Jordan Peterson: Telling Betas They are Alphas

[Moonbeam]

DixyCrat: Because harm for authority’s sake is the ethos he’s defending; helping and fairness the “absolute power” he warns against.

M: I don't see this. In the first place I don't understand what you mean unless I also assume you incorrectly interpret what he is actually saying. I hear him warning against something I talk about all the time, the dangerous nature of certainty that results when your unconscious assumptions about what good is are actually wrong. This is like warning of the danger of good intentions, the danger of ideological conviction, the moral outrage toward those who challenge your notions of morality, the hidden hate and fear that lies at the heart of victim mentality, the projection, out in the world that somebody else is to blame for your suffering, the secret hatred of others and the desire for chaos and revenge, hate hidden behind the moral face. He is warning against the Marxist do good intention that leads to the death of millions, just as he said in the lecture and how that same psychopathy lingers today on the left. He is saying that the do good intentions of Marxism are under girded by hate and not love. There is nothing at all wrong with the seeking of justice and equality when they are the real motivation, seems to me.

DC: Ignoring that we see homeless people in the street, suffering from the “absolute power” of the authority of capital markets.

M: I think he is warning not to throw everybody in the street that has a place to sleep to create equality, or create a society of tent cities.

DC: Where he argues for “order” it is clear his brand of order works against overcoming the chaos the present ordering-system creates, particularly when it is seen in the worlds of those that are invisible to white middle class men.

M: If I am listening and understanding correctly then clearly not. If you have any idea at all about the rage and anger and hatred the seethe within us as a result of our self hate, you would know the horrendous dangers that can manifest out of victim mentality. He points to the Soviet Union and I think he makes a good case. We will never learn because we will never confront the beast within. You and you alone are responsible for hate in the world. Fix that and then maybe you can fix the world. In the mean time I see little that can be done but point to those facts.

 

[Moonbeam]

It’s not all or nothing - it’s the direction of the social pendulum he’s pushing us toward.

I don't see a pendulum. I see two of them or a standing wave where the divisiveness, the growth in hatred of the other is represented by an increase in amplitude. I see opposites driven by hate driving each other to greater hatred simultaneously. I see Peterson as a leftist critic of the left. He is pushing for self awareness on a group that just like the right, doesn't want it. It's not easy to face the fact that a sweet little bleeding heart liberal like myself is a monster full of hate and envy. I want the wealthy to die and take every Republican in the universe with them. They deserve it, no?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Honestly, MoonBeam, I respect these interpretations of yours. I think they are valid and may even come closer to the speaker's original intent when he came up with the ideas; as I feel is evident in his book Maps of Meaning.

But then he went from his good scholarship in Maps of Meaning to popularize his nonsense in 12 rules for life.

I see Peterson as a leftist critic of the left. He is pushing for self awareness on a group that just like the right, doesn't want it. It's not easy to face the fact that a sweet little bleeding heart liberal like myself is a monster full of hate and envy. I want the wealthy to die and take every Republican in the universe with them. They deserve it, no?

12 rules is NOT for the left to reflect on as Maps was; it is for the yet-to-see-privilege white male right to justify embrace their inheritance of social power and privileged. The cost? Disconnecting from people who disagree, for example all the evil crypto Marxists that attack Peterson.

 

[Moonbeam]

Honestly, MoonBeam, I respect these interpretations of yours. I think they are valid and may even come closer to the speaker's original intent when he came up with the ideas; as I feel is evident in his book Maps of Meaning.

But then he went from his good scholarship in Maps of Meaning to popularize his nonsense in 12 rules for life.



12 rules is NOT for the left to reflect on as Maps was; it is for the yet-to-see-privilege white male right to justify embrace their inheritance of social power and privileged. The cost? Disconnecting from people who disagree, for example all the evil crypto Marxists that attack Peterson.

Just briefly as I need to make a stew, I would just comment that to be a critic of the left and in particular the left's inept reaction to the right, you would have also, it seems to me, to be fair to both sides, to offer a methodology that would supply the right with a real methodology for self correction. The partial remedy for being deplorable as left clearly sees the right to be, should not begin with a equal but opposite hatred of them, but a love of self in which opposites are reconciled at a higher level of understanding. This includes embracing the shadow side of our being, as Peterson might say, or of one's self hate, as I do. What I don't think Peterson sees, or not in the way that I do, is that all evil has its origin in the fact that we invent the existence of evil with the language of put downs we direct at out children. He is enraged at the violence both the left and the right cause, but to me it is the inevitable result of feeling that leak out as evil because we have been taught you are worthless if you feel them. There is nothing to be done and nobody to blame for any of this. There is only the possibility of awakening.

12 steps can reduce self hate by increasing self confidence via achievement. I think that's a good thing no matter your political leaning. Anyway...............

 

[Greenman]

Just briefly as I need to make a stew, I would just comment that to be a critic of the left and in particular the left's inept reaction to the right, you would have also, it seems to me, to be fair to both sides, to offer a methodology that would supply the right with a real methodology for self correction. The partial remedy for being deplorable as left clearly sees the right to be, should not begin with a equal but opposite hatred of them, but a love of self in which opposites are reconciled at a higher level of understanding. This includes embracing the shadow side of our being, as Peterson might say, or of one's self hate, as I do. What I don't think Peterson sees, or not in the way that I do, is that all evil has its origin in the fact that we invent the existence of evil with the language of put downs we direct at out children. He is enraged at the violence both the left and the right cause, but to me it is the inevitable result of feeling that leak out as evil because we have been taught you are worthless if you feel them. There is nothing to be done and nobody to blame for any of this. There is only the possibility of awakening.

12 steps can reduce self hate by increasing self confidence via achievement. I think that's a good thing no matter your political leaning. Anyway...............

I'd like to know how the stew turned out.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It takes a lot to make a stew.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd like to know how the stew turned out.

It was Marvelous.

 

[realibrad]

I never said he said that, so no.

It’s not all or nothing - it’s the direction of the social pendulum he’s pushing us toward.

His push is a defense of those moving us toward authority and away from care and equality.

That’s my problem with the guy. Want to argue with that; because I’m NOT saying he fails to call for a “balance” of order and chaos - only that he pushes us toward order that benifits people like himself and ignores the chaos authority crates for many people beneath him in social standing.

Chaos and order are not objective - is gay marriage chaos or order? To the Christian that must legally recognize people it feels chaotic, but to the people who can get married and have the ordering value of the institution applied to their love it is order.

And with taxes that help the homeless.

And with paid maternity leave for the capitalist vs the family.


He wants order the way it was - in favor of white guys with retirement portfolios.

You said "harm for authority's sake". How is that not putting authority above all?

What order do you think he wants that is harmful? Do you have a specific example?

 

[Livemike]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...eterson-12-rules-for-life-feminism-philosophy

You don't show that he's anti-feminity. All you show ishe doesn't believe the dame things about females tharty you do. You start misrepresent him Almost immediately. Nowhere did he say if you are resentful that means you have a legitimate grievance.

Them you misrepresent the science.
" 'this is the opposite of what would be expected by those who insist, ever more loudly, that gender is a social construct. It isn’t. This isn’t a debate. The data are in. '
This is based more on sexist stereotypes than compelling scientific evidence. And even in the gender progressive environment of Scandinavia that Peterson mentions, it’s not as if all sexism and misogyny has been eradicated overnight; many patriarchal norms linger and are sometimes enforced, or whose breakdown has led to backlash. As a result, there is currently no control group of people raised in a truly non-patriarchal culture, which is what we’d need to investigate claims that men “naturally” prefer masculine-coded activities and women “naturally” prefer feminine-coded ones. "
No you don't née a completely unaffected control group to make conclusions, that's not how Spiceland science does our indeed can work. All tharty is need is to make predictions based on the hypotheses and see which one actually comes true. I don't need a totally lead free town to tell you that more lead is bad, i just need to find one much less lead affected.


"Belittling her intellect or acumen in competitive domains is certainly one way of doing that — especially when backed by the sense that it’s in her womanly nature to be oriented to people rather than abstractions."
Expert thathe never does that does he? Or you would good examples wouldn't you?

"But that’s a false contrast: You can be both."
But most people aren't both equally and it matters. It matters because what you call justifying patriarchal structures others call realizing tharty men and women are not generally the sam in many areas. Peterson had never argued that women should be devoted opportunities, just that the claim that disparities probe sexism is nonsense. I believe that and so do you. If you didn't you would be forced to conclude that a pic force that shoots makes almost exoskeleton may be horrifically misandric. But you don't conclude that and nor do i because different groups have different behavioural statistical probabilies.

Of course you're to lazy to figure out what those differences are. That's why you say he doesn't mention why most mad shooters are white. It's because most people in the USA are white. They are slightly overrepresented, trie but nowhere near the amount your theories spills suggest. That's because you're lazy. You don't bother to critique axial points because you're job confirm prejudices, nor challenge them.

 

[Livemike]

He has been very clear, very publicly that he believes equality movements lead to Marxism which leads to mass death. It’s not like he makes a secret of this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/955440524575391744

If your next argument is going to be ‘well he didn’t say all of that exactly in that tweet’ then don’t bother. All it takes to understand its meaning is a basic understanding of his ideology.

The guy is nuts and a scientific poseur.

If by equality movements you mean modem feminism then yeah it's aim is Marxism. They were pretty clear about that. It's not exactly an equality movement though is it? Is a movement specially focused on tattooing power and denning out to men. Name a type that modern feminism has not been hostile to men's rights, and i don't mean the movement i ma'am aurora rights. Feminists are very open about wanting to control the conversation. They openly attack due process, they seek to victimize,. Of you know of any other way this ends but mass murder tell me.

 

[Livemike]

He's just yet another alt-right clown who wants people to believe that the proposition that all persons are created equal is Stalinist or Maoist.

He's more eloquent, and his arguments are more intelligent, than most of the alt-right, but it still contains all the usual alt-right contradictions. They think they're against identity politics, but all their politics revolve around their own identity. They think they're freedom fighters, but the only freedoms they're fighting for are their own, while they're seemingly terror-stricken that anyone else (outside their identity) might have freedom. They think they speak for all white males, they don't.

No he's not Ali-right and specifically rejects everything they stand for. He calls them the mirror image of the SJWs. Name one time he's mentioned identity politics positively. Name one time he's argued against anyone having freedom. Do your goddamn research fool.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Someone needs better translation software.

 

[brycejones]

No he's not Ali-right and specifically rejects everything they stand for. He balls them the mirror image of the SJWs. Name one time he's premed identity politics positively. Name one time he's argued against arnhem having freedom. Do your goddamn Rsearch fool.

Plonk

 

[dawp]

Someone needs better translation software.

need to get one of them universal translators from star trek

 

[allisolm]

No he's not Ali-right and specifically rejects everything they stand for. He balls them the mirror image of the SJWs. Name one time he's premed identity politics positively. Name one time he's argued against arnhem having freedom. Do your goddamn Rsearch fool.

Let's see:
1. New member
2. Replies to a bunch of old posts.
3. Insults other members from the get go.
4. Posts lots of pure gobbledygook.

Not an auspicious beginning.

 

[Commodus]

If by equality movements you mean modem feminism then yeah it's aim is Marxism. They were pretty clear about that. It's not exactly an equality movement though is it? Is a movement specially focused on tattooing power and denning out to men. Name a type that modern feminism has not been hostile to men's rights, and i don't mean the movement i ma'am aurora rights. Feminists are very open about wanting to control the conversation. They openly attack due process, they seek to victimize,. Of you know of any other way this ends but mass murder tell me.

Wow, I know misogynists like you are easily frightened by strong women, but this takes the cake... you actually think modern feminism will lead to mass murder? I have to laugh.

Also, like allisolm mentioned, please put some thought into your writing... some of what you said makes zero sense (what's "tattooing power and denning out to men" supposed to mean?). I mean, you're never going to win your argument regardless, but you're really just supporting our case by being as incoherent as you are.

 

[brycejones]

Wow, I know misogynists like you are easily frightened by strong women, but this takes the cake... you actually think modern feminism will lead to mass murder? I have to laugh.

Also, like allisolm mentioned, please put some thought into your writing... some of what you said makes zero sense (what's "tattooing power and denning out to men" supposed to mean?). I mean, you're never going to win your argument regardless, but you're really just supporting our case by being as incoherent as you are.

Yeah livemike was an easy decision to plan on ignore. Trolling batshit crazy just brings nothing to the conversation. When your posts are so out there they make brandonbull look reasonable and well read there just isn't much left to do.

 

[realibrad]

Let's see:
1. New member
2. Replies to a bunch of old posts.
3. Insults other members from the get go.
4. Posts lots of pure gobbledygook.

Not an auspicious beginning.

The only thing I see here is that he is new. Everything else seems to fit just fine here.

 

[Livemike]

He has been very clear, very publicly that he believes equality movements lead to Marxism which leads to mass death. It’s not like he makes a secret of this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/955440524575391744

If your next argument is going to be ‘well he didn’t say all of that exactly in that tweet’ then don’t bother. All it takes to understand its meaning is a basic understanding of his ideology.

The guy is nuts and a scientific poseur.

If by equality movements you mean modem feminism then yeah it's aim is Marxism. They're pretty clear It's not exactly an equality movement though is it? Is a movement specially focused on achieving power and denying it to men. Name a type that modern feminism has not been hostile to men's rights, and i don't mean the movement i ma'am aurora rights. Feminists are very open about wanting to control the conversation. They openly attack due process, they seek to victimize,. Of you know of any other way this ends but mass murder tell me.

There are few things that irk me more than modern anti-feminist activists, including Red Pills and the like.

It's not just their view of greater female autonomy as a threat, it's that they demonstrate a passive-aggressive misogyny where they insist they're in favor of women while using not-so-subtly coded language that makes it clear they want to revert to a world where women are only 'free' to please men. The argument often boils down to "I'm not a sexist, but those bitch whores should save their virginity for me and get back to the kitchen."

We live in an era where sexists and other bigots use the progress made in spite of them to pretend that they aren't as hateful as they really are. They can't be sexist, look at how much women can do these days! They can't be racist, MLK marched and got the Voting Rights Act so racism is "over." Basically, they set the bar so high for their definition of 'real' bigotry that they can be as hateful as they want short of explicitly calling for a reversal of legal rights.

Wow, I know misogynists like you are easily frightened by strong women, but this takes the cake...

Did I say anything that indicated I was a misogynist? Not being willing to kowtow to modern feminism is not misogyny. And I'm not frightened by strong women, I'm frightened by people who openly state their allegiance to Marxism.

you actually think modern feminism will lead to mass murder? I have to laugh.

I think any movement that allies itself to Marxism, openly and that openly calls for restrictions on speech and due process will very likely lead to mass murder. Change my mind.

Also, like allisolm mentioned, please put some thought into your writing... some of what you said makes zero sense (what's "tattooing power and denning out to men" supposed to mean?). I mean, you're never going to win your argument regardless, but you're really just supporting our case by being as incoherent as you are.

Sorry I was typing fast on a swipe device. I have corrected the typos. Nevertheless I made more sense than you did.

 

[Livemike]

Yeah livemike was an easy decision to plan on ignore. Trolling batshit crazy just brings nothing to the conversation. When your posts are so out there they make brandonbull look reasonable and well read there just isn't much left to do.

Are modern feminists openly allied to Marxists, yes or no? Are they openly tyring to limit freedoms and even compel speech? So how are they not likely to lead to mass murder? What movement like this has not?

 

[fskimospy]

If by equality movements you mean modem feminism then yeah it's aim is Marxism. They're pretty clear It's not exactly an equality movement though is it? Is a movement specially focused on achieving power and denying it to men. Name a type that modern feminism has not been hostile to men's rights, and i don't mean the movement i ma'am aurora rights. Feminists are very open about wanting to control the conversation. They openly attack due process, they seek to victimize,. Of you know of any other way this ends but mass murder tell me.

If you are genuinely unable to fathom a way in which modern feminism ends in something other than mass murder this tells me you’re either lying or irrational. Either way it doesn’t seem useful to discuss the issue with you.

 

[Commodus]

Did I say anything that indicated I was a misogynist? Not being willing to kowtow to modern feminism is not misogyny. And I'm not frightened by strong women, I'm frightened by people who openly state their allegiance to Marxism.

Everything you said indicates you're a misogynist. When you think modern feminism is not only a threat (which by itself is false), but so much of a threat that you're convinced it will lead to mass murder... yeah, you hate women asserting themselves.

In particular, you embody that passive-aggressive form of sexism where you will lie that you're fine with feminism, but conveniently find ways to delegitimize all current feminists so that you don't actually have to address their concerns. "Real" feminism to you is the timid kind that shuts up, sits down and never calls you out on your bullshit.

 

[realibrad]

Everything you said indicates you're a misogynist. When you think modern feminism is not only a threat (which by itself is false), but so much of a threat that you're convinced it will lead to mass murder... yeah, you hate women asserting themselves.

In particular, you embody that passive-aggressive form of sexism where you will lie that you're fine with feminism, but conveniently find ways to delegitimize all current feminists so that you don't actually have to address their concerns. "Real" feminism to you is the timid kind that shuts up, sits down and never calls you out on your bullshit.

What is something that falls under modern feminism but not under previous movements?

 

[Livemike]

Everything you said indicates you're a misogynist. When you think modern feminism is not only a threat (which by itself is false), but so much of a threat that you're convinced it will lead to mass murder... yeah, you hate women asserting themselves.

In particular, you embody that passive-aggressive form of sexism where you will lie that you're fine with feminism, but conveniently find ways to delegitimize all current feminists so that you don't actually have to address their concerns. "Real" feminism to you is the timid kind that shuts up, sits down and never calls you out on your bullshit.

So basically the evidence that I'm a misogynist is that I don't like feminism. That's not evidence. The fact that I dislike a movement that again OPENLY ALLIES WITH MARXISM, wants to limit speech and even compel it, doesn't mean I hate women asserting themselves. Actually I'd like to see more women asserting themselves.

All you're doing is making assumptions about what I believe that you can't support. I don't want women back in the kitchen. I want them to leave my rights alone. Feminists aren't prepared to do that. They are not prepared to allow me due process rights in sexual assault allegations. They are not prepared to allow me to say what I want without being censored for hate speech, while of course saying hateful things about me all the time.

Give me an example of a "legitimate" feminist that has real valid concerns about women rather than attacking men's rights. Name an issue that feminists actually pursue that isn't authoritarian crap.

 

[Commodus]

So basically the evidence that I'm a misogynist is that I don't like feminism. That's not evidence. The fact that I dislike a movement that again OPENLY ALLIES WITH MARXISM, wants to limit speech and even compel it, doesn't mean I hate women asserting themselves. Actually I'd like to see more women asserting themselves.

All you're doing is making assumptions about what I believe that you can't support. I don't want women back in the kitchen. I want them to leave my rights alone. Feminists aren't prepared to do that. They are not prepared to allow me due process rights in sexual assault allegations. They are not prepared to allow me to say what I want without being censored for hate speech, while of course saying hateful things about me all the time.

Give me an example of a "legitimate" feminist that has real valid concerns about women rather than attacking men's rights. Name an issue that feminists actually pursue that isn't authoritarian crap.

Feminism is the pursuit of gender equality wherever possible. While there are certainly varying interpretations of what that means, if you oppose the general concept of feminism... guess what? You're a sexist asshole. And you're only digging that hole deeper when you make false, hyperbolic claims that all feminists are Marxists and that their ideology will lead to mass murder.

You also lie and spin about what women want. In my experience, they believe in due process and free speech. However, they also know that most sexual assault allegations are true, and that it's better to trust-but-verify than to default to trusting the accused. And free speech? What views do you think you'd be censored for speaking? Usually "muh free speech" from people like you is shorthand for "I don't want to face consequences for treating women like shit."

I know a number of feminists with legitimate interests. Emma Watson if you want a celebrity. Susan Fowler, who exposed Uber's sexist culture. I also know others who aren't as high-profile but are still important, like Julie Lalonde (who crusades against sexual violence). And speaking of which... issues? How about closing the pay gap for similar jobs, getting more women into tech, protecting reproductive rights and getting rid of "boys will be boys" apologists? None of those are "authoritarian crap;" they're just basic demands for equality and control over their own bodies.