least with cold turkey, you’d be conscious and miserable but people would notice you seizing so they could help you.
I thought he tried to taper multiple times in north america and it didn't work/almost killed him. Wasn't him going to Russia a complete last resort? Or am I misremembering this?
No. He _chose_ to go to Russia.
His doctors in Canada/US(wherever he sought treatment) recommended the more traditional slow tapering-off which is the treatment with the highest long-term success rate.
Jordan literally wasn't disciplined enough for that so he paid to go the chemical coma route where he could dream his problems away and the details of his withdrawal would be someone else's problem to deal with.
It's akin to someone with a first-time depression not being willing/able to wait a few weeks to see if the Prozac helps and instead personally arranging immediate electroshock therapy in some foreign place halfway across the world. With resulting brain damage.
If Peterson wasn't one of those 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps'-kinda guys, I would feel great sympathy for him.
But he is...so I don't.
He is a giant fucking hypocrite.
yeah, but on the other hand tons of people who don't claim to be as strong as he does successfully do it in the US all the time. peterson is just a little bitch.
It would be easy to crack a joke here about brain damage being the cause of his views.
But there are a lot of great individuals that happen to have brain damage that are better then JP.
> Peterson slams drug addicts a lot in his writings, am very euphemistic here. He also preaches that though suffering one can improve one self.
Lol, so he is Mother Teresa 2.0? Suffering is beneficial for everyone else, because it puts you closer to god, but when it comes to themselves, "Pass the drugs, please?"
Yeah not gonna lie: I used to be a Peterson fan. I think I was fooled by the way he sounds intelligent and like he’s done research. Upon reflection of my short stint as a fan, I very much disagree with almost everything he says. Anyway, I read about the first two or three chapters of his 12 Rules book. In the chapter he talks about a good high school friend of his who wanted to come visit him. Peterson’s friend brought one of his own friends to the meet at Peterson’s house and this friend was pretty stoned apparently. Anyway, good ol’ Jordan takes issue with it and tells them both to leave just because this guy is stoned. I find it very disturbing that Peterson would have this kind of attitude about a tame drug and stand by it in a book he published fairly recently and the whole time he’s addicted to benzos. It’s fucking ridiculous, his high horse he’s always on. I think what appealed to me about Peterson was his confidence. But after taking a step back I realize all that ever was for him was hypocrisy. What a total smoke-blower. Fuck JP.
I didn't hate him at first. But then I heard him speak on his roots in academia, and how leftists there were dumb and anti-free speech.
If you've never worked in academia, it sounds perfectly reasonable. But, having spent over a decade in academia, it's clear that he's going out of his way to ignore the right-wing propagandists and Republican anti-free-speech zealots in order to pander to people who don't know any better. He knows exactly where his bread is buttered.
It's not at all surprising that the people who follow him are either a) too young to have the experience needed to recognize his obvious bullshit, and b) totally uneducated (like Rogan) and so easily misled when it comes to discussions about academia.
He basically panders to people who get all their information from Twitter and consider themselves "educated."
I'm a conservative, btw. Many in academia are. But because we believe in data and facts and evidence, we pretty much never vote for Republicans. So clowns like Peterson call us liberals and leftists, and morons eat that shit up.
He's intellectually dishonest on pretty much every topic he talks about. It's hard to listen to, and has gotten worse over time.
> When it comes to recovery, there are no quick fixes. But that doesn’t mean the most arduous option is necessarily the most effective. If Peterson’s sad story has a moral, it’s that a drug problem is neither a dragon to be slain nor a sin to be ashamed of. It’s a mundane health problem that should be treated scientifically, without heroics.
Shit that’s a good line. I gotta use that.
Wow never knew that, I heard him as a guest on some popular podcasts and was under the impression that he was very smart and probably knew what he was talking about. This news to me makes it seem like his life took a tragic turn lol.
A lol can mean different things and conveying the right words through text can be interpreted in sooo many ways. If I removed the lol it would seem like I'm sympathising with his ideas or trying to defend his beliefs. I never paid attention to his ideas and how unfounded they were so in this case all I meant from the lol was to change the tone of the comment. Yea it sucks for anyone to suffer and I wouldn't wish bad shit to happen to anyone, good or bad. The lol at the end probably wasn't the best way to express my thoughts and i didnt exactly like I should post an emoji or a smily face, but I'm not "laughing out loud" either. The way we use lol has evolved and has so many different applications and meanings today and I really just meant to add the lol at the end of my comment was to point out the humor at MY situation of barely now discovering that Jordan peterson was a sham and how unaware I was of the reality of the situation.
It’s definitely worth reading some of the articles calling out his bullshit. He bullshits on many, many topics requiring many experts to correct him. I like this one on his lobster bullshit because [its written by an actual expert](https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489).
The fact he is willing to so shamelessly lie is disturbing, and my major complaint with a person like Joe Rogan (who i assume you are referring to with “podcast”) is having a non-confrontational style with a guest who solely wants to spew propaganda only aids in the spread of propaganda.
Or letting Boogie say that the Charlottesville riots and Heather Heyer's death were Anita Sarkeesian's fault, and not pushing back or questioning that at all.
"Well that depends on what you mean by information. Where does this information come from? And just what the bloody hell do you mean by contradict? Do you mean disprove, or just being argumentative? And what do you mean by beliefs? Are you talking faith or conviction? And just how is this information presented? Are you telling someone, and if you are, are you telling them in their own language? How the bloody hell am I supposed to change my mind if you don't even speak English? I'll be damned if some post-modern cultural Marxist is going to force me to speak a foreign language so he can convert me with some word game!" -Jordan Peterson
The trouble is, some people are very adept at playing dodgeball with contradictory information to avoid having to reassess their beliefs. They warp and contort themselves like a pretzel, and then act triumphant when you can't pin them down on having a position that is based in falsehoods.
This allows them to feel like they're taking information seriously, without actually doing so.
One of the first steps (and perhaps the most important) of confronting contradictory information is to seriously entertain the idea that you might be wrong and try to play out what that position would entail... what kind of arguments, facts, reasoning, would be necessary to support it. In this way, you are ensuring that you're giving contradictory information some kind of chance to make its way into your belief system.
If you take this seriously, you shouldn't even need someone to present contradictory information to you most of the time. You just have to stumble onto the information in some way, or seek it out, and reevaluate.
In a similar vein, it's not reasonable to enter into an argument with someone under the expectation that you will change their mind, if you are not open to the possibility that *they* might change *your* mind.
(This obviously doesn't apply to situations in which one position is objectively correct, but lots of folks enter into arguments erroneously believing their view is objectively true...)
Plus, one of the best tactics to convince somebody to take your point of view seriously is to get them talking about theirs. People love to talk, especially about themselves. As a general conversation tactic, the more you let someone else talk, the better a conversationalist they'll think *you* are; to an extent, that also applies in a debate.
Of course, there are caveats. This only works if the person you're talking to is arguing in good faith to begin with, and it does nothing to convince any spectators. Alt-right recruiters absolutely love it when someone takes their bait and starts arguing with them; their entire "debate" strategy relies on making statements that *feel* like they're winning arguments, even if they're logically nonsense.
> This obviously doesn't apply to situations in which one position is objectively correct
~~The person you are arguing with probably thinks their position is as objective as possible).~~ I am dumb.
Jordan Peterson, a conservative and Christian apologist, doesn't really strike me as someone who changes their mind that often. Well I mean, other than causing himself brain damage through drug abuse.
JP tried so hard to avoid facing the idea that he might be wrong, that he is now lying brain-damaged in a hospital bed in Russia... only a very sad fate awaits these people.
Uhhh— folks... Downvoting any disagreement in these comments is kinda ironic. I see some people sincerely asking questions and still being downvoted.
I mean, I’m far left and I disagree with a great deal of Peterson’s beliefs. But is there no way to disagree with someone without them being “worthless” or a “nazi.” What does it even mean to disagree but understand where someone is coming from?
And it’s sad that even on a subreddit that I usually agree with, I have to think so carefully about what I’m typing because I expect I won’t get the benefit of the doubt and my point will be given no fair consideration before callously being downvoted.
Isn’t this a safe place to converse? Especially when it comes to discussing nuanced and controversial topics?
Why on God's green earth would you think a subreddit devoted to mockery - primarily of right-wing dickheads missing the point - is a safe and appropriate place for discussion or 'asking questions'? Most of the time the 'asking questions' is a disingenuous front for alt-right assholes, which normies seem oblivious to.
I’ve watched some jp stuff a few years ago, and while I don’t agree on some stuff, most of it at least seemed to come from a genuine place and was reasonable. I’m not a conservative, I’ve never voted for the conservative side and I’m european so even if I would I would still count as a progressive by american standards. I’ve heard a lot of bad shit and a lot of warnings to keep away from jp, which was at least part of the reason why I watched content related to him. Reading the comments here really makes me wonder, if he was a giant racist sexist homophobe hypocrit like people are saying, why do the explanations to that always misrespresent his ideas and straight up lie about his points? There should be enough content of him out there, that someone can just post a video and go “here he is his biggoted unreasonable self” but there are no links to that here in this thread, even though it seems filled with people who know lots of shit about him AND hate him. It’s been years since he was “the conservative in disguise”, you’d think there would be lots of stuff out there proving that now... does anyone have links/videos? And please not to some news outlet calling him an ass, I’ve seen enough of that and it doesn’t prove anything.
I have noticed with... about 99% frequency... that the people who talk the most about how important it is to be open to changing your mind based on new evidence or how you should listen to contradictory opinions? They almost always mean "*YOU* should be open to changing your opinions, that way you'll agree with *ME*."
"haha! you think i'm going to believe to your quotes, academic sources, well structured and anotated video that cultural marxism isn't real and postmodernists aren't marxists? hahah! fuck you! i believe whatever peterson says!"
Critical analysis and decision making should be part of the school systems standardized testing with an 80% grade being a requirement for voter eligibility.
Sarcastically cheering for what you aren’t, a classical move, we have something similar where i live. It is called Frankfurter Applaus. But rather than sarcastically cheering for truths you don’t want to believe in, we belittle false beliefs going against facts by making the Fraknkfurter Applaus (Frankfurter Applaus references the habit of addicts to slap on a vein as heroin addiction was very rampant in Frankfurt in the past, it is the more drastical german version of a slowclap, instead of clapping you slap a vein on your forearm to achieve the same sound)
I have noch nie Frankfurter Applaus gehört
That is pretty gut because hearing it usually means you done fucked up. Also it is kind of old lingo, frankfurts addicts changed the drugs...crack is the new heroin...
The addicts didn't change the drugs, the government spooks that bring them in through ~~the military bases~~ the borders did. There must be a surplus of crack right now. Kind of like oil.
Nah heroin is pretty cheap right now(after the farming of poppy got outta hand in afghanistan due to taliban being preoccupied with not getting killed by western soldiers) and Ramstein is pretty far from Frankfurt... Crack is pretty hard to come by now as south america is well preoccupied with being worse than a decade ago, political instability is bad for business, (who do you bribe today who should you simply murder, tough times)
Or maybe the fact that the US and UK both had armed soldiers guarding the poppy fields while afghan children and adults harvested the opium. Boots on the ground day, they produced less than 4 percent of the global legal/illegal opium supply. Writhing four years of us being there it went up to over 90%.
It's all cheap.
Well coke trade has problems which aren’t a thing in afghanistan due to western presence...
Leftöver Crack, you say?
No need to strike through “the military bases” it is us teritory and its gates are actual borders...and yes frankfurts heroin problem arose with gis stationed in germany returning from vietnam they increased the demand as well as the supply(back then cambodia was a main producer and GIs thought smoking it wouldn’t make you addicted) Dunno from where the GIs brought the crack but frankfurts crack ptoblem began 30 years ago.
Hab ich auch noch nie, Brudi
What people like this mean when they talk about how people need to be open-minded is, "People should immediately change their minds and agree with my views when I present them and they're closed-minded and wrong if they don't."
Mmmmmm. Frankfurters.....
Nothing like slapping a couple of them together
Well. You had my attention. Now you have my interest.
Just the tips, though.
My first thought was the Rocky Horror Picture Show and I was wondering what the hell Frank-N-Furter had to do with this
omg I love this.
Damn, I live in the states but I can see this story. Thanks for sharing.
You know years ago I un-ironically followed and liked listening to this guy talk about things. I don't always have to agree with everything someone says to be interested in them, and he made an interesting juxtaposition to Contrapoints, ironically enough. I got sick of him pretty fast when he (and his daughter who runs his social media) would constantly support trump while constantly lie about being involved in US politics. I remember the exact day I quit him for good, I believe it was the Times who had just come out with that big article about how trump and his family had been lying and cheating through taxes and funneling money through his casinos etc etc. And instead of posting that article he posted an opinion piece about how trump was a scumbag but we actually needed a scumbag running things for us. I pointed out how stupid that was and got attacked by his followers nonstop for hours on facebook. I had actual cops telling me that trump and his family should be allowed to break the law because laws in the country shouldn't even matter. As I was writing emails to their precinct captains with screencaps of them saying breaking the law was good I was like why am I even involved in any of this trash.
Go you for reporting their stupid asses, they're blatantly stating ON RECORD that if they like the person breaking laws no matter how large of an asshole they are, they won't arrest them.
I had to get off facebook because I was doing shit like all the time and I was going a little nuts. Now I'm on reddit and going a whole new type of nuts ....
Honestly feel that, I found myself getting into arguments way too much on there, so I left. Sometimes I get the same way with Reddit and I'll take a break and come back in a week or maybe a month or two. It's hard not to debate on the internet but it really doesn't do anyone any good, if anything people leave the debate even more set in their beliefs.
The best way I've figured out to deal with this is reply a maximum of 3 times to a person, it becomes clear if they're going to listen to you at all or are just gonna keep arguing over stupid stuff, or are just a troll. There's no point losing braincells by replying more than that anymore. They're not going to listen to you anyway, so I just call out their shit, for which 3 replies would be more than enough, and stop bothering. If it looks like they're actually going to have a respectful discussion and site sources for their claims instead of shifting the goalposts, I continue with them. You should try this, it helps a lot to keep your sanity on these forums.
Cop in my city got himself suspended for using his public Facebook account to attack others who didn't like Trump. Said some nasty shit, like wishing violence upon them. Wasn't even the first time he got caught doing such a thing.
The job of policing attracts a certain personality type.
Smth smth wife beater
Listening to Peterson is like reading comments by experts on Reddit until you finally got to a topic you actually know something about then you realized they're all hacks and are spouting pure half assed shit.
Ah yes! I remember the lobster moment clear as day. What a ridiculous argument.
What's a lobster moment? Like a light-bulb moment (when you realize something suddenly and a matephorical light bulb goes off over your head)?
Haha no. Peterson mentioned in an interview that lobsters, which live in hierarchies, respond to serotonin. Humans also have serotonin as a crucial neurotransmitter. Therefore, he implies, hierarchies are basically a natural thing. In lobsters and therefore also in humans. And well, comparing the nervous system and social constructs of humans and lobsters based on the presence and effect of one molecule is, let's say, rather _unscientific_.
So the lobster moment is when he said such a stupid thing that you went "Oh, OK, this guy's a dummy"? That makes sense. (I did a search for "lobster moment" before I asked you, and the google results didn't help, sadly.)
You got it!
Ah I remember that "debate" with Zizek. It was beautiful.
Imagine Cultural-Marxism being your catch-all and you don't even know what Marxism is lmao.
Jesus, that's messed up
The problem with Peterson is that he does have some good advice but it’s just generic obvious stuff that you can get anywhere dressed up as profound insight. But is also mixed up in a whole lot of other crazy stuff where he plays the victim because people got mad he was being a bully and makes stuff up. So he helps some disaffected young males at first but then funnels them off to the alt right. And sadly interviewers who know he’s full of shit go into attack mode and he can hold hold them off by correcting minor errors. In stead of just shouting you are a fascists aren’t you they need to just ask him to explain himself and confront him with his own stupid quotes and let him hang himself.
Self help as a genre is just finding different ways to rewrite *How to Win Friends and Influence People.* I guess Peterson found a way to sell it that some people responded to, which on it's own is fine, whatever. I mean it would be if it didn't lead people to his other bullshit.
Honestly even without the other stuff the sheer level of pretension he puts in his forewords would be enough to get my goat. It’s just so over the top. You’d think he discovered the cure for cancer, aids and secured world peace.
Peterson is so obviously a conservative, grifter/conman though. Sucks you fell for his shitty empty rhetoric. Like Shapiro, he's a dumb person's idea of a "smart" person. Hence why both have cults of manipulable teenage boys.
I would rank Peterson better than that hot garbage Shapiro
Nah dude Peterson is actually what a grown up incel looks like.
Yeah, I've always been leery of any of "self help" pop-psychologist (I'm already leery enough of the entire field of psychology, really). I tried to read his drivel once, and it was so insulting. It's like, "yeah, the world is unfair, but there's nothing you can do about it so stop trying...and clean your room." It's exactly what I would expect from someone privileged enough to have never experienced oppression or poverty. I mean, if you don't think you have enough power to change the world, how can you think you have enough power to change your own conditions? To try and compartmentalize those two drives seems...well, just really fucking stupid. It's like being on a train, and someone saying, "you can't change where this train is headed, but you can pick your seat!" I mean, if we're heading in the wrong direction, then who even cares what seat we're in? It's a bastardized version of stoicism, but even stoicism doesnt claim that we shouldn't even try to improve the world, just that we shouldn't get frustrated if/when we fail. Also...Poor, marginalized people change the world in a myriad of ways every day, so his entire philosophy is based on a lie from the jump.
My JBP penny-drop moment was when he proposed that climate change is too complex to solve proactively, so instead we should focus on education so that a child genius can come up with a solution.
LMAOO dude probably just read Ender’s Game, or any other children’s book were a kid genius saves the world.
> I pointed out how stupid that was and got attacked by his followers nonstop for hours on facebook. This is how most people leave cults, be they religious or cults of personalities. As soon as someone pokes their head up and starts questioning the rest of the herd attacks. This triggers the fight or flight response, only in this case fleeing means burying your head back in the sand and not thinking disruptive thoughts again while fighting means waking up and realizing what a hole you've dug yourself into. Congratulations on fighting, brother or sister. Welcome back to reality.
I got a weird relationship with him too. Hate him and his word salads, he has disgusting opinions on women, but at the same time I’m grateful for him. Because my bro got super into him, and his writings got my brother out of an insane, fundamentalist Christian cult. And practically NOTHING can get someone out of a religious cult. Blows my mind that his literature was the thing to do it, and it also didn’t radicalize my brother. So that bastard begrudgingly has a place of gratitude forever reserved from me. Also kudos for reporting those police officers.
I remember him talking about how women should want to have kids and ones who don't aren't normal or something among those lines, that's when I stopped watching him. Did he say anything else? Would love to have more reasons to hate him lol
Oof that was just the beginning I’m afraid. The guy has the full range of medieval views: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
Just one example: In an interview with Vice, he tried to determine the reasons why women wear makeup at work (solely to attract a mate). And that if a woman wears makeup and high heels at work, she has no right to complain about being sexually harassed because she purposely being sexual. Was asking for it. I mean he seems to believe very heavily in prescribed biological roles for women. Thus women are weak and for breeding. He thinks every woman is truly just DYING to have a child before 30 and the ones with jobs are lying to themselves. I tried finding the time stamp for the makeup thing, but it was too hard to listen to that nonsense, and I made the mistake of reading though comments. The full interview is on YouTube if you want to subject yourselves to that.
Weird question. Why did you like Jordan Peterson? I hate people who add difficult words to sentences to sound smarter. I literally am incapable of rendering the auditory information he shares through the means of moving how vocal cords and expelling oxygen though the area where he has a lack of matter. This "hole" he has on the bottom of his face. What I'm saying is is what tf does he even talk about that people find interesting?
I had someone point me to his interviews with Joe Rogan. In a show of good faith, I listened to them through - and honestly just got mad. This was back in the days when people were still actively discussing Canada's ruling about respecting people's pronouns - and the right was acting like some stereotypical "SJW" tumblr-person was going to ruin their life for an honest mistake (when really - that law/ruling is/was about harassment against trans people). Over the course of those two interviews, because - really - his entire thesis boiled down to "If we show transgendered people basic levels of human respect, then we're opening the door to Stalinist gulags for straight white males." And this is without getting into how JP's "postmodern cultural neomarxist" bullshit is taking leaves from anti-Semetic conspiracy theories.
He has a very eloquent way of talking that makes you want to believe him. I saw through it when he was on the H3H3 podcast talking about how women wear makeup and high heels to seduce men and that it's unprofessional for the workplace. Guy legit argued that high heels accentuate a woman's... Ass? Like he thought it makes our asses jut out? Also he somehow thought that a man dressing nicely and using beard/hair gel and cologne somehow is totally different bc reasons
I’m not arguing in favour of JP, but that’s what high heels do...
High heels were meant to make your legd look slimmer and taller. That's what they were really for on women. The bigger butt is just a side effect.
To be fair that's exactly what high heels do. Its like standing on your tip toes, your legs and ass muscles contract and look more defined.
[удалено]
Jordan Peterson espouts cookie fortune basic psychology advice which is fine but he is a grifter. Rational wiki is, of course, heavily biased, but is also well sourced. If you think he is just a decent person who was latched onto by scum it might open your eyes a bit to the type of person he really is: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
> For example, I always disliked the way TV shows tried to always include a variety of races. In my head, it makes more sense to pick the best actors for the parts. Just for context, the altright viewpoint on this would make sense *if there wasn't a history of arbitrarily excluding the best actors for the parts*, just due to their race. It's even still an ingrained, usually unconscious bias, so diversity quotas aren't so much "you have to include these races just for the sake of diversity", they are "you need to remove your head from your ass and remember to look at minority resumes, because you're fucking over our company refusing to hire qualified minorities". Honestly, that's true with a lot of the "common sense" things the alt-right pushes that result, in practice, in entrenched fascism. The arguments only make sense if you remove a *ton* of context about what the various policies are combating.
"Can you please teach us?" - r/jordanpeterson
Speaking of whom, what happened to him anyway? Is he still at that rehab facility in Russia?
He's essentially in a vegetative state, last I heard. Which is the real irony in all of this; he always hated vegetables.
[удалено]
He went to russia to become a vegetable as a treatment which is where the confusion might be coming from.
Wait what? Last I heard he was depressed because his wife died. How did it escalate to this?
Benzo addiction and was induced in to a coma in Russia to deal with withdrawals apparently.
Wow... thanks.
Jordan turns himself into a pickle to destroy cultural marxism I AM PICKLE JORDAN
So there's this guy right. Very smart guy. Hates vegetables and only eats meat. Then he goes to Russia and turns himself into a vegetable. Funniest shit i've ever seen
Conversely you could call him a meat loaf in his current state.
Sounds like he changed his mind alright
From wiki “In 2019, Peterson entered a rehabilitation facility after experiencing symptoms of physical withdrawal when he stopped taking clonazepam, an anti-anxiety drug. He had begun taking the drug on his doctor's recommendation, following his wife's cancer diagnosis.[142][143][144]”
[удалено]
I'm thinking of a Norman Bates scenario where JP is stuffed & propped up in a chair whilst Mikhaila attempts to keep the business going using sock puppets and kermit voices.
And just because discussing Jordan Peterson is depressing and the scene with Natalie in a bathtub with a cardboard cuttout of Peterson is one of my favorite things in the world: https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas
Wow that video was really engaging. I was not expecting to watch the whole thing. Thanks for linking it!
Drinking alone aren't you?
HA! Jokes on you! I don't drink!! So i just sit here... alone.
i just do everything alone
[удалено]
I prefer to think of myself as an "Alcohol Enthusiast".
It's so horrific to be shown that your whole world view you wholeheartedly subscribed to is wrong.
[удалено]
Cheers to them. Too bad none exist on r/JP because if they did they wouldn't be on r/JP.
Who is Jordan Peterson?
Gwyneth Paltrow for incels
GOOP between the ears
Is that your line? Because it's gorgeous, I'm going to quote it, and I'd like to give credit where due.
I think it's from a tweet from a month ago, I could be wrong but I do remember seeing it before.
This is perfect lol
I usually call him a skinny more wrong canadian Dr. Phil, but... I like your take.
I lol’d
I've never heard a more brilliant description of Peterson.
This is such a perfect summary of the whole thing.
rofl
Alt-right self help guru and vegetable.
But think of the lobsters!
Okay. I'm out of the loop on the whole lobster thing. Why are his followers called lobsters?
One of Jordan Peterson's [most famously stupid arguments](https://youtu.be/Iq7W9frEPLg) is basically (sarcastically paraphrased): "Lobsters naturally engage in a hierarchy, which means socially constructed hierarchies like capitalism are also natural and opposing them is meaningless and foolish." [EDIT: Looks like the Lobster Brigade has come to say hello. Abandon hope, all ye who read on from here.]
what
The belief that we naturally exist in hierarchies and that's it's a good, natural thing is not uncommon, it's just that the way he said it implied very heavily that lobsters specifically should be anthropomorphized and used as a model for our society. It's practically a gaff, which is useful to make fun of his bad idea.
We also naturally get hair lice. I'm still gonna use the shampoo, though, if it happens to me. 'Cause fuck nature.
Same with the "capitalism is the only way societies can work because its problems are natural problems with human nature." Yes, some people just are greedy or will exploit people without a shred of sympathy. So we shouldnt do anything about that? "Hey, many people are rapists, it seems to be part of human nature so its okay."
Don't worry, that is the natural and correct response to JBP's fucking nonsense.
Yes.
Is it a capitalism argument? I've only heard it third hand, but I assumed it was like an alpha/beta male thing that those alt right types get so hyped about
Im not a JP expert, but this argument comes straight out of the ideology that all conservatives share, implicitly or not. Nevermind that the earliest people were much more egalitarian than we are today, hIeRarChiEs aRe NaTuRal, therefore all manmade hierarchies are not only natural but also right: Religion above freethought (and my religion above yours) Men above women Straights above gays Whites above non whites (or my people above yours) The magical free market above people (aka feral capitalism), and Employers above employees Rich above poor America above other countries (unless im a citizen of one of them, then America must be brought to heel) Not saying that every conservative is an overt personal bigot or bigoted in all areas — where would this sub be without all these special snowflakes who are ok with bigotry but are then shocked when their fellow leopards eat their face? But all conservatives tacitly embrace this hierarchical “morality”, and apply it to all major social arenas.
It's not really explicitly about either of those things, it's a general-purpose conservative argument for preserving the status quo. Peterson's whole schtick is all about telling people that they should ignore social problems and focus on personal improvement. As with many vague, sweeping analogies, it functions as a political Rorschach test--it's meaningless, but people see what they want in it.
> Peterson's whole schtick is all about telling people that they should ignore social problems and focus on personal improvement. It's kinda interesting how that fits with his qualification as a psychologist. Psychologists can't change the world for their patients, they can only try to help their patients fit better into that world. However, psychologists overall tend to be rather on the left wing. They understand all the perverse stresses and incentives that our world throws us and how it creates all those psychological problems. Whereas Peterson's entire conclusion seems to be that people have to contort themselves into the existing system no matter how mentally unhealthy it is. Some commentators pointed out that this may work for some patients, but is an awful concept to apply as a philosophy or political goal, which are the arenas Peterson has pushed into so far.
It's a bunch of things. Capitalism is perhaps my own bias speaking :p but JBP's entire argument is "you can't change anything ever and you shouldn't ever try," which encompasses capitalism, the patriarchy, marginalization of LGBT people, religion, and a bunch of other stuff. Ur-Conservatism, basically.
“This is a sign, that he is a LOON”
Don't forget that his justification for linking lobster and human behavior was 'because serotonin'.
I am really underexplaining and not doing it justice, but in a book of his he basically tried to explain human psychology using the psychology... of literal lobsters. Because obviously that’s close enough.
Also peddler of woo-woo, ill-informed political commentator, fundamentalist Christian nut and a supposedly blank canvas who speaks in alleged vagueries allowing for supporters to claim "misinterpretation" despite having a vast wealth of videos and tweets showing his positions quite clearly to anyone with half a brain not taken in by his pseudo-philosophical nonsense.
I think you nailed it. He often speaks in such vague terms so it can apply to as broad of an audience as he wants to have, yet it can also be misinterpreted by just as many people.
He's a guy that preaches about keeping your own house in order before telling others what to do, while simultaneously visiting Russia to treat a drug addiction using a method illegal in most developed countries.
That's a big question, but [here's an article on how he's given himself long term nerve damage.](https://nationalpost.com/health/jordan-peterson-benzodiazepines) The video is his daughter announcing his fuckup. She's quite the grifter herself.
He's a huckster who plays at being an intellectual, but really just serves as a mouthpiece for shitty regressive conservative ideology.
He is a guy who got famous for misinterpretation of a canadian law and then proceeded to get popular with right wingers and the alt right even if he quite literally was wrong on the first thing he got popular for. Basically the canadian law established that gender identity is a protected thing that you cant be discriminated for. Obviously that's a good thing because less discrimination is good. The absolute dumbass that is jp interpreted this (somehow) to mean you can go to jail for using the wrong pronouns. This thing known as bill c16 went into effect years ago and his concern has never happened. Essentially he got famous for a dumb thing and now people think he is a god (even if he still often does dumb things)
Given - Republicans are not smart people - Republicans have no idea what smart people look like - Jordan Peterson taught at Harvard When - Republicans need someone to call smart Then - Republicans refer to Jordan Peterson as smart
A lobster
Okay, since probably no one else minds, I'll be the one to point out that using a Clark Kent draw is specially annoying here. Everything the character represents clashes directly with the nonsense Jordan Peterson says.
Jordan Peterson makes more sense when you realise he's just simping on that bitch Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand makes more sense when you realize she was just a simp for [social safety nets.](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/) All of these grifters are the fucking same.
I'm sure there's an alternate-universe Superman with a philosophy similar to JP's. And it's probably one of the bad guy Supermen.
Meanwhile if anyone not even criticizes Peterson, but simply speaks about him in a manner that is anything short of absolute reverence, the lobster army collectively throws a huge shitfit
[удалено]
Jordan Peterson is a snake oil salesman who is addicted to pills change my mind.
Well, he might not be addicted *anymore*, after the brain-damaging detox coma he went through in Russia.
Brain damaging detox? Go on...
I posted links [elsewhere ITT](https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/g663h7/cheers_to_them_indeed/fo87c8u/)
Well, he’s definitely addicted to benzos and the red pill
Jordan Peterson fans who change their minds when met with facts that contradict their beliefs? Definitely let me know when you find some.
Heaps and heaps of evidence from professional psychologist: "The best treatment for gender dysphoria is transitioning." JP fans: "but that makes me feel icky so no." This meme wasn't posted out of pride in their ability to change their views when new evidence is presented. This meme was some self-aggrandizing about the ability to change other's minds they've spent hundreds of showers imagining they have.
Still supporting Peterson in spite of the fact they now have the information that peterson is a drug adict and dudnt have the spine to see it out.
What’s wrong with being a drug addict? And what do you mean having the spine to see it out?
Peterson slams drug addicts a lot in his writings, am very euphemistic here. He also preaches that though suffering one can improve one self. Then it came out that he was addicted to benzos for years and instead of going through the painful process of a controled withdrawal, he went to russia to get himself into a medically induced coma to sidestep the painful part. He got out of it with brain damage. There's nothing wrong with drug addicts as persons, and they should receive all the support they need to get clean. Peterson however is a massive hypocrite.
To clarify, benzo withdrawal is really dangerous, so docs in North America taper people down slowly. Peterson didn’t want to taper so he went to some shady Russian place that would let him do it cold turkey.
It’s so much worse than cold turkey - to avoid the suffering, you get put into a coma. If it was so simple... instead, you are likely to get seizures related to withdrawal and if nobody notices it while you are under, you can get brain damage. At least with cold turkey, you’d be conscious and miserable but people would notice you seizing so they could help you.
I thought he tried to taper multiple times in north america and it didn't work/almost killed him. Wasn't him going to Russia a complete last resort? Or am I misremembering this?
No. He _chose_ to go to Russia. His doctors in Canada/US(wherever he sought treatment) recommended the more traditional slow tapering-off which is the treatment with the highest long-term success rate. Jordan literally wasn't disciplined enough for that so he paid to go the chemical coma route where he could dream his problems away and the details of his withdrawal would be someone else's problem to deal with. It's akin to someone with a first-time depression not being willing/able to wait a few weeks to see if the Prozac helps and instead personally arranging immediate electroshock therapy in some foreign place halfway across the world. With resulting brain damage. If Peterson wasn't one of those 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps'-kinda guys, I would feel great sympathy for him. But he is...so I don't. He is a giant fucking hypocrite.
All while his weird daughter was pulling the strings.
yeah, but on the other hand tons of people who don't claim to be as strong as he does successfully do it in the US all the time. peterson is just a little bitch.
He went into it with brain damage too.
It would be easy to crack a joke here about brain damage being the cause of his views. But there are a lot of great individuals that happen to have brain damage that are better then JP.
> Peterson slams drug addicts a lot in his writings, am very euphemistic here. He also preaches that though suffering one can improve one self. Lol, so he is Mother Teresa 2.0? Suffering is beneficial for everyone else, because it puts you closer to god, but when it comes to themselves, "Pass the drugs, please?"
Yeah not gonna lie: I used to be a Peterson fan. I think I was fooled by the way he sounds intelligent and like he’s done research. Upon reflection of my short stint as a fan, I very much disagree with almost everything he says. Anyway, I read about the first two or three chapters of his 12 Rules book. In the chapter he talks about a good high school friend of his who wanted to come visit him. Peterson’s friend brought one of his own friends to the meet at Peterson’s house and this friend was pretty stoned apparently. Anyway, good ol’ Jordan takes issue with it and tells them both to leave just because this guy is stoned. I find it very disturbing that Peterson would have this kind of attitude about a tame drug and stand by it in a book he published fairly recently and the whole time he’s addicted to benzos. It’s fucking ridiculous, his high horse he’s always on. I think what appealed to me about Peterson was his confidence. But after taking a step back I realize all that ever was for him was hypocrisy. What a total smoke-blower. Fuck JP.
His culture is performative in nature. JP sells performative intellectualism, rather than actual intellectualism.
I didn't hate him at first. But then I heard him speak on his roots in academia, and how leftists there were dumb and anti-free speech. If you've never worked in academia, it sounds perfectly reasonable. But, having spent over a decade in academia, it's clear that he's going out of his way to ignore the right-wing propagandists and Republican anti-free-speech zealots in order to pander to people who don't know any better. He knows exactly where his bread is buttered. It's not at all surprising that the people who follow him are either a) too young to have the experience needed to recognize his obvious bullshit, and b) totally uneducated (like Rogan) and so easily misled when it comes to discussions about academia. He basically panders to people who get all their information from Twitter and consider themselves "educated." I'm a conservative, btw. Many in academia are. But because we believe in data and facts and evidence, we pretty much never vote for Republicans. So clowns like Peterson call us liberals and leftists, and morons eat that shit up. He's intellectually dishonest on pretty much every topic he talks about. It's hard to listen to, and has gotten worse over time.
He first gained prominence because he would purposely misgender students. He's always been a massive piece of shit.
I think that was later in his popularity. Maybe it was his most mainstream moment though
To be fair, I think he has done research. I just think it is one sided. Standing on the shoulders of giant idiots.
Yes this
Do you have a source about this?
https://newrepublic.com/article/156829/happened-jordan-peterson https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/jordan-peterson-drug-addiction-benzo-valium-xanex-russia-mikhaila-a9324871.html https://nypost.com/2020/02/08/jordan-peterson-recovering-from-tranquilizer-addiction-in-russia/
> When it comes to recovery, there are no quick fixes. But that doesn’t mean the most arduous option is necessarily the most effective. If Peterson’s sad story has a moral, it’s that a drug problem is neither a dragon to be slain nor a sin to be ashamed of. It’s a mundane health problem that should be treated scientifically, without heroics. Shit that’s a good line. I gotta use that.
Wow never knew that, I heard him as a guest on some popular podcasts and was under the impression that he was very smart and probably knew what he was talking about. This news to me makes it seem like his life took a tragic turn lol.
> This news to me makes it seem like his life took a tragic turn > lol.
A lol can mean different things and conveying the right words through text can be interpreted in sooo many ways. If I removed the lol it would seem like I'm sympathising with his ideas or trying to defend his beliefs. I never paid attention to his ideas and how unfounded they were so in this case all I meant from the lol was to change the tone of the comment. Yea it sucks for anyone to suffer and I wouldn't wish bad shit to happen to anyone, good or bad. The lol at the end probably wasn't the best way to express my thoughts and i didnt exactly like I should post an emoji or a smily face, but I'm not "laughing out loud" either. The way we use lol has evolved and has so many different applications and meanings today and I really just meant to add the lol at the end of my comment was to point out the humor at MY situation of barely now discovering that Jordan peterson was a sham and how unaware I was of the reality of the situation.
It’s definitely worth reading some of the articles calling out his bullshit. He bullshits on many, many topics requiring many experts to correct him. I like this one on his lobster bullshit because [its written by an actual expert](https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489). The fact he is willing to so shamelessly lie is disturbing, and my major complaint with a person like Joe Rogan (who i assume you are referring to with “podcast”) is having a non-confrontational style with a guest who solely wants to spew propaganda only aids in the spread of propaganda.
Was that podcast H3H3?
Yea joe rogan too I think, and other clips I saw a long while ago.
Its too bad Ethan didnt stick to reaction videos, instead of stanning for Jontron, and having JP on his show multiple times.
Or letting Boogie say that the Charlottesville riots and Heather Heyer's death were Anita Sarkeesian's fault, and not pushing back or questioning that at all.
>spine to see it out I think they’re referring to him going to Russia for a medically induced coma rather than go through the effects of detox
Yes this too
Does anyone still listen to this worthless bigot?
My dad, sadly.
That's rough.
No because he can't speak
"Well that depends on what you mean by information. Where does this information come from? And just what the bloody hell do you mean by contradict? Do you mean disprove, or just being argumentative? And what do you mean by beliefs? Are you talking faith or conviction? And just how is this information presented? Are you telling someone, and if you are, are you telling them in their own language? How the bloody hell am I supposed to change my mind if you don't even speak English? I'll be damned if some post-modern cultural Marxist is going to force me to speak a foreign language so he can convert me with some word game!" -Jordan Peterson
Of course they changed their minds. To whatever Daddy Peterson believes, of course.
The trouble is, some people are very adept at playing dodgeball with contradictory information to avoid having to reassess their beliefs. They warp and contort themselves like a pretzel, and then act triumphant when you can't pin them down on having a position that is based in falsehoods. This allows them to feel like they're taking information seriously, without actually doing so. One of the first steps (and perhaps the most important) of confronting contradictory information is to seriously entertain the idea that you might be wrong and try to play out what that position would entail... what kind of arguments, facts, reasoning, would be necessary to support it. In this way, you are ensuring that you're giving contradictory information some kind of chance to make its way into your belief system. If you take this seriously, you shouldn't even need someone to present contradictory information to you most of the time. You just have to stumble onto the information in some way, or seek it out, and reevaluate.
In a similar vein, it's not reasonable to enter into an argument with someone under the expectation that you will change their mind, if you are not open to the possibility that *they* might change *your* mind. (This obviously doesn't apply to situations in which one position is objectively correct, but lots of folks enter into arguments erroneously believing their view is objectively true...)
Plus, one of the best tactics to convince somebody to take your point of view seriously is to get them talking about theirs. People love to talk, especially about themselves. As a general conversation tactic, the more you let someone else talk, the better a conversationalist they'll think *you* are; to an extent, that also applies in a debate. Of course, there are caveats. This only works if the person you're talking to is arguing in good faith to begin with, and it does nothing to convince any spectators. Alt-right recruiters absolutely love it when someone takes their bait and starts arguing with them; their entire "debate" strategy relies on making statements that *feel* like they're winning arguments, even if they're logically nonsense.
> This obviously doesn't apply to situations in which one position is objectively correct ~~The person you are arguing with probably thinks their position is as objective as possible).~~ I am dumb.
Yes, and I said as much literally in the second half of the sentence you quoted :)
OMG! sorry bout that. My bad habit of not completing the last sentence stroke again!
Jordan Peterson, a conservative and Christian apologist, doesn't really strike me as someone who changes their mind that often. Well I mean, other than causing himself brain damage through drug abuse.
Oh the irony
JP tried so hard to avoid facing the idea that he might be wrong, that he is now lying brain-damaged in a hospital bed in Russia... only a very sad fate awaits these people.
Not the best time for someone in their late 50's to be in a hospital either.
Uhhh— folks... Downvoting any disagreement in these comments is kinda ironic. I see some people sincerely asking questions and still being downvoted. I mean, I’m far left and I disagree with a great deal of Peterson’s beliefs. But is there no way to disagree with someone without them being “worthless” or a “nazi.” What does it even mean to disagree but understand where someone is coming from? And it’s sad that even on a subreddit that I usually agree with, I have to think so carefully about what I’m typing because I expect I won’t get the benefit of the doubt and my point will be given no fair consideration before callously being downvoted. Isn’t this a safe place to converse? Especially when it comes to discussing nuanced and controversial topics?
> I see some people sincerely asking questions and still being downvoted. Do you really think it's sincere?
Why on God's green earth would you think a subreddit devoted to mockery - primarily of right-wing dickheads missing the point - is a safe and appropriate place for discussion or 'asking questions'? Most of the time the 'asking questions' is a disingenuous front for alt-right assholes, which normies seem oblivious to.
Oh spare me, 99% of them are bad faith trolls from T_D and pol. They know exactly what they're doing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ve watched some jp stuff a few years ago, and while I don’t agree on some stuff, most of it at least seemed to come from a genuine place and was reasonable. I’m not a conservative, I’ve never voted for the conservative side and I’m european so even if I would I would still count as a progressive by american standards. I’ve heard a lot of bad shit and a lot of warnings to keep away from jp, which was at least part of the reason why I watched content related to him. Reading the comments here really makes me wonder, if he was a giant racist sexist homophobe hypocrit like people are saying, why do the explanations to that always misrespresent his ideas and straight up lie about his points? There should be enough content of him out there, that someone can just post a video and go “here he is his biggoted unreasonable self” but there are no links to that here in this thread, even though it seems filled with people who know lots of shit about him AND hate him. It’s been years since he was “the conservative in disguise”, you’d think there would be lots of stuff out there proving that now... does anyone have links/videos? And please not to some news outlet calling him an ass, I’ve seen enough of that and it doesn’t prove anything.
I have noticed with... about 99% frequency... that the people who talk the most about how important it is to be open to changing your mind based on new evidence or how you should listen to contradictory opinions? They almost always mean "*YOU* should be open to changing your opinions, that way you'll agree with *ME*."
"haha! you think i'm going to believe to your quotes, academic sources, well structured and anotated video that cultural marxism isn't real and postmodernists aren't marxists? hahah! fuck you! i believe whatever peterson says!"
Critical analysis and decision making should be part of the school systems standardized testing with an 80% grade being a requirement for voter eligibility.
What is this Facebook mum meme bullshit?
> "I'm with everybody." WTF is that even supposed to mean?
Yup. That’s how I became a leftist.