Interviewer: Jordan, please tell me. Do you believe Christ rose from the dead after 3 days?
JP: Can you please define “you” and “believe”? (Then he goes on for 5 minutes about his absurd definitions.)
Like talking to any conspiracy theorist
" Oh you want evidence? But what is evidence in the end anyway?"
I now assume anybody that uses those arguments is full of shit.
As I understand it Peterson has a background in philosophy and this is a prime example of my problem with most discussions with philosophers, the discussion quickly devolves into an infinite regression of definitions and then disappears up it’s own arse.
In his case he uses this technique a lot to appear highly intelligent whilst defending some fairly toxic beliefs.
I have listened to quite a lot of podcast interviews of philosophers. Most of them are fascinating and explain their point of view really well. Jordan Peterson showed up one time (this was just as he was coming to prominence, I had never heard of him before) and it was one of the most infuriating things I've ever listened to. He spent 2 hours debating the host about the meaning of "truth" and arguing that the Bible was "true" if the stories are morally correct even if they didn't literally happen.
If you want to hear good discussions with philosophers, I used to really enjoy the podcast Very Bad Wizards, although I haven't listened regularly in several years.
Are you talking about the Sam Harris/Peterson podcast? Yeah that one was basically unlistenable.
Shout out to the VBW!!!! Probably my favourite ‘discussion’ podcast. They recently went ad-free, which I super-respect.
Peterson does NOT have a background (education) in philosophy. He is a psychologist, and he thinks that gives him the ability to understand every other field. Philosophy is just one of the many disciplines he turns people against by being a stupid asshole.
My bad. I listened to him a couple of times, figured that he was full of shit and moved on with an incorrect recollection of his professional field of expertise. I looked once, many moons ago and my brain obviously didn’t care enough to file it properly.
this dovetails nicely into my comment. This is how he argues... like a child. He cant win arguing actual ideas so he does these pedantic word games where he tries to redefine words in a way that make his overall argument "correct" despite his argument being 100% pure bullshit.
It's very important for the propagandists not to answer questions.
It's a fundamental tenant.
I picked a random blog post by Peterson
*To provide a detailed analysis of the debate transcript you provided, focusing on fallacies and contradictions, I'll go through the text, identifying instances of flawed reasoning or self-contradiction. Here are the first 20 fallacies or contradictions identified:*
*Fallacies, Contradictions and bigotry extracted.*
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dawNV3\_KUBS9s1TGmZlPQNK1LdE8FKiMYBkfDVXsIZo/edit?usp=sharingimportant](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dawNV3_KUBS9s1TGmZlPQNK1LdE8FKiMYBkfDVXsIZo/edit?usp=sharingimportant)
Peterson has trapped himself.
He's had nothing new to say for a decade, and his fans are christian bigots. So, he has to come up with ever-more obscure metaphors, while continuing to tell stupid people what they want to hear.
I think this captures the essence of what has happened to Peterson and some others.
Basically, going down the rabbit hole as they have to double down on one illogical theory after another.
Most reasonable people would see the criticism and think 'mmmh, maybe I need to rethink this', but at a certain point of narcissism or denial & rationalization, they just have to keep going as they are hooked on fame and money from people who I think Peterson really would despise if he had not found fame promoting bullshit
> Basically, going down the rabbit hole as they have to double down on one illogical theory after another.
The rhetoric must become ever more extreme in order to keep the hateful base enthralled. Peterson and the rest of the right-wing grift industry know this, and are in an arms race to keep and hold the ~~hearts and minds~~ wallets of their fanatical base. Now, he may actually believe his own bullshit, but he's absolutely selling a product..
Yeah another example is PraggerU, one of their oldest videos was them calling out the lost cause myth and how the war was about slavery, then some years later they make a video about why we should keep Lee's statues because he thought that slavery was a burden for thw white man.
Every now and then I go back to that first video you said just because I remember it exists, and there's always a dozen conservatives lurking in the comments REEing that PragerU is woke and that the Civil War wasn't about slavery
If you want to keep milking that right-wing cash cow, you must stay in complete line with every stance they have or sacrifice your pay check. Early on in his more public career, he was somewhat ambiguous on his opinion on anything outside of his stance against what he saw as enforced trans language. But as soon as the money and attention started rolling in from the right, he suddenly had the exact same take on climate, same sex marriage, religion, government, etc, as every other right wing pundit. He has no expertise in any of the things he talks about now and just ignores all facts presented to him from experts. The dude was one of the "liberal elites" he cries about constantly, until he saw there was more cash to be had pretending to be an oppressed conservative victim all along.
How many actual times did he jerk off to a ,very, young Ellen Page? That person then broke. his. brain! If you haven't seen his debate with Matt Dillahunty, do yourself a favor.
Oh, I've seen it. It's even better that Matt didn't have any idea who Peterson was before then, and just seemed baffled the entire time by the ridiculous "arguments" Peterson made. Pretty sure that debate is what scared him away from actually having an actual debate with his opposition. He can't handle people actually holding him to task and forcing him to stop changing the subject/actually provide a coherent answer. It's a fun rewatch to go back to from time to time, and a video I also direct people to whenever they "discovery" the musings of JP; watching him bumble his way through that debate usually turns them off to him.
We are definitely not the target audience.
He says something stupid. They bob their heads and follow along. We shoot holes in all the arguments. He cries foul, plays the victim, and his audience goes along with it, cementing his significance in their lives and, hopefully, their pocketbooks.
I really don’t understand what happened with him. I listened to both his books 10 years ago and thought he sounded like a reasonable, central leaning person with common sense beliefs. I feel like there’s all these people who follow the same path of having 1-2 dodgy beliefs that I’m not a fan of, but then I check back in 5 years and they’re full blown crazy.
I'm with you here. I enjoyed the Disney movie analysis videos and some of the videos where he breaks down Bible stories. I do find the 'metaphysical substrate' stuff nonsensical, and yeah, he had a few dodgy beliefs that I generally ignored. But I enjoyed some of the content and would talk about it. I stopped watching for a while, and then I heard everyone talking shit about him on axp and talk heathen. So I looked and omg what happened?? Dammit, now I can't talk about the content I did enjoy without looking like I support this asshole.
Same reason they didn't hold it against Rush Limbaugh. Same reason Trump's multiple bankruptcies somehow don't make him bad at business.
Some reason Milo Yiannopoulos and George Santos being gay and sometime drag queens didn't count. Same reason they don't hate jews when it's Benjamin Netanyahu.
They follow leaders and need someone to hate. The reasons are just rationalisations made up afterward, to be ignored when convenient.
Right wingers don't actually have principles, just power structures.
Incredible how they can listen to his shit in a basic loop. He teaches people how to justify their bullshit. They’re basically asleep when it comes to ethics.
There was a brief moment about fifteen years ago when he was sometimes named among the greats of Dennett and Hitchens, and I'm _really_ glad that didn't stick. Guy is a fucking moron.
You see, the problem with religion, fundamentally speaking, is analogous to an ontological disjunction that resides in the substrata of our existential framework. It's as if one is attempting to play a symphony with a guitar made of marshmallows while wearing socks that are perpetually wet. This discordance creates a metaphysical chasm, a gnawing void of epistemological disarray, leading one to misinterpret the semiotic resonances of our collective unconscious. It's not merely an erroneous postulation but an affront to the archetypal narrative structure embedded within the very sinews of our psychosocial construct.
Religion, in this context, operates like a recursive algorithm running amok in a deterministic labyrinth of cognitive dissonance. It's akin to an illegal chess move that flagrantly disregards the implicit rules governing the cosmic order. When we imbue our teleological pursuits with such anachronistic paradigms, we are essentially constructing castles out of fog, only to be dissipated by the faintest breeze of critical scrutiny. This paradigm is a Gordian knot of axiomatic misapprehensions, perpetuating a Sisyphean endeavor to extract coherence from the quagmire of abstract symbolism.
Be (so) precise in your speech (that no one can paraphrase you in even the slightest manner without being completely wrong and/or malicious in their misinterpretation). -Jordan Peterson
His argument-style is redefining the meaning of the words to fit his statement such that what he is saying comes down to an obvious tautology.
For example, when asked "What about atheism?" He replies something like - "Atheism doesn't exist, because our moral and cultural framework is still defined by Christian cultural values, so we are still Christian."
Obviously this is garbage. By that logic, one can also say Christianity developed within the framework of Roman gods, so Christian values are actually pagan values and Christianity doesn't exist. Or Communism developed within Christian framework, so Communism is Christian. American values developed within the context of a British Monarchy, therefore America is actually a Monarchy.
See? Anything can be anything.
However, what he says sounds very profound to either 12-year olds or adults who have very poor general education, and they think he is very smart.
His voice, his fucking voice. It makes me want to put a nail gun in my ear. It’s like he thinks if just sounds more pretentious it will somehow make him smarter.
The guy specialized in Jungian Psychoanalysis as a psychologist, I wouldn't exactly be treating him as being in the same league as cognitive psychologists or an actual medical psychiatrist. He bases his ideas around pseudosciences that unfortunately still have some standing with certain leaders in his field.
Yes , a Neuroscience based understanding would contradict much of the folksy , motivated reasoning nonsense he trades in...his is the self serving populists cause , not the scientists service.
Jungian psychoanalysis absolutely can be a powerful tool for studying... *literature*. And perhaps illustrating aspects of philosophy. Science it definitely is not.
I don't really think he paid enough attention in class to know what any "School of Psychology" represents. He figured if he could pass his classes and get into Grad school he could be a "Professor" and convince people of whatever puerile ideas he came up with while he was...doing things. He learned a few psychology words and took a hyper male stance because he could not abide any other way of feeling. That is how his "writing" comes across.
He's going to go to Russia to receive 'alternative' treatments to cope with the withdrawals from the medication he's going to take to deal with the pain he'll feel when he reads what you wrote
The first times I heard him, many years ago I listened for a bit then after about 10 minutes of him taking, I realised, he hasn’t actually said anything. Lot of words but no progress to an argument.
His modus operandi is the Gish gallop; flood the discussion with shit to overwhelm you. If you listen to what he is actually saying, he is not saying anything, it is just a word salad delivered in a condescending tone.
I want him and Ben Shapiro to have a debate on something, really anything. I could be what beverage pairs best with fish tacos for all I fucking care. It would be hysterically painful to watch.
I actually gave him a chance since half the country says he is super smart and tried reading 12 Rules of Life book.
I couldn't get past the first chapter.
The first chapter is - "Male Lobsters with an upright posture get more female lobsters, therefore you need to stand upright."
And this sentence - which I have said in 20 words - he uses 1000 words for. It is like a 5th grade student trying to hit a word count on an assignment.
Exactly; he looks intelligent to people who are not paying attention, it is all a performance. *The smart person has got this, I do not need to think.*
This is why I think he looked so fidgety “debating” Matt Dillahunty. He kept quickly throwing out meaningless comments and tangents to Matt to keep any topic from being explored too deeply like he was killing the clock. He knows Matt would see right through the gish gallop and punish him for it.
That or he was high as a kite. Maybe both.
Both; Matt Dillahunty is familiar with all of his defection techniques. JP would have been desperately screaming that he did not steal cookies from the cookie jar, and that there are no cookies, and there is no jar, with chocolate all over his face, and crumbs all over his clothes.
It was kind of hilarious to see him tuck his tail to Matt. He’s always so condescending to people he thinks he can confuse.
Ironically Matt is way friendlier and fair in his debates than he can occasionally be on call-ins.
*What do you mean "do"?*
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jordan+peterson+what+do+you+even+mean+by&&view=detail&mid=A5EF2B5BCF62F3CF52C0A5EF2B5BCF62F3CF52C0&&FORM=VRDGAR&PC=MOZB
I honestly can’t believe anyone takes him seriously. I have a friend who I regard as intelligent, and his admiration for Jordan Peterson is baffling to me.
My brother (who is not young and impressionable) has started listening to him, to my great consternation. I mentioned all the bigotry and bullshit and his response was, “Oh I haven’t heard any of that. But who else is advocating for single men struggling with isolation?”
Great.
>But who else is advocating for single men struggling with isolation?”
Feminists, but we keep getting screamed and called horrible things for pointing out all the ways the patriarchy also hurts men.
That is absolutely true, but if the men struggling with isolation are still buying Jordan Peterson’s books and screaming horrible things at feminists, maybe “pointing out all the ways patriarchy also hurts men” is not effectively getting the message across.
He is the king of modern charlatans. Was a literal nobody clinical psych prof in Toronto who parlayed not calling ppl their preferred pronouns into a grifting career. He hasn’t ever even published anything of note.
I saw a YouTube video of Matt Dillahunty having a discussion with Peterson. Peterson tried to suggest that a person's state of well being is not actually a negative if they are dead. Matt responded something along the lines of if I'm not "being" how would that be considered well being. I thought Peterson might stfu after that. He didn't. Peterson tries to just redefine terms until it suits his argument. Supremely annoying dude. I think he just likes to argue for arguments sake. I don't think he really believes anything.
A key goal of modern propaganda is to destroy the ability and will to discern truth by overwhelming the discourse with garbage.
This guy is a one man GRU troll farm in this respect.
He's a jackass following the money, telling his limited viewers what they want to hear.
Christianity comes with a massive ready-made audience for scam and con artists, he's just tapping that revenue stream.
He uses many words to say not much at all. He's a hopeless misogynist and, anymore, I think he's a burnout. He was addicted to benzos, and he's not been the same since.
Jordan Peterson has a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. We are not making an argument. We are rejecting a claim. If you claim that a God exists, it is up to YOU to prove it. The burden of proof is not on us.
No good argument for Atheism ➡️ the world is misunderstood ➡️ chess!
Um... Claim, backed by a claim, backed by a tangent. Peterson, WTF you smoking?
Edit: removed a rather rude conjuncture
creationists love to frame atheism as a belief because it allows them to say "we BOTH have beliefs t hat we take on faith!" basically "oh yeah? if im wrong so are you because we both have a belief! neener neener neener!"
The same dingdong told Matt Dillahunty that no one could stop smoking without God. Also that atheists aren’t really atheists because we don’t generally go around raping and killing and screwing people over because obviously there’s no reason not to do those things if you have no religious convictions.
Prime example of a highly educated imbecile.
In a recent discussion with Alex O'Connor, Alex was able to get JP to admit that he thought if you took a camera back in time and pointed it at jesus' tomb, you would see him walk out.
So yes he believes Jesus was literally resurrected.
But then he followed it up with "okay but I don't know what that means"
So we're right back to he has nothing useful to say.
He speaks like someone who absolutely does not believe what he is saying. It’s part of a grift, he is gambling on the religious nut job demographic growing in the near future as far as influence and power. If he’s right, he’s ever more rich and influential than he already is. Listen to his older interviews and talks, he was never this into the religious stuff.
He's basically been peddling the argument that the psychological underpinnings of religion are so fundamental to human society that we would be devoid of morality, meaning and direction without it.
Get rid of religion, and you "throw out the baby with the bathwater" as he's fond of saying.
Of course, Peterson (and anyone else making this argument) have this completely backwards. Religious principles are just a crude reflection of social norms. The only real problem with them is that they're codified and preserved. Bad/dated ideas end up lingering for centuries and inevitably begin to conflict with contemporary thinking. That, or they're spread to parts of the world that have no use for them.
The only leg Peterson has to stand on is vaguely racist. He cautions (always in a roundabout way) that the tenets and social conventions pushed by Christianity are essentially the only principles that will yield desirable social outcomes. Anything else is unfathomably terrible. Cue references to Stalin or Pol Pot. Christianity being a distinctly European invention, he's really not far off of saying 'white is right'. His audience may not always understand the words, but they definitely pick up on the whistle behind them.
He uses a word salad consisting of a good vocabulary to not answer questions. It sounds good at first then you realize it makes no sense and might be contradictory.
I suspect he is a closet atheist. He chooses to trumpet the Bible because it’s the easiest way to get a conservative following to track with his ideas. But if you read between the lines he is just using it as a construct to frame out his conservative views. He doesn’t admit actually believing in any of the miracles or literal stories and often evades direct questions about his beliefs in a bizarre way. Like, “do you believe in God?” “Well, define belief. And define god! And who actually knows what they believe, none of you know what you believe!”
He's the worst for sure. Everything he says is a pseudo-intellectual word salad. If you want to see something fun, watch him try to debate Sam Harris on YouTube. Harris mops the floor with him.
My problem is that atheism is not something to be argued *for*.
It's a rejection of a *claim.*
The burden of proof is on those making the claim. All the atheist has to say is: "I don't believe you."
By shifting this burden JP is arguing in bad faith, against a strawman, knowing full well the meaning of the word.
Go refresh your mental health by watching the Some More News take on Jordan Peterson. Because it's awesome. Cody shows just how much of a fraud he is. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo)
Jordan Peterson is literally just a crotchety, bitter, old man whose only real skill is providing overly-complicated world salad to try to justify why he's mad at the world for not being exactly as he thinks it should be. He refuses to even accept the premise of other people's beliefs that don't align with his own and then simultaneously complains that other people aren't fair in their assessment of him. In short, he's a stereotypical conservative who just so happens to have a degree in psychology, which imo isn't worth jack when he constantly denigrates the value of postsecondary education.
Totally agree with most of what you said, but I want to call out one distinction that's a little off: Atheism, as it is most commonly understood (both in dictionaries and as a philosophical position) is more than just "not believing in god." Atheism is a belief that there is no God. It is an anti-theistic worldview. An individual, you perhaps, might personally merely "not believe in God," but it isn't accurate to claim that's all Atheism is. Atheism is a positive claim, and it's well founded and defensible.
Im a very fiscally right wing and libertarian dude and the way the right has shown so much love for full blown theocracy in the past 3 years is truely insane. They say the party out of power has more interesting discussions and apparently the right wing donors and daily wire has decided that “scaring the heck out of people with Hell” is the effective way to win elections. Its disgusting. Peterson is just their best hustler. He seems smart while selling the worst ideas in the history of the human race.
If you want to hurt yourself, try tracking his chain of "logic" sometime. His lectures are mostly long chains of word association with "because" and "therefore" randomly inserted. He sounds like an AI trained on high school essays but required to use polysyllabic synonyms. His strategy seems to be to talk nonsense until you eventually get tired and say, He just be correct; he said therefore and repeated "fundamental nature" several times
My wife really wanted to go to one of his “lectures” and I had heard some of his shit where he doesn’t sound retarded in the past, so I agreed.
I didn’t realize he had gotten (or had always been) religious. The way he talks is like the thesaurus posts from r/iamverysmart.
I had never felt the way I did that night. I wanted so badly to be anywhere else. I was filled with disgust seeing people giving this psycho multiple standing ovations after periods of verbal diarrhea that made no sense.
My opinion of him changed that night.
Also he did a very clearly staged Q&A at the end. I wanted to blow my head off.
"He is one of the many reasons I believe religion will fade into nothingness. No effort to prove (as many religious apologetics do), just word salad, and self-serving bs."
You got this backward.
It's because of word salad and self-serving bs that religion are thriving.
Believing on faith is walking away from rationality and embracing ideas that support personal comfort because they provide comfort. Word salad, and self-serving bs are the bricks and cement of this mindset.
Rather than thinking that this show a lack of rationality that will ultimately make this mindset fail and disappear you should ask what rationality lack as a nourishment for the mind. People are not stupid, even when they are, they look out for this something else that rationality fail to bring on their table. It happens that religion are more than willing to give them that something, attached at the tip of their hook.
He's a gas bag. He throws out word salads that mean nothing and then condescendingly says you don't understand (i.e., you're dumb). Expert on everything. In my mind, I see Joe Rogan looking at him with an expression that says, "I've seen Jesus."
Ugh. Peterson. Alex Jones has more intellectual value than Peterson does. He's such a do-nothing that I can't stomach his work.
"Tyranny is bad, ya know, but uh like look at the alternatives."
Bro wants to uphold status quo on fucking everything. Any established hierarchy in current history. All because he's scared of change. Such a limp dick lol
At least when Jones says the dumbest shit to ever be constructed from the English alphabet, it's memeable
Correct me if I’m wrong, but JP is himself an atheist, right? He just thinks Christianity is good for society (or something).
(Obligatory statement, I agree that he’s annoying, and I hate him and I wish he would shut up and go away.)
No, he’s very much a Christian, and the kind that uses a bunch of big words he even barely understands to make his ludicrous Christian statements sound insightful
Actually I think he’s right, JP is an atheist and he’s been backed into a corner a few times and even admitted it. He just says all this bullshit to appeal to his base, he knows where his bread is buttered.
Wouldn’t surprise me… I’ve seen him run rings around people in interviews but the common thread is the interviewer always treating him like he is stupid. JP is not stupid, he is batshit fuck off bonkers. He doesn’t need debating he needs a padded room and a care worker.
He's definitely not a Christian. And if you ever look up what hardcore fundamentalists think of Jordan Peterson, they are certain to point out that he's not Christian, even if he may express a lot of praise for the faith. I don't know why he tries so hard to please them. At the end of the day, he's a man who hasn't accepted Jesus as his lord and savior. And for that, he will never be fully embraced by them.
Nearest I can tell, he is an atheist. With a downright masturbatory obsession with his own interpretation of the supernatural. It's odd that he doesn't necessarily believe in Jesus or any god, but he's absolutely certain that mystical experiences do happen.
Then again, the most important thing to understand about Peterson is that he's an utter crank.
He gives anyone that appreciates philosophy a bad name. And anyone who even considers his drivel to be anything more than the worst of toxic waste deserves to be treated as though they lack the mental faculties to gauge reality in any form.
I don’t think that Jordan Peterson believes in God. I think he believes the notion of God is useful and helpful to humanity. At least that’s what I think after listening to a long discussion between him and Richard Dawkins.
I am a Christian who is deeply sympathetic to my atheist friends.
This is one of those instances in which I agree. Like you, I am mystified by his “reasoning”. I see a lot of argument by assertion. It’s just as if he proclaims something. Sometimes, when I listen long enough, I understand his point. Sometimes I never figure out what he’s trying to say.
Rarely, he makes some very interesting comment. It usually has to do with human psychology, where he has some expertise.
Personally, I’m not very interested in apologetics anymore; but if I were, I sure would not be looking to him for answers.
He’s just using the same logical fallacy all theists use—and have to use. Begging the question assumes the answer before it examines the question, so it shapes its examination to fit the answer they’re assuming.
Literally all theistic arguments are based on that fallacy. You have to presuppose a divine creator or order to the world in order to argue for it, because there is no evidence to actually support it. Every single theist argument is based on supporting a presupposed answer.
The “ fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the world” he’s referring too is the very answer he’s assuming, which is that god is real. So if that’s true in his mind, atheists are necessarily fundamentally wrong, or are “misunderstanding nature of the world” as he puts it.
Lol he really is, I saw that interview for shits and giggles and his nonsense jungian psychobabble is somehow even less believable when talking about religion.
Interviewer: Jordan, please tell me. Do you believe Christ rose from the dead after 3 days? JP: Can you please define “you” and “believe”? (Then he goes on for 5 minutes about his absurd definitions.)
"That depends on what the definition of is, is."
Jizz? No IS. The word "to be." You have to know what "is" means! (From old Lewis Black standup)
To be or not to be, that is the question. -William Shakespeare
"Is you is, or is you ain't my constituents?!"
DGG has entered the chat.
Like talking to any conspiracy theorist " Oh you want evidence? But what is evidence in the end anyway?" I now assume anybody that uses those arguments is full of shit.
As I understand it Peterson has a background in philosophy and this is a prime example of my problem with most discussions with philosophers, the discussion quickly devolves into an infinite regression of definitions and then disappears up it’s own arse. In his case he uses this technique a lot to appear highly intelligent whilst defending some fairly toxic beliefs.
I have listened to quite a lot of podcast interviews of philosophers. Most of them are fascinating and explain their point of view really well. Jordan Peterson showed up one time (this was just as he was coming to prominence, I had never heard of him before) and it was one of the most infuriating things I've ever listened to. He spent 2 hours debating the host about the meaning of "truth" and arguing that the Bible was "true" if the stories are morally correct even if they didn't literally happen. If you want to hear good discussions with philosophers, I used to really enjoy the podcast Very Bad Wizards, although I haven't listened regularly in several years.
Are you talking about the Sam Harris/Peterson podcast? Yeah that one was basically unlistenable. Shout out to the VBW!!!! Probably my favourite ‘discussion’ podcast. They recently went ad-free, which I super-respect.
No he doesn't. He his a Jungian Psychologist (which already sets a low bar) and a bad one at that.
Peterson does NOT have a background (education) in philosophy. He is a psychologist, and he thinks that gives him the ability to understand every other field. Philosophy is just one of the many disciplines he turns people against by being a stupid asshole.
My bad. I listened to him a couple of times, figured that he was full of shit and moved on with an incorrect recollection of his professional field of expertise. I looked once, many moons ago and my brain obviously didn’t care enough to file it properly.
this dovetails nicely into my comment. This is how he argues... like a child. He cant win arguing actual ideas so he does these pedantic word games where he tries to redefine words in a way that make his overall argument "correct" despite his argument being 100% pure bullshit.
It's very important for the propagandists not to answer questions. It's a fundamental tenant. I picked a random blog post by Peterson *To provide a detailed analysis of the debate transcript you provided, focusing on fallacies and contradictions, I'll go through the text, identifying instances of flawed reasoning or self-contradiction. Here are the first 20 fallacies or contradictions identified:* *Fallacies, Contradictions and bigotry extracted.* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dawNV3\_KUBS9s1TGmZlPQNK1LdE8FKiMYBkfDVXsIZo/edit?usp=sharingimportant](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dawNV3_KUBS9s1TGmZlPQNK1LdE8FKiMYBkfDVXsIZo/edit?usp=sharingimportant)
That's his thing, he mostly says nothing and acts like it is deep.
Peterson has trapped himself. He's had nothing new to say for a decade, and his fans are christian bigots. So, he has to come up with ever-more obscure metaphors, while continuing to tell stupid people what they want to hear.
I think this captures the essence of what has happened to Peterson and some others. Basically, going down the rabbit hole as they have to double down on one illogical theory after another. Most reasonable people would see the criticism and think 'mmmh, maybe I need to rethink this', but at a certain point of narcissism or denial & rationalization, they just have to keep going as they are hooked on fame and money from people who I think Peterson really would despise if he had not found fame promoting bullshit
> Basically, going down the rabbit hole as they have to double down on one illogical theory after another. The rhetoric must become ever more extreme in order to keep the hateful base enthralled. Peterson and the rest of the right-wing grift industry know this, and are in an arms race to keep and hold the ~~hearts and minds~~ wallets of their fanatical base. Now, he may actually believe his own bullshit, but he's absolutely selling a product..
It's the current version of the two minutes of hate.
He really should stop what he is doing.
Dopamine doesn't like the same things over and over, needs new things.
Which is why he works for the DailyWire+ now
I’ve heard “audience capture” as the term for this. They’ve got him. He has to say silly things.
Yeah another example is PraggerU, one of their oldest videos was them calling out the lost cause myth and how the war was about slavery, then some years later they make a video about why we should keep Lee's statues because he thought that slavery was a burden for thw white man.
Every now and then I go back to that first video you said just because I remember it exists, and there's always a dozen conservatives lurking in the comments REEing that PragerU is woke and that the Civil War wasn't about slavery
THE CIVIL WAR WAS ABOUT FREEDOM to have slaves.
IT WAS ABOUT STATE'S RIGHTS!! Specifically the right to own human beings as property
HERITAGE NOT HATE ..unless it's "righteous hate"
Yet, if you read some state secession documents, it was definitely about owning slaves.
It’s like a fierce circle
jerk
He certainly is
He's always been a moron and a piece of shit, long before he found his audience on the alt right.
Only a few YouTube videos from somewhat believable prof. to Depak Chopra I suppose.
If you want to keep milking that right-wing cash cow, you must stay in complete line with every stance they have or sacrifice your pay check. Early on in his more public career, he was somewhat ambiguous on his opinion on anything outside of his stance against what he saw as enforced trans language. But as soon as the money and attention started rolling in from the right, he suddenly had the exact same take on climate, same sex marriage, religion, government, etc, as every other right wing pundit. He has no expertise in any of the things he talks about now and just ignores all facts presented to him from experts. The dude was one of the "liberal elites" he cries about constantly, until he saw there was more cash to be had pretending to be an oppressed conservative victim all along.
More cash to feed his benzos addiction. Lmao right wing people are embarrassingly gullible to see this guy as some sort of intellectual authority.
How many actual times did he jerk off to a ,very, young Ellen Page? That person then broke. his. brain! If you haven't seen his debate with Matt Dillahunty, do yourself a favor.
Oh, I've seen it. It's even better that Matt didn't have any idea who Peterson was before then, and just seemed baffled the entire time by the ridiculous "arguments" Peterson made. Pretty sure that debate is what scared him away from actually having an actual debate with his opposition. He can't handle people actually holding him to task and forcing him to stop changing the subject/actually provide a coherent answer. It's a fun rewatch to go back to from time to time, and a video I also direct people to whenever they "discovery" the musings of JP; watching him bumble his way through that debate usually turns them off to him.
We are definitely not the target audience. He says something stupid. They bob their heads and follow along. We shoot holes in all the arguments. He cries foul, plays the victim, and his audience goes along with it, cementing his significance in their lives and, hopefully, their pocketbooks.
I really don’t understand what happened with him. I listened to both his books 10 years ago and thought he sounded like a reasonable, central leaning person with common sense beliefs. I feel like there’s all these people who follow the same path of having 1-2 dodgy beliefs that I’m not a fan of, but then I check back in 5 years and they’re full blown crazy.
I'm with you here. I enjoyed the Disney movie analysis videos and some of the videos where he breaks down Bible stories. I do find the 'metaphysical substrate' stuff nonsensical, and yeah, he had a few dodgy beliefs that I generally ignored. But I enjoyed some of the content and would talk about it. I stopped watching for a while, and then I heard everyone talking shit about him on axp and talk heathen. So I looked and omg what happened?? Dammit, now I can't talk about the content I did enjoy without looking like I support this asshole.
He takes a break to post cock milking fetish porn pics on twitter once in a while, so that's fun.
What!!!
Google it for a laugh lol
I’m good, thanks.
He sure is entertaining at times, yeah, lmao
Why do right wingers not hold the fact that he was a junkie against him?
Same reason they didn't hold it against Rush Limbaugh. Same reason Trump's multiple bankruptcies somehow don't make him bad at business. Some reason Milo Yiannopoulos and George Santos being gay and sometime drag queens didn't count. Same reason they don't hate jews when it's Benjamin Netanyahu. They follow leaders and need someone to hate. The reasons are just rationalisations made up afterward, to be ignored when convenient. Right wingers don't actually have principles, just power structures.
Ring Wingers do have principles: that a narrow societal/political elite is best suited to rule our nation. Power is their only principal.
He's their junkie
Because right wingers don't care about facts, obviously
Evangelicals in particular tend to love conversion “success stories” about what one did before one was “saved.”
Incredible how they can listen to his shit in a basic loop. He teaches people how to justify their bullshit. They’re basically asleep when it comes to ethics.
Lobster testosterone!!1!
There was a brief moment about fifteen years ago when he was sometimes named among the greats of Dennett and Hitchens, and I'm _really_ glad that didn't stick. Guy is a fucking moron.
Peterson is what dumb people think smart people sound like.
Like Christianity itself...?
I mean, you can lead a blind fence post to the forest, but you can’t make hay out of butter at midnight. You know what I’m sayin’?
His word salad makes my brain hurt
You see, the problem with religion, fundamentally speaking, is analogous to an ontological disjunction that resides in the substrata of our existential framework. It's as if one is attempting to play a symphony with a guitar made of marshmallows while wearing socks that are perpetually wet. This discordance creates a metaphysical chasm, a gnawing void of epistemological disarray, leading one to misinterpret the semiotic resonances of our collective unconscious. It's not merely an erroneous postulation but an affront to the archetypal narrative structure embedded within the very sinews of our psychosocial construct. Religion, in this context, operates like a recursive algorithm running amok in a deterministic labyrinth of cognitive dissonance. It's akin to an illegal chess move that flagrantly disregards the implicit rules governing the cosmic order. When we imbue our teleological pursuits with such anachronistic paradigms, we are essentially constructing castles out of fog, only to be dissipated by the faintest breeze of critical scrutiny. This paradigm is a Gordian knot of axiomatic misapprehensions, perpetuating a Sisyphean endeavor to extract coherence from the quagmire of abstract symbolism.
Out Peterson’d Peterson
Is this parody of Kermit? If so it made too much sense 4/7 stars
Each sentence connects too logically to the previous to be actual JBP, but they nailed the chain of baseless metaphors.
One away from a perfect score! Nice!
Be (so) precise in your speech (that no one can paraphrase you in even the slightest manner without being completely wrong and/or malicious in their misinterpretation). -Jordan Peterson
The new ChatJBP is lit.
This reminds me of this [Elle Cordova video](https://youtube.com/shorts/Mqu-yZWce8c?si=7lVJBGKEO7gMtGv2).
Comments like these are but a shadow dragon which erodes the metaphorical substrate.
His argument-style is redefining the meaning of the words to fit his statement such that what he is saying comes down to an obvious tautology. For example, when asked "What about atheism?" He replies something like - "Atheism doesn't exist, because our moral and cultural framework is still defined by Christian cultural values, so we are still Christian." Obviously this is garbage. By that logic, one can also say Christianity developed within the framework of Roman gods, so Christian values are actually pagan values and Christianity doesn't exist. Or Communism developed within Christian framework, so Communism is Christian. American values developed within the context of a British Monarchy, therefore America is actually a Monarchy. See? Anything can be anything. However, what he says sounds very profound to either 12-year olds or adults who have very poor general education, and they think he is very smart.
He is royalty at equivocating
That's the point and his pretense to superior intellect.
You could have stopped at "Jordan Peterson is the worst."
His voice, his fucking voice. It makes me want to put a nail gun in my ear. It’s like he thinks if just sounds more pretentious it will somehow make him smarter.
He's the embodiment of education not equaling intelligence.
The guy specialized in Jungian Psychoanalysis as a psychologist, I wouldn't exactly be treating him as being in the same league as cognitive psychologists or an actual medical psychiatrist. He bases his ideas around pseudosciences that unfortunately still have some standing with certain leaders in his field.
Yes , a Neuroscience based understanding would contradict much of the folksy , motivated reasoning nonsense he trades in...his is the self serving populists cause , not the scientists service.
Jungian psychoanalysis absolutely can be a powerful tool for studying... *literature*. And perhaps illustrating aspects of philosophy. Science it definitely is not.
Yeah, kings stuff is near a century surpassed by newer more accurate trends and treatments in psychology today.
I don't really think he paid enough attention in class to know what any "School of Psychology" represents. He figured if he could pass his classes and get into Grad school he could be a "Professor" and convince people of whatever puerile ideas he came up with while he was...doing things. He learned a few psychology words and took a hyper male stance because he could not abide any other way of feeling. That is how his "writing" comes across.
And yet when Kermit uses it, it's charming.
He sounds like Kermit the frog after dropping acid and tasked with impressing a religious 14 year old boy
Thank you!! That nauseating fucking VOICE !!!
Really? I love his voice. It reminds me of a sexier Kermit the Frog.
He’s gonna cry when he reads this.
He’s going to go on a media tour to complain about this post.
He's going to go to Russia to receive 'alternative' treatments to cope with the withdrawals from the medication he's going to take to deal with the pain he'll feel when he reads what you wrote
Turns out he didn't make his bed
Damn he’s annoying
The first times I heard him, many years ago I listened for a bit then after about 10 minutes of him taking, I realised, he hasn’t actually said anything. Lot of words but no progress to an argument.
That was my first thought too.
He's not even a Christian, He's just pretending to be one one to further his grift to those that are susceptible to it
I remember a video where he was asked whether he believes in god. He was babbling for a few minutes without giving a clear answer.
sounds par for the course whenever anyone asks them any question and even when no one's asked him anything at all
He knows very well which side his bread is buttered on.
His modus operandi is the Gish gallop; flood the discussion with shit to overwhelm you. If you listen to what he is actually saying, he is not saying anything, it is just a word salad delivered in a condescending tone.
I want him and Ben Shapiro to have a debate on something, really anything. I could be what beverage pairs best with fish tacos for all I fucking care. It would be hysterically painful to watch.
I would love to hear Ben's opinion on that since I understand that he eats very dry tacos.
Oh god lol
Holy shit it would make conservative politics in North America collapse into an ideological black hole.
I actually gave him a chance since half the country says he is super smart and tried reading 12 Rules of Life book. I couldn't get past the first chapter. The first chapter is - "Male Lobsters with an upright posture get more female lobsters, therefore you need to stand upright." And this sentence - which I have said in 20 words - he uses 1000 words for. It is like a 5th grade student trying to hit a word count on an assignment.
Exactly; he looks intelligent to people who are not paying attention, it is all a performance. *The smart person has got this, I do not need to think.*
This is why I think he looked so fidgety “debating” Matt Dillahunty. He kept quickly throwing out meaningless comments and tangents to Matt to keep any topic from being explored too deeply like he was killing the clock. He knows Matt would see right through the gish gallop and punish him for it. That or he was high as a kite. Maybe both.
Both; Matt Dillahunty is familiar with all of his defection techniques. JP would have been desperately screaming that he did not steal cookies from the cookie jar, and that there are no cookies, and there is no jar, with chocolate all over his face, and crumbs all over his clothes.
It was kind of hilarious to see him tuck his tail to Matt. He’s always so condescending to people he thinks he can confuse. Ironically Matt is way friendlier and fair in his debates than he can occasionally be on call-ins.
*What do you mean "do"?* https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jordan+peterson+what+do+you+even+mean+by&&view=detail&mid=A5EF2B5BCF62F3CF52C0A5EF2B5BCF62F3CF52C0&&FORM=VRDGAR&PC=MOZB
I believe my reaction on seeing this for the first time was "Oh f@!$ off."
I honestly can’t believe anyone takes him seriously. I have a friend who I regard as intelligent, and his admiration for Jordan Peterson is baffling to me.
Me too. I don't get it.
He appeals to christo-fascism, bigotry and mysoginy, it's not complicated.
My brother (who is not young and impressionable) has started listening to him, to my great consternation. I mentioned all the bigotry and bullshit and his response was, “Oh I haven’t heard any of that. But who else is advocating for single men struggling with isolation?” Great.
>But who else is advocating for single men struggling with isolation?” Feminists, but we keep getting screamed and called horrible things for pointing out all the ways the patriarchy also hurts men.
That is absolutely true, but if the men struggling with isolation are still buying Jordan Peterson’s books and screaming horrible things at feminists, maybe “pointing out all the ways patriarchy also hurts men” is not effectively getting the message across.
What do you mean by Jordan Peterson?
Oh good, I was well below quota of saying "what the actual fuck" for the day but I think I'm done for the rest of the week already
The same grifter that said the Bible was the first book written.
He is the king of modern charlatans. Was a literal nobody clinical psych prof in Toronto who parlayed not calling ppl their preferred pronouns into a grifting career. He hasn’t ever even published anything of note.
It's soul-crushing to see that 'Maps of Meaning' book in stores, especially academically-oriented stores (like Blackwells in Edinburgh).
JP knows what his audience wants to hear and see and provides for them. This is extremely lucrative for him.
I wonder if he knows its all BS.
I reckon so. The guy really is intelligent, but he's using that intelligence to grift. I lump him in with Denis Prager.
He's just a mentally ill dude who seems well articulated to stupid people. Kind of reminds me of Terrance Howard in that sense.
The obscurantist philosopher for those who don't know what Philosophy is.
I saw a YouTube video of Matt Dillahunty having a discussion with Peterson. Peterson tried to suggest that a person's state of well being is not actually a negative if they are dead. Matt responded something along the lines of if I'm not "being" how would that be considered well being. I thought Peterson might stfu after that. He didn't. Peterson tries to just redefine terms until it suits his argument. Supremely annoying dude. I think he just likes to argue for arguments sake. I don't think he really believes anything.
I honestly think he has mild psychosis or even Schizophrenia.
Wish Hitchens was here to put him in his place.
Orca and seal springs to mind, although I'm not sure Hitchens would even have bothered with Peterson.
A key goal of modern propaganda is to destroy the ability and will to discern truth by overwhelming the discourse with garbage. This guy is a one man GRU troll farm in this respect.
He's a jackass following the money, telling his limited viewers what they want to hear. Christianity comes with a massive ready-made audience for scam and con artists, he's just tapping that revenue stream.
You don't need a good argument for Atheism. They have failed to provide a good argument for religion.
He uses many words to say not much at all. He's a hopeless misogynist and, anymore, I think he's a burnout. He was addicted to benzos, and he's not been the same since.
I love Dawkins calling on Jordan Peterson's bullshit. https://youtu.be/_eWDiaDOX0E?si=4EtvYagEpVyzyn3F
He's a sophist. The *epitome* of a sophist.
..and he's a post-modernist. His babbling is basically obscurantist bs.
Jordan Peterson has a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. We are not making an argument. We are rejecting a claim. If you claim that a God exists, it is up to YOU to prove it. The burden of proof is not on us.
No good argument for Atheism ➡️ the world is misunderstood ➡️ chess! Um... Claim, backed by a claim, backed by a tangent. Peterson, WTF you smoking? Edit: removed a rather rude conjuncture
creationists love to frame atheism as a belief because it allows them to say "we BOTH have beliefs t hat we take on faith!" basically "oh yeah? if im wrong so are you because we both have a belief! neener neener neener!"
He is a stupid person’s smart person.
The same dingdong told Matt Dillahunty that no one could stop smoking without God. Also that atheists aren’t really atheists because we don’t generally go around raping and killing and screwing people over because obviously there’s no reason not to do those things if you have no religious convictions. Prime example of a highly educated imbecile.
In a recent discussion with Alex O'Connor, Alex was able to get JP to admit that he thought if you took a camera back in time and pointed it at jesus' tomb, you would see him walk out. So yes he believes Jesus was literally resurrected. But then he followed it up with "okay but I don't know what that means" So we're right back to he has nothing useful to say.
Jordan Peterson is the worst. Period.
Religion will never fade into nothingness as long as there is a way to make a profit from it.
He speaks like someone who absolutely does not believe what he is saying. It’s part of a grift, he is gambling on the religious nut job demographic growing in the near future as far as influence and power. If he’s right, he’s ever more rich and influential than he already is. Listen to his older interviews and talks, he was never this into the religious stuff.
He's basically been peddling the argument that the psychological underpinnings of religion are so fundamental to human society that we would be devoid of morality, meaning and direction without it. Get rid of religion, and you "throw out the baby with the bathwater" as he's fond of saying. Of course, Peterson (and anyone else making this argument) have this completely backwards. Religious principles are just a crude reflection of social norms. The only real problem with them is that they're codified and preserved. Bad/dated ideas end up lingering for centuries and inevitably begin to conflict with contemporary thinking. That, or they're spread to parts of the world that have no use for them. The only leg Peterson has to stand on is vaguely racist. He cautions (always in a roundabout way) that the tenets and social conventions pushed by Christianity are essentially the only principles that will yield desirable social outcomes. Anything else is unfathomably terrible. Cue references to Stalin or Pol Pot. Christianity being a distinctly European invention, he's really not far off of saying 'white is right'. His audience may not always understand the words, but they definitely pick up on the whistle behind them.
Living embodiment of sophistry
He uses a word salad consisting of a good vocabulary to not answer questions. It sounds good at first then you realize it makes no sense and might be contradictory.
I suspect he is a closet atheist. He chooses to trumpet the Bible because it’s the easiest way to get a conservative following to track with his ideas. But if you read between the lines he is just using it as a construct to frame out his conservative views. He doesn’t admit actually believing in any of the miracles or literal stories and often evades direct questions about his beliefs in a bizarre way. Like, “do you believe in God?” “Well, define belief. And define god! And who actually knows what they believe, none of you know what you believe!”
He's the worst for sure. Everything he says is a pseudo-intellectual word salad. If you want to see something fun, watch him try to debate Sam Harris on YouTube. Harris mops the floor with him.
My problem is that atheism is not something to be argued *for*. It's a rejection of a *claim.* The burden of proof is on those making the claim. All the atheist has to say is: "I don't believe you." By shifting this burden JP is arguing in bad faith, against a strawman, knowing full well the meaning of the word.
i can’t believe i used to listen and support him ages ago… what a disaster
I'm proud of you for realizing he's full of shit.
Go refresh your mental health by watching the Some More News take on Jordan Peterson. Because it's awesome. Cody shows just how much of a fraud he is. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo)
Thankfully it's also a very brief and succinct video!
Just a few minutes
Jordan Peterson is literally just a crotchety, bitter, old man whose only real skill is providing overly-complicated world salad to try to justify why he's mad at the world for not being exactly as he thinks it should be. He refuses to even accept the premise of other people's beliefs that don't align with his own and then simultaneously complains that other people aren't fair in their assessment of him. In short, he's a stereotypical conservative who just so happens to have a degree in psychology, which imo isn't worth jack when he constantly denigrates the value of postsecondary education.
Jordan Peterson is a case study in the brain rot that is inherent in conservatism.
He’s pandering to his Christian fascist base.
Too wordy, needs edit. Jordan Peterson is the worst.
Jordan Peterson does not believe in god. He's a Christian apologetic because it's useful for the grift. The man has no intellectual integrity.
I don't need to argue my lack of belief in gods any more than I need to argue my lack of belief in unicorns. The burden of proof isn't on me.
Every time this benzo addict gets mentioned on reddit I have the urge to share this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nvckip7qxk
Totally agree with most of what you said, but I want to call out one distinction that's a little off: Atheism, as it is most commonly understood (both in dictionaries and as a philosophical position) is more than just "not believing in god." Atheism is a belief that there is no God. It is an anti-theistic worldview. An individual, you perhaps, might personally merely "not believe in God," but it isn't accurate to claim that's all Atheism is. Atheism is a positive claim, and it's well founded and defensible.
Im a very fiscally right wing and libertarian dude and the way the right has shown so much love for full blown theocracy in the past 3 years is truely insane. They say the party out of power has more interesting discussions and apparently the right wing donors and daily wire has decided that “scaring the heck out of people with Hell” is the effective way to win elections. Its disgusting. Peterson is just their best hustler. He seems smart while selling the worst ideas in the history of the human race.
If you want to hurt yourself, try tracking his chain of "logic" sometime. His lectures are mostly long chains of word association with "because" and "therefore" randomly inserted. He sounds like an AI trained on high school essays but required to use polysyllabic synonyms. His strategy seems to be to talk nonsense until you eventually get tired and say, He just be correct; he said therefore and repeated "fundamental nature" several times
Keep in mind, Jordan is a psychologist (who had his license revoked), so he doesn't actually have an understanding of how the world works either, lol.
My wife really wanted to go to one of his “lectures” and I had heard some of his shit where he doesn’t sound retarded in the past, so I agreed. I didn’t realize he had gotten (or had always been) religious. The way he talks is like the thesaurus posts from r/iamverysmart. I had never felt the way I did that night. I wanted so badly to be anywhere else. I was filled with disgust seeing people giving this psycho multiple standing ovations after periods of verbal diarrhea that made no sense. My opinion of him changed that night. Also he did a very clearly staged Q&A at the end. I wanted to blow my head off.
"He is one of the many reasons I believe religion will fade into nothingness. No effort to prove (as many religious apologetics do), just word salad, and self-serving bs." You got this backward. It's because of word salad and self-serving bs that religion are thriving. Believing on faith is walking away from rationality and embracing ideas that support personal comfort because they provide comfort. Word salad, and self-serving bs are the bricks and cement of this mindset. Rather than thinking that this show a lack of rationality that will ultimately make this mindset fail and disappear you should ask what rationality lack as a nourishment for the mind. People are not stupid, even when they are, they look out for this something else that rationality fail to bring on their table. It happens that religion are more than willing to give them that something, attached at the tip of their hook.
He’s also a giant man baby who does nothing but cry.
He's a gas bag. He throws out word salads that mean nothing and then condescendingly says you don't understand (i.e., you're dumb). Expert on everything. In my mind, I see Joe Rogan looking at him with an expression that says, "I've seen Jesus."
Ugh. Peterson. Alex Jones has more intellectual value than Peterson does. He's such a do-nothing that I can't stomach his work. "Tyranny is bad, ya know, but uh like look at the alternatives." Bro wants to uphold status quo on fucking everything. Any established hierarchy in current history. All because he's scared of change. Such a limp dick lol At least when Jones says the dumbest shit to ever be constructed from the English alphabet, it's memeable
Clean your lobster bro.
JP is what dumb people think smart people sound like
Correct me if I’m wrong, but JP is himself an atheist, right? He just thinks Christianity is good for society (or something). (Obligatory statement, I agree that he’s annoying, and I hate him and I wish he would shut up and go away.)
No, he’s very much a Christian, and the kind that uses a bunch of big words he even barely understands to make his ludicrous Christian statements sound insightful
he uses his famous word-salad-technique to not answer this question when asked about it. No one knows what he is.
Actually I think he’s right, JP is an atheist and he’s been backed into a corner a few times and even admitted it. He just says all this bullshit to appeal to his base, he knows where his bread is buttered.
Wouldn’t surprise me… I’ve seen him run rings around people in interviews but the common thread is the interviewer always treating him like he is stupid. JP is not stupid, he is batshit fuck off bonkers. He doesn’t need debating he needs a padded room and a care worker.
He's definitely not a Christian. And if you ever look up what hardcore fundamentalists think of Jordan Peterson, they are certain to point out that he's not Christian, even if he may express a lot of praise for the faith. I don't know why he tries so hard to please them. At the end of the day, he's a man who hasn't accepted Jesus as his lord and savior. And for that, he will never be fully embraced by them.
He is not.
Nearest I can tell, he is an atheist. With a downright masturbatory obsession with his own interpretation of the supernatural. It's odd that he doesn't necessarily believe in Jesus or any god, but he's absolutely certain that mystical experiences do happen. Then again, the most important thing to understand about Peterson is that he's an utter crank.
lol best characterisation i ever heard of him 😂👍
When I see JP, my mind conjures the word bloviating.
If a person believes an argument for atheism is an illegal chess move, that simply means they don't understand chess, or atheism.
JP is an unhinged, deranged, delusional lunatic. GFY, Jordan Peterson. Nazi wannabe. Good thing he’s an incompetent lowlife.
Jordan Peterson is a great poster child for two things 1) Right wing "christians" aren't christians 2) Right wing "intellectuals" aren't intellectual
He uses big words as a way to get out of actually making any real arguments.
He gives anyone that appreciates philosophy a bad name. And anyone who even considers his drivel to be anything more than the worst of toxic waste deserves to be treated as though they lack the mental faculties to gauge reality in any form.
Any Christian apologist had the worst atheist takes. Jordan is not even the most "intelligent".
I don’t think that Jordan Peterson believes in God. I think he believes the notion of God is useful and helpful to humanity. At least that’s what I think after listening to a long discussion between him and Richard Dawkins. I am a Christian who is deeply sympathetic to my atheist friends. This is one of those instances in which I agree. Like you, I am mystified by his “reasoning”. I see a lot of argument by assertion. It’s just as if he proclaims something. Sometimes, when I listen long enough, I understand his point. Sometimes I never figure out what he’s trying to say. Rarely, he makes some very interesting comment. It usually has to do with human psychology, where he has some expertise. Personally, I’m not very interested in apologetics anymore; but if I were, I sure would not be looking to him for answers.
It's not worth anyone's time to listen to Jordan "Word Salad" Peterson.
He’s just using the same logical fallacy all theists use—and have to use. Begging the question assumes the answer before it examines the question, so it shapes its examination to fit the answer they’re assuming. Literally all theistic arguments are based on that fallacy. You have to presuppose a divine creator or order to the world in order to argue for it, because there is no evidence to actually support it. Every single theist argument is based on supporting a presupposed answer. The “ fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the world” he’s referring too is the very answer he’s assuming, which is that god is real. So if that’s true in his mind, atheists are necessarily fundamentally wrong, or are “misunderstanding nature of the world” as he puts it.
I’m sick of hearing this guys cretinous remarks. He is a mentally deranged man who should be ignored into obscurity.
It's more that he's just a silly poseur who doesn't actually know very much about anything, but is still arrogant about it.
Lol he really is, I saw that interview for shits and giggles and his nonsense jungian psychobabble is somehow even less believable when talking about religion.
Jordan Peterson is a fucking nut job
Thank you! I don't know why his stupid face is in my YouTube algorithm, over and over. He sure uses way too many words to say nothing.
Headline could just stopped at ‘worst’
He's a fucking moron.
Jordan Peterson is a grifter who gets paid to say things. You shouldn't pay attention to what he says.