Jordan Peterson: Telling Betas They are Alphas

[cytg111]

I am just going to end my contribution to this thread stating that I believe women to be men superior in whatever meaningful way.
Women may be hormonally unstable ONE week of the month, men are under the the influence of testosterone 24/7 ...
For the sake of our chil

My real issue with this Peterson thingi goes back to liberal messaging. Is the Democratic Party going to bem.come the party of minority or gender identity offended or are they going to include bitter excluded and status protective white men and the women who ‘enable’ them, s place at the table. While I can easily understand how people focus on their own pain as easily irrationally magnified, I see no way to garner sympathy from others without also feeling it also yourself. Democrats tend, in my opinion, to be weak on message. I want that to end.

That is the poison of fox news! .. cause these people already home, they just don realize it yet.

 

[fskimospy]

I hope you can see that the absurdity you observe in me and or others could be, speaking for me here with clarity, is that your conclusion makes sense only if the premise you assume to be true actually is.i don’t agree that it is. I see no loud public proclamation of the kind you do and your insistence it’s there doesn’t make me see it.

That is of course except for the one woolfe quoted, haha.

 

[Moonbeam]

Really now, you're actually unfamiliar with the tendency of American right wing propagandists to unfairly cast liberals as communists? Did you really just write that? You post here frequently to comment on American politics and you are unaware of a prominent strain of right wing propaganda which goes all the way back to the cold war?

Sorry, but casting my observations as "trigger activism conditional required to set off a predisposition" is ridiculous. Peterson wrote what he wrote. He wasn't merely referring to political correctness or some specific aspect of say, academic feminism. The context of his remarks was a reference to a march for women's rights.

For myself, the most extreme forms of feminism are what I dislike most about about the American left, so I'm afraid you are completely out to lunch as it comes to my motives. Your belittling description of my opinion of Peterson's remarks as an "autonomic reaction" says more about you than it does about me. What it says is that you decided that you like Peterson based on, what, a video or two you saw on Youtube, and you're ready to come onto social media to defend him with ad hominem nonsense. What you conveniently conclude about my alleged motives is irrelevant to what Peterson actually said and the context in which he said it.

If you want to like Peterson, that's fine. But it doesn't change what he's said and written, and no amount of suggesting that his critics are unthinking automatons will change it either because even if they were unthinking automatons he still wrote what he wrote.

I think I added some additional information to what I meant by unfamiliar, namely that my awareness hasn’t lead to a predisposition to see everywhere what is true in many cases. Also, I have made minimum effort to sugarcoat my opinions. I may be wrong about your state of conditioning and I may be wrong about Peterson, but I have expressed how things look to me. So while what I think I see in you and the truth about Peterson are in no way connected as you point out, I see both as I described. You have told me I have treated you with ad hominem attacks. I an glad you say that’s what you feel. I don’t see that as factual but how my words make you feel. I don’t see calling you programmed is an attack. It’s just a fact, one that I think also applies to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

That is of course except for the one woolfe quoted, haha.

Can you quote it again?

 

[fskimospy]

Can you quote it again?

There’s no need as I’m sure you won’t change your mind anyway. His public statements are there for you to see if you wish.

He said it, and it’s not like it was a slip of the tongue. He just believes some really, really insane things.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think I added some additional information to what I meant by unfamiliar, namely that my awareness hasn’t lead to a predisposition to see everywhere what is true in many cases. Also, I have made minimum effort to sugarcoat my opinions. I may be wrong about your state of conditioning and I may be wrong about Peterson, but I have expressed how things look to me. So while what I think I see in you and the truth about Peterson are in no way connected as you point out, I see both as I described. You have told me I have treated you with ad hominem attacks. I an glad you say that’s what you feel. I don’t see that as factual but how my words make you feel. I don’t see calling you programmed is an attack. It’s just a fact, one that I think also applies to me.

I used the term "ad hominem" without adding the word "attack" precisely because my emotional response to your comments, if any, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The problem with the use of ad hominen isn't that it's an "attack." Indeed, it often isn't any sort of attack at all. The problem is that it's simply irrelevant. Peterson wrote what he wrote regardless of my motives for disagreeing with him. By commenting on my motives, what you did was change the subject. What you changed the subject to is not the most important issue. It could just as easily have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the price of tea in China, and both would have about the same relevance to Peterson's comments as do my motives for disagreeing with them.

 

[Moonbeam]

There’s no need as I’m sure you won’t change your mind anyway. His public statements are there for you to see if you wish.

He said it, and it’s not like it was a slip of the tongue. He just believes some really, really insane things.

The problem I have is that what appears obvious to you doesn’t to me. I don’t know why that is, so I try to ask where you get what you get and so far that hasn’t worked either. The public statements he has made that I am aware of don’t say to me what they say to you. I don’t have to wish. I just see what I see. I provided in the last link I gave, an opinion by somebody else who sees similarly to what I have suggested, and there are others I did not link, none of which, as far as I can tell, expressed by anti-feminists.

 

[Moonbeam]

I used the term "ad hominem" without adding the word "attack" precisely because my emotional response to your comments, if any, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The problem with the use of ad hominen isn't that it's an "attack." Indeed, it often isn't any sort of attack at all. The problem is that it's simply irrelevant. Peterson wrote what he wrote regardless of my motives for disagreeing with him. By commenting on my motives, what you did was change the subject. What you changed the subject to is not the most important issue. It could just as easily have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the price of yea in China, and both would have about the same relevance to Peterson's comments as do my motives for disagreeing with them.

All I was saying was that Peterson wrote what he wrote and what you heard him to have written isn’t anything like what I read when I read him. This can only mean that one of us or both of us did’t hear what he intended to mean. Thus, making that point is totally relevant in my opinion.

If Peterson is pitching right wing cliches, as you suggest his point of view in your opinion is certainly biased, so from that, if you see bias in him that isn’t actually there, my opinion, then why would I not want to do the same thing and assume you were the one who brought bias into this matter?

 

[woolfe9998]

All I was saying was that Peterson wrote what he wrote and what you heard him to have written isn’t anything like what I read when I read him. This can only mean that one of us or both of us did’t hear what he intended to mean. Thus, making that point is totally relevant in my opinion.

If Peterson is pitching right wing cliches, as you suggest his point of view in your opinion is certainly biased, so from that, if you see bias in him that isn’t actually there, my opinion, then why would I not want to do the same thing and assume you were the one who brought bias into this matter?

I made no comment nor insinuation about his motives. My concern is with the argument he made. Specifically, that a march for women's rights was a slippery slope towards genocide. He was literally commenting on a legal protest march which supported women's rights and his comment was, this leads to killing millions of people. No different than if I had said of any given conservative movement that it leads to fascism even if the adherents of the movement don't support fascism.

It's absurd to point out only the most extreme theoretical possibilities of where something might lead and totally ignore what the thing actually is. Does it concern you that your support of universal, government healthcare could lead to a communist style government takeover of the entire economy? If you don't believe in that, well too bad, because what you do believe in might lead to it. So perhaps that's all we should be talking about when we discuss universal healthcare.

I don't care about his internal motives because his argument is ridiculous regardless of why he's making it.

 

[Moonbeam]

I made no comment nor insinuation about his motives. My concern is with the argument he made. Specifically, that a march for women's rights was a slippery slope towards genocide. He was literally commenting on a legal protest march which supported women's rights and his comment was, this leads to killing millions of people. No different than if I had said of any given conservative movement that it leads to fascism even if the adherents of the movement don't support fascism.

It's absurd to point out only the most extreme theoretical possibilities of where something might lead and totally ignore what the thing actually is. Does it concern you that your support of universal, government healthcare could lead to a communist style government takeover of the entire economy? If you don't believe in that, well too bad, because what you do believe in might lead to it. So perhaps that's all we should be talking about when we discuss universal healthcare.

I don't care about his internal motives because his argument is ridiculous regardless of why he's making it.

As you put it, it is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous in my opinion, that it would require contrivance on my part to assume it’s literally intended. I think, additionally, that I should in fact pay the highest attention I can to where my kind of thinking might lead, if universally or nearly so, were to be believed.

 

[greatnoob]

As you put it, it is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous in my opinion, that it would require contrivance on my part to assume it’s literally intended. I think, additionally, that I should in fact pay the highest attention I can to where my kind of thinking might lead, if universally or nearly so, were to be believed.

Well considering he's a climate change denier...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Climate_change

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. Peterson has said he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change". He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved". In a 2018 Cambridge Union address, Peterson said that climate change will not unite anyone, that focusing on climate change is "low-resolution thinking", and there are other more important issues in the world.

And proclaims to be a Christian, it doesn't sound so ridiculous or absurd that he'd equate feminism to some boogeyman cultural Marxists' (whatever that made up word means) ideology out to destroy the world.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well considering he's a climate change denier...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Climate_change


And proclaims to be a Christian, it doesn't sound so ridiculous or absurd that he'd equate feminism to some boogeyman cultural Marxists' (whatever that made up word means) ideology out to destroy the world.

I checked your link to read for myself what he had to say but it just links to an other link that reports he was reported to say he's a climate change denier. If you become a climate change denier by being skeptical of climate change models then my guess is that a lot of the scientists in the field are deniers too because a huge amount of climate change study involves the constant updating of the sophistication of what passes today for the best. More and more powerful computers are incorporated into the study because of the massive calculations that go into it. And if by climate change denier you mean somebody who sees other problems as more important, I would quality there. I see the problem of dualistic thinking created by language first with its production of abstract thought and naming plus the emotional connections that can be forged into words, the result of which provides the mechanism by which we can learn to hate ourselves, is the be all and end all most important issue humans have to face, one if successfully dealt with will make fixing the climate easy.

So as I said about other additional raps on Peterson, others introduced earlier in this thread, I have not actually seen him express those ideas in their original context and refuse to rely on the opinions of others to interpret for me what he is saying since when I am told he is saying in the videos I have looked at in this thread I don't see what I am assured by others is there. So while I have a deep skepticism of climate models and fully agree that ideology can get involved in the issue, I also am quite sure climate change is a dangerous and very real problem.

And as far as the ease by which you can slide from Christian to Patriarchal bogyman, I'm sorry to say that is an elision I could make only via a bigotry I seem not posses. I hold the concept of Christianity, not being one myself, in the highest respect. I believe a being of incomprehensible compassion willingly finagled His death on a cross so that I might find through faith, the transformative belief that I have been forgiven for all the things about myself I was taught to hate. For me Christianity represents the deepest of human desires, the ending of duality in Divine Love.

But if that is not for you, I would not worry. I believe or should I say know or should I say suspect, that if you can manage to actually believe in nothing at all you will get to the same place. It may be a tougher road, more lonely, but if you truly abandon all of your sacred beliefs, one of them will be the belief there is something wrong with you.

The Christian who has truly died to his ego via surrender and the doubter who has died to hope and surrendered, know that God IS, floods in, appears, when everything that is false has been taken. This is a miracle beyond intellectual comprehension.

 

[greatnoob]

I checked your link to read for myself what he had to say but it just links to an other link that reports he was reported to say he's a climate change denier. If you become a climate change denier by being skeptical of climate change models then my guess is that a lot of the scientists in the field are deniers too because a huge amount of climate change study involves the constant updating of the sophistication of what passes today for the best. More and more powerful computers are incorporated into the study because of the massive calculations that go into it. And if by climate change denier you mean somebody who sees other problems as more important, I would quality there. I see the problem of dualistic thinking created by language first with its production of abstract thought and naming plus the emotional connections that can be forged into words, the result of which provides the mechanism by which we can learn to hate ourselves, is the be all and end all most important issue humans have to face, one if successfully dealt with will make fixing the climate easy.

Yeah.. no. Hiding behind the good old "he's not a climate change denier, he's just a skeptic" obfuscation is a pretty weak objection to why he isn't a climate change "denier".

Here's Peterson sharing a climate change denial video from Prager U - a conservative and right-wing thinktank (which he seems to have some sort of internal association with):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1024870660022124544

"Something for the anticapitalist environmentalists to hate"

The not-an-ideologue Peterson has branded non-deniers as "anticapitalist environmentalists." Lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU

Other PragerU videos defend the Electoral College, arguing that "pure democracies do not work" and that the Electoral College thwarts voter fraud. Still other videos argue against the scientific consensus on climate change, police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the existence of a gender pay gap.[4]

This was a funny one:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1025953090854219778

I found this response to the above tweet pretty funny:
https://twitter.com/urkagurka/status/1026298502131802113

So as I said about other additional raps on Peterson, others introduced earlier in this thread, I have not actually seen him express those ideas in their original context and refuse to rely on the opinions of others to interpret for me what he is saying since when I am told he is saying in the videos I have looked at in this thread I don't see what I am assured by others is there. So while I have a deep skepticism of climate models and fully agree that ideology can get involved in the issue, I also am quite sure climate change is a dangerous and very real problem.

Here's an interview with Cathy Newman where he treads the line of a denier. Of course, like any intellectual lightweight, he pussies out and doesn't label his "skepticism" as climate change denial despite holding the same beliefs as a denier. His response is hilarious or just nonsensical at best:

You've now heard and seen his anti-climate change denial. What other piece of evidence are you going to ask for to solidify what most of us already know about Peterson?

And as far as the ease by which you can slide from Christian to Patriarchal bogyman, I'm sorry to say that is an elision I could make only via a bigotry I seem not posses. I hold the concept of Christianity, not being one myself, in the highest respect. I believe a being of incomprehensible compassion willingly finagled His death on a cross so that I might find through faith, the transformative belief that I have been forgiven for all the things about myself I was taught to hate. For me Christianity represents the deepest of human desires, the ending of duality in Divine Love.

But if that is not for you, I would not worry. I believe or should I say know or should I say suspect, that if you can manage to actually believe in nothing at all you will get to the same place. It may be a tougher road, more lonely, but if you truly abandon all of your sacred beliefs, one of them will be the belief there is something wrong with you.

The Christian who has truly died to his ego via surrender and the doubter who has died to hope and surrendered, know that God IS, floods in, appears, when everything that is false has been taken. This is a miracle beyond intellectual comprehension.

My calling out his belief in Christianity was there to draw parallels to the incongruent, shaky and absurd beliefs he holds: 1) Peterson considers himself a Christian, 2) Peterson hesitantly doesn't believe in God whilst claiming to be a Christian and 3) Belief in Christianity and the Bible (esp. the stories within) requires the numbing of all logic and reasoning.

 

[woolfe9998]

Not going to bother attempting to convince Moonbeam of anything about Peterson, because it isn't going anywhere. Either he states something offensive in a clear manner, in which case he couldn't have been entirely serious, or he obfuscates/qualifies his opinion in some way, in which case there is room to argue that the opinion isn't so offensive after all.

On the issue of climate change, however, as clarification for those interested, here is a link to his GQ interview with Helen Lewis. The video of the interview is at the bottom of the article.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/helen-lewis-jordan-peterson

Feel free to listen to the entire interview to make sure I'm not taking him out of context. The part dealing with climate change starts at 1 hr:15 mins and seconds.

A telling excerpt:

-----

HL: OK, climate change. I saw you posting a link to a study suggesting that a lot of the way that it’s talked about has been over-hyped. What are your beliefs about climate change?

JP: Well, I don’t really have beliefs about climate change, I wouldn’t say. I think the climate is probably warming, but it’s been warming since the last ice age, so,

HL: But It’s dramatically accelerated in the last couple of decades.

JP: Yeah, maybe, possibly, it’s not so obvious, I spent quite a bit of time going through the relevant literature, I read about 200 books on ecology and economy when I worked for the UN for a 2-year period and it’s not so obvious what’s happening, just like with any complex system. The problem I have, fundamentally, isn’t really a climate change issue. It’s that I find it very difficult to distinguish valid environmental claims from environmental claims that are made as a secondary anti-capitalist front, so it’s so politicised that it’s very difficult to parse out the data from the politicisation.

----

A couple of opinions are stated here.

One, that while the planet is "probably" warming, it's been warming "since the ice age" after all. For those of us not trying to make excuses for him, he's saying that warming is essentially a natural phenomenon.

Two, that the research is politicized because of an "anti-capitalist" agenda. No evidence is presented to substantiate this. Not even an example. He claims he can't distinguish good research from bad because of this agenda, which begs the question of how and why he purports to know that any of it is bad. Apparently, he's just assuming it.

Also important is what he doesn't say anywhere in the interview: that there is any kind of action we should take in regard to climate change. The conversation on climate change goes on a bit further and if you listen, you'll see he's got nothing in that regard. He thinks action on climate change will hurt the poor, and that for the left, it's a dilemma of tackling climate change or taking care of the poor.

I am failing to see any distinction whatsoever between Peterson and the typical view of the American conservative on climate change here. The most common opinion I see these days is that there is probably warming, but it's more likely a natural phenomenon than man made, and that the science is biased by ideology and/or money. Also that the solutions are worse than the problem itself. Check, check, check.

I think taking action on climate change needs to be a priority of the dem party in 2020 and of the nation itself. Peterson is simply on the wrong side of history here, along with the rest of the political right of which he is firmly a member.

 

[greatnoob]

Not going to bother attempting to convince Moonbeam of anything about Peterson, because it isn't going anywhere. Either he states something offensive in a clear manner, in which case he couldn't have been entirely serious, or he obfuscates/qualifies his opinion in some way, in which case there is room to argue that the opinion isn't so offensive after all.

On the issue of climate change, however, as clarification for those interested, here is a link to his GQ interview with Helen Lewis. The video of the interview is at the bottom of the article.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/helen-lewis-jordan-peterson

Feel free to listen to the entire interview to make sure I'm not taking him out of context. The part dealing with climate change starts at 1 hr:15 mins and seconds.

A telling excerpt:

-----

HL: OK, climate change. I saw you posting a link to a study suggesting that a lot of the way that it’s talked about has been over-hyped. What are your beliefs about climate change?

JP: Well, I don’t really have beliefs about climate change, I wouldn’t say. I think the climate is probably warming, but it’s been warming since the last ice age, so,

HL: But It’s dramatically accelerated in the last couple of decades.

JP: Yeah, maybe, possibly, it’s not so obvious, I spent quite a bit of time going through the relevant literature, I read about 200 books on ecology and economy when I worked for the UN for a 2-year period and it’s not so obvious what’s happening, just like with any complex system. The problem I have, fundamentally, isn’t really a climate change issue. It’s that I find it very difficult to distinguish valid environmental claims from environmental claims that are made as a secondary anti-capitalist front, so it’s so politicised that it’s very difficult to parse out the data from the politicisation.

----

A couple of opinions are stated here.

One, that while the planet is "probably" warming, it's been warming "since the ice age" after all. For those of us not trying to make excuses for him, he's saying that warming is essentially a natural phenomenon.

Two, that the research is politicized because of an "anti-capitalist" agenda. No evidence is presented to substantiate this. Not even an example. He claims he can't distinguish good research from bad because of this agenda, which begs the question of how and why he purports to know that any of it is bad. Apparently, he's just assuming it.

Also important is what he doesn't say anywhere in the interview: that there is any kind of action we should take in regard to climate change. The conversation on climate change goes on a bit further and if you listen, you'll see he's got nothing in that regard. He thinks action on climate change will hurt the poor, and that for the left, it's a dilemma of tackling climate change or taking care of the poor.

I am failing to see any distinction whatsoever between Peterson and the typical view of the American conservative on climate change here. The most common opinion I see these days is that there is probably warming, but it's more likely a natural phenomenon than man made, and that the science is biased by ideology and/or money. Also that the solutions are worse than the problem itself. Check, check, check.

I think taking action on climate change needs to be a priority of the dem party in 2020 and of the nation itself. Peterson is simply on the wrong side of history here, along with the rest of the political right of which he is firmly a member.

Just realised the interviewer in the vid I posted above is Helen Lewis, not Cathy Newman after reading the interview excerpt. Whoops

@Moonbeam not that it changes anything but it’s worth pointing out the excerpt and the video above are from the same interview so pick your poison I guess

 

[pmv]

JP Is so obviously on the quasi-Trumpian hard-right (despite his dubioius attempts at obfuscation-by-mysticism) that I'm puzzled why Moonbeam (who clearly isn't) is so taken with him. I can only assume Moonbeam is into that less-toxic kind of "mens movement" stuff (whatever happened to "Iron John"?) and somehow can't see that JP is on the other side of that line.

You can have doubts about full-on monomaniacal theories of patriarchy and still see that JP is clearly on the side of the privileged and powerful.

 

[bshole]

No, he was responding to the Canadian Prime Minister voicing support for the Women’s March, saying such ideology is murderous.

It’s not like what he said was ambiguous, haha, he’s just THAT insane.

Regarding the Women's March, I am sure you are aware of the conspiratorial anti-Semitic leaning of some of its leaders and their not quite clear support of women's autonomy. There is a battle right now for it's soul. I give a tip of the hat to Alyssa Milano for being the first to publicly call out the leadership.

Perez and Mallory allegedly first asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade. These are canards popularized by The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam—“the bible of the new anti-Semitism,” according to Henry Louis Gates Jr., who noted in 1992: “Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.”

She recalled being startled earlier this year when Mallory—already a nationally recognized leader of the Women’s March—showed up at the Nation of Islam’s Saviours’ Day event. “When all of that went down, it was my last straw,” she told Tablet. “You are part of a national movement that is about the equality of women and you are sitting in the front row listening to a man say women belong in the kitchen and you’re nodding your head saying amen!

And many of those involved began questioning why it was that, among the many women of various backgrounds interested in being involved in the March’s earliest days, power had consolidated in the hands of leadership who all had previous ties to one another; who were all roughly the same age; who would praise a man who has argued that it’s women’s responsibility to dress modestly so as to avoid tempting men; and, at least in one case, who defended Bill Cosby as the victim of a conspiracy.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/276694/is-the-womens-march-melting-down

Jordan I think is looking at broad trajectories.... politics always are downstream from culture. He sees "victim culture" as a means to obtain real world power.... the power to oppress those with an opposing political viewpoint.... to silence their voices through any means necessary (other than a coherent refutation of their ideas). Given the scale and escalation of censoring that has gone on in social media this year, this seems to have some basis in fact. For example, a prominent TERF was banned this year from twitter because she denied the assertion that transgender women who still had a penis were women. Is this really something that is beyond debate? Is this something that science has settled? This is something that cannot be discussed?

When culture bleeds into the political realm, we get what happened in Argentina a few days ago.

An Argentine radio show host who faced criminal prosecution for allegedly sexist remarks has struck a deal. In lieu of a more punitive route, prosecutors have ordered a five-month education in gender issues for Angel Etchecopar, commonly known by his nickname "Baby Etchecopar," and the listeners of his noontime radio program, El Angel de Mediodia.
:
Prosecutors will provide Etchecopar with a list of interviewees for the five-month term of the deal, which begins in March. And, according to La Nación, special prosecutor Verónica Guagnino, who specializes in gender-based violence, will set the agenda for Etchecopar's conversations with the provided gender experts.

In addition to changing the content of his show, Etchecopar reportedly had to issue a public apology and make a small charity donation as part of the deal. And La Nación reports that if Etchecopar violates discrimination laws again within a year, the agreement will be terminated and he could be criminally prosecuted.

This seems vaguely reminiscent of show trials and re-education camps in Stalinist Russia. This the the fear that Jordan is expressing. It has been said that once one side is completely denied the right to express their political viewpoint, the inevitable next step is violence, arguments are then settled with guns/killing instead of words/ideas. America is far from that right now but it appears to have a started a trajectory in that direction (to me at least).

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/24/6798...minal-prosecution-by-discussing-gender-issues

One core component of my worldview that remains unchanged is that the elite are responsible for where we are today. They have wrestled away true political power from labor which peaked in the 1960s. In my opinion the elite are making all the wrong moves and forcing Western civilization into a dystopian future. They have no connection to the rest of us and are completely detached from our problems. They care only about accruing more power and money to themselves. It hasn't escaped my notice that they have been banning socialist outlets alongside the conservative outlets (how many millions of viewers have seen their ideas obliterated from the acceptable conversation). There is a narrow frame of viewpoints that these billionaires are ok with. Don't think for a moment that influential progressive sites like Secular Talk will remain forever, there is a little doubt that Kyle has a huge bullseye on him.

Currently there is no better time or place for the discussion of ideas than youtube today. There is a near limitless supply of long form discussions of ideas from nearly every perspective. People are definitely modifying their worldviews based on these conversations. I have attached an interesting video where two progressives discuss the impact of Jordan Peterson and the IDW on themselves. Also discussed is the decimation of the mainstream media by the alternative media. As a bonus, I have also included Ezra Klein's (a mainstream journalist) perspective of the phenomenon as well (SPOILER: he hates it). I found both videos highly entertaining and educational.

 

[fskimospy]

Regarding the Women's March, I am sure you are aware of the conspiratorial anti-Semitic leaning of some of its leaders and their not quite clear support of women's autonomy. There is a battle right now for it's soul. I give a tip of the hat to Alyssa Milano for being the first to publicly call out the leadership.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/276694/is-the-womens-march-melting-down

Jordan I think is looking at broad trajectories.... politics always are downstream from culture. He sees "victim culture" as a means to obtain real world power.... the power to oppress those with an opposing political viewpoint.... to silence their voices through any means necessary (other than a coherent refutation of their ideas). Given the scale and escalation of censoring that has gone on in social media this year, this seems to have some basis in fact. For example, a prominent TERF was banned this year from twitter because she denied the assertion that transgender women who still had a penis were women. Is this really something that is beyond debate? Is this something that science has settled? This is something that cannot be discussed?

When culture bleeds into the political realm, we get what happened in Argentina a few days ago.

This seems vaguely reminiscent of show trials and re-education camps in Stalinist Russia. This the the fear that Jordan is expressing. It has been said that once one side is completely denied the right to express their political viewpoint, the inevitable next step is violence, arguments are then settled with guns/killing instead of words/ideas. America is far from that right now but it appears to have a started a trajectory in that direction (to me at least).

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/24/6798...minal-prosecution-by-discussing-gender-issues

One core component of my worldview that remains unchanged is that the elite are responsible for where we are today. They have wrestled away true political power from labor which peaked in the 1960s. In my opinion the elite are making all the wrong moves and forcing Western civilization into a dystopian future. They have no connection to the rest of us and are completely detached from our problems. They care only about accruing more power and money to themselves. It hasn't escaped my notice that they have been banning socialist outlets alongside the conservative outlets (how many millions of viewers have seen their ideas obliterated from the acceptable conversation). There is a narrow frame of viewpoints that these billionaires are ok with. Don't think for a moment that influential progressive sites like Secular Talk will remain forever, there is a little doubt that Kyle has a huge bullseye on him.

Currently there is no better time or place for the discussion of ideas than youtube today. There is a near limitless supply of long form discussions of ideas from nearly every perspective. People are definitely modifying their worldviews based on these conversations. I have attached an interesting video where two progressives discuss the impact of Jordan Peterson and the IDW on themselves. Also discussed is the decimation of the mainstream media by the alternative media. As a bonus, I have also included Ezra Klein's (a mainstream journalist) perspective of the phenomenon as well (SPOILER: he hates it). I found both videos highly entertaining and educational.

I have no idea what relevance you think this has to Jordan Peterson's absolutely insane belief that the Women's March represented a movement that will lead to the deaths of millions of people. This just seems to be some attempt to throw as much shit against the wall as possible in order to distract people from Peterson's shittiness.

 

[Blackjack200]

JP is a fraud. This article is from back in March, but I think it's a good article about his appeal, and the essential meaninglessness of his work.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

 

[Moonbeam]

Greatnoob. : Yeah.. no. Hiding behind the good old "he's not a climate change denier, he's just a skeptic" obfuscation is a pretty weak objection to why he isn't a climate change "denier".

M: If I may respond with the same force of logic as you have here than know my argument was not weak. An argument is not rendered weak by saying it is but if it is I have just rebutted that.

G: Here's Peterson sharing a climate change denial video from Prager U - a conservative and right-wing thinktank (which he seems to have some sort of internal association with):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1024870660022124544

"Something for the anticapitalist environmentalists to hate"

M: “some sort of”? Sounds like he’s probably an Illuminati. Now I am very afraid. Where are my tar and feathers? I had no problem at all wi5h the climate denier’s video, personally, I think the points made need to be part of the debate, but I bet you it is something that anti capitalist environmentalists will generally hate.

G: The not-an-ideologue Peterson has branded non-deniers as "anticapitalist environmentalists." Lol

M: Why is he not actually saying not all climate believers are anti capitalist environmentalists, but those who are will likely hate it. He says he is very careful with his words, so why are you not careful in how you hear them?

G: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU

M: You realize I hope that you just linked to a right wing site that parades as some sort of academic entity to make the claim that Peterson supports that site rather than points to something there as likely to be hated by whatever the words are we are using to stand in for bogeyman. Are you a Nazi? You must be because I don’t have the capacity to separate you and what you say you believe from the ideology of the sources you quote. Give me a break.


G: This was a funny one:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1025953090854219778

I found this response to the above tweet pretty funny:
https://twitter.com/urkagurka/status/1026298502131802113

M: interesting. I found myself wondering when or if Peterson knew that the statics are under challenge prior to 1983 and also just how inaccurate they may actually be prior to that date. I believe the reason we may have different reactions is because we seek bias confirmation. You are looking for a right wing bad guy and I am thinking, how do I approach a person whose wish when asked how he wishes to be remembered is ‘honest’.

G: Here's an interview with Cathy Newman where he treads the line of a denier. Of course, like any intellectual lightweight, he pussies out and doesn't label his "skepticism" as climate change denial despite holding the same beliefs as a denier. His response is hilarious or just nonsensical at best:

M: Yes, I have watched that a number of times now. I found that his comment that he has no opinion on climate change to be profoundly refreshing and very much like my own. In my case I don’t know what humanity should do about climate change but it is something I am deeply interested in and read what comes to my attention. I am of the opinion, however, that humanity is asleep and that change will happen mechanically. The truth even if the wisest among us know it will not be transmissible to those who do not know it but imagine they do.

G: You've now heard and seen his anti-climate change denial. What other piece of evidence are you going to ask for to solidify what most of us already know about Peterson?

M: Again, what I think has solidified your certainty about Peterson is a monsterous need for certainty and a terror of the other, that your ideology and ego need to be a part of ‘those who think like you think’ are the only people who have anything to say.
G: My calling out his belief in Christianity was there to draw parallels to the incongruent, shaky and absurd beliefs he holds: 1) Peterson considers himself a Christian, 2) Peterson hesitantly doesn't believe in God whilst claiming to be a Christian and 3) Belief in Christianity and the Bible (esp. the stories within) requires the numbing of all logic and reasoning.

M: Yes well if Christianity requires the numbing of all logic then I say to you, “Hello Jesus”.

 

[Moonbeam]

woolfe9998: Not going to bother attempting to convince Moonbeam of anything about Peterson, because it isn't going anywhere. Either he states something offensive in a clear manner, in which case he couldn't have been entirely serious, or he obfuscates/qualifies his opinion in some way, in which case there is room to argue that the opinion isn't so offensive after all.

M: Or you have limited the options and thus eliminated some third understanding.

w: On the issue of climate change, however, as clarification for those interested, here is a link to his GQ interview with Helen Lewis. The video of the interview is at the bottom of the article.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/helen-lewis-jordan-peterson

Feel free to listen to the entire interview to make sure I'm not taking him out of context. The part dealing with climate change starts at 1 hr:15 mins and seconds.

A telling excerpt:

-----

HL: OK, climate change. I saw you posting a link to a study suggesting that a lot of the way that it’s talked about has been over-hyped. What are your beliefs about climate change?

JP: Well, I don’t really have beliefs about climate change, I wouldn’t say. I think the climate is probably warming, but it’s been warming since the last ice age, so,

HL: But It’s dramatically accelerated in the last couple of decades.

JP: Yeah, maybe, possibly, it’s not so obvious, I spent quite a bit of time going through the relevant literature, I read about 200 books on ecology and economy when I worked for the UN for a 2-year period and it’s not so obvious what’s happening, just like with any complex system. The problem I have, fundamentally, isn’t really a climate change issue. It’s that I find it very difficult to distinguish valid environmental claims from environmental claims that are made as a secondary anti-capitalist front, so it’s so politicised that it’s very difficult to parse out the data from the politicisation.

----

A couple of opinions are stated here.

M: I hope I can qualify as somebody who is interested despite the fact you wish this for others since you have given up on me.

w: One, that while the planet is "probably" warming, it's been warming "since the ice age" after all. For those of us not trying to make excuses for him, he's saying that warming is essentially a natural phenomenon.

M: Bull shit. You left off the so at the end. So what do you make of the fact that the planet is warming if it has been warming since the last ice age? What fucking conclusion can you draw from the fact that the planet is warming if it has been warming since the last ice age. You hear climate denial. I hear a question. What is your answer to it?

w: Two, that the research is politicized because of an "anti-capitalist" agenda. No evidence is presented to substantiate this. Not even an example. He claims he can't distinguish good research from bad because of this agenda, which begs the question of how and why he purports to know that any of it is bad. Apparently, he's just assuming it.

M: What is the issue with what the politicization is called. I think the right has politicized the issue. The fact is the issue is politicized and just as I am having trouble trying to parse out what is genuine criticism of Peterson from what is politicized, I have the same problem with climate data. Who is honest in saying what they believe, who is getting paid or protecting some ideology, and of those who are honest, who is also accurate or seeming the most of what we can know.

w: Also important is what he doesn't say anywhere in the interview: that there is any kind of action we should take in regard to climate change.

M: If you don't have beliefs about climate change why would you have solutions to it to offer? What he does suggest is that we look at the consequences of certain actions and weigh them. Shut down coal plants and raise the enerty costs or do without electricity. Who will be hurt by that? Do you know the answer. I don't and he doesn't either.

w: The conversation on climate change goes on a bit further and if you listen, you'll see he's got nothing in that regard. He thinks action on climate change will hurt the poor, and that for the left, it's a dilemma of tackling climate change or taking care of the poor.

M: No, he said there are some actions you can take that will have consequences. He doesn't see any answer that wont. Do you? I favor movement but I can't make my willing to take risk universal nor do I really know if the kinds of actions I would favor might make things worse. What the fuck is wrong with wanting to be cautious about things?

w: I am failing to see any distinction whatsoever between Peterson and the typical view of the American conservative on climate change here. The most common opinion I see these days is that there is probably warming, but it's more likely a natural phenomenon than man made, and that the science is biased by ideology and/or money. Also that the solutions are worse than the problem itself. Check, check, check.

M: No, thinking like you do, I am absolutely convinced that he wants us to be just like France, that we need nuclear power as our national strategy and global warming will go away. It's a great idea, one that will get us to the next world catastrophe, death by nuclear waste. But all of this is totally absurd in my opinion, because we will either stumble through this crisis or it will kill us. There is not going to be an answer that all of us will get behind. It will happen by the political art of the possible and what is possible will depend on the level to which we become conscious.

w: I think taking action on climate change needs to be a priority of the dem party in 2020 and of the nation itself. Peterson is simply on the wrong side of history here, along with the rest of the political right of which he is firmly a member.

M: Great, if we can get a powerful enough authoritarian left, we can definitely solve the problem by force. I suggest we solve the problem by who can have the biggest tantrum.

Or, we can try to hear what others have to say and try to integrate what is best from all sides.

 

[greatnoob]

Greatnoob. : Yeah.. no. Hiding behind the good old "he's not a climate change denier, he's just a skeptic" obfuscation is a pretty weak objection to why he isn't a climate change "denier".

M: If I may respond with the same force of logic as you have here than know my argument was not weak. An argument is not rendered weak by saying it is but if it is I have just rebutted that.

G: Here's Peterson sharing a climate change denial video from Prager U - a conservative and right-wing thinktank (which he seems to have some sort of internal association with):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1024870660022124544

"Something for the anticapitalist environmentalists to hate"

M: “some sort of”? Sounds like he’s probably an Illuminati. Now I am very afraid. Where are my tar and feathers? I had no problem at all wi5h the climate denier’s video, personally, I think the points made need to be part of the debate, but I bet you it is something that anti capitalist environmentalists will generally hate.

G: The not-an-ideologue Peterson has branded non-deniers as "anticapitalist environmentalists." Lol

M: Why is he not actually saying not all climate believers are anti capitalist environmentalists, but those who are will likely hate it. He says he is very careful with his words, so why are you not careful in how you hear them?

G: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU

M: You realize I hope that you just linked to a right wing site that parades as some sort of academic entity to make the claim that Peterson supports that site rather than points to something there as likely to be hated by whatever the words are we are using to stand in for bogeyman. Are you a Nazi? You must be because I don’t have the capacity to separate you and what you say you believe from the ideology of the sources you quote. Give me a break.


G: This was a funny one:
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1025953090854219778

I found this response to the above tweet pretty funny:
https://twitter.com/urkagurka/status/1026298502131802113

M: interesting. I found myself wondering when or if Peterson knew that the statics are under challenge prior to 1983 and also just how inaccurate they may actually be prior to that date. I believe the reason we may have different reactions is because we seek bias confirmation. You are looking for a right wing bad guy and I am thinking, how do I approach a person whose wish when asked how he wishes to be remembered is ‘honest’.

G: Here's an interview with Cathy Newman where he treads the line of a denier. Of course, like any intellectual lightweight, he pussies out and doesn't label his "skepticism" as climate change denial despite holding the same beliefs as a denier. His response is hilarious or just nonsensical at best:

M: Yes, I have watched that a number of times now. I found that his comment that he has no opinion on climate change to be profoundly refreshing and very much like my own. In my case I don’t know what humanity should do about climate change but it is something I am deeply interested in and read what comes to my attention. I am of the opinion, however, that humanity is asleep and that change will happen mechanically. The truth even if the wisest among us know it will not be transmissible to those who do not know it but imagine they do.

G: You've now heard and seen his anti-climate change denial. What other piece of evidence are you going to ask for to solidify what most of us already know about Peterson?

M: Again, what I think has solidified your certainty about Peterson is a monsterous need for certainty and a terror of the other, that your ideology and ego need to be a part of ‘those who think like you think’ are the only people who have anything to say.
G: My calling out his belief in Christianity was there to draw parallels to the incongruent, shaky and absurd beliefs he holds: 1) Peterson considers himself a Christian, 2) Peterson hesitantly doesn't believe in God whilst claiming to be a Christian and 3) Belief in Christianity and the Bible (esp. the stories within) requires the numbing of all logic and reasoning.

M: Yes well if Christianity requires the numbing of all logic then I say to you, “Hello Jesus”.

A standard obfuscated non-response. No wonder nobody else in this thread is willing to engage with you. The only key takeaway from your non-response is that you can't fathom your man crush, Jordan Peterson, is a typical RWNJ climate change denier and that no amount of evidence is going to convince you - a climate change 'skeptic' - otherwise. Thanks for clearing this up for all of us.

 

[woolfe9998]

woolfe9998: Not going to bother attempting to convince Moonbeam of anything about Peterson, because it isn't going anywhere. Either he states something offensive in a clear manner, in which case he couldn't have been entirely serious, or he obfuscates/qualifies his opinion in some way, in which case there is room to argue that the opinion isn't so offensive after all.

M: Or you have limited the options and thus eliminated some third understanding.

w: On the issue of climate change, however, as clarification for those interested, here is a link to his GQ interview with Helen Lewis. The video of the interview is at the bottom of the article.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/helen-lewis-jordan-peterson

Feel free to listen to the entire interview to make sure I'm not taking him out of context. The part dealing with climate change starts at 1 hr:15 mins and seconds.

A telling excerpt:

-----

HL: OK, climate change. I saw you posting a link to a study suggesting that a lot of the way that it’s talked about has been over-hyped. What are your beliefs about climate change?

JP: Well, I don’t really have beliefs about climate change, I wouldn’t say. I think the climate is probably warming, but it’s been warming since the last ice age, so,

HL: But It’s dramatically accelerated in the last couple of decades.

JP: Yeah, maybe, possibly, it’s not so obvious, I spent quite a bit of time going through the relevant literature, I read about 200 books on ecology and economy when I worked for the UN for a 2-year period and it’s not so obvious what’s happening, just like with any complex system. The problem I have, fundamentally, isn’t really a climate change issue. It’s that I find it very difficult to distinguish valid environmental claims from environmental claims that are made as a secondary anti-capitalist front, so it’s so politicised that it’s very difficult to parse out the data from the politicisation.

----

A couple of opinions are stated here.

M: I hope I can qualify as somebody who is interested despite the fact you wish this for others since you have given up on me.

w: One, that while the planet is "probably" warming, it's been warming "since the ice age" after all. For those of us not trying to make excuses for him, he's saying that warming is essentially a natural phenomenon.

M: Bull shit. You left off the so at the end. So what do you make of the fact that the planet is warming if it has been warming since the last ice age? What fucking conclusion can you draw from the fact that the planet is warming if it has been warming since the last ice age. You hear climate denial. I hear a question. What is your answer to it?

I didn't leave anything out. His statement was cut off by a rebuttal argument from the interviewer, which was that the warming has occurred at an accelerated rate recently. Which is precisely why we know it's a human caused problem, because natural cycles do not occur that fast. And critically, his response when she said that we have experienced accelerated warming? Read it. He says, "Yeah, maybe, possibly, it’s not so obvious." He then goes on to claim, with zero evidence, that a bunch of the research is biased by "anti-capitalist" ideology. He offers no evidence to support that assertion. This kind of generalized skepticism could theoretically be applied to any body of scientific research, but curiously conservatives always seem to want to apply it to either climatology or evolutionary biology. I wonder why that is?

Here's something basic we should be able to agree on. If you're going to call someone a liar, which is what he's doing with 1000's of climate scientists, you could have the grace to offer a shred of proof. JP is not an expert in this field. Accordingly, he has zero basis for challenging those who do. If he has any sort of proof in spite of his ignorance on the topic, he's awfully coy about sharing it.

And here's another question for the critical thinkers among us. If some research is biased and some is not, why does it all essentially say the same thing? How does all the real science seem to line up with the biased science? Since 97% of climatologists agree we are warming at an alarming rate due to human causes, there is no "some is biased and some is not." It's either a vast conspiracy of the left to take over an entire field (this conspiracy evidently goes WAY back in time) and claim that we're warming the planet to justify taxes and regulations, or it's just science. Zero evidence of the former has ever been presented, so I'm going with the latter.

w: Two, that the research is politicized because of an "anti-capitalist" agenda. No evidence is presented to substantiate this. Not even an example. He claims he can't distinguish good research from bad because of this agenda, which begs the question of how and why he purports to know that any of it is bad. Apparently, he's just assuming it.

M: What is the issue with what the politicization is called. I think the right has politicized the issue. The fact is the issue is politicized and just as I am having trouble trying to parse out what is genuine criticism of Peterson from what is politicized, I have the same problem with climate data. Who is honest in saying what they believe, who is getting paid or protecting some ideology, and of those who are honest, who is also accurate or seeming the most of what we can know.

Indeed, anything could theoretically be biased, so let's just say that anything we don't like is biased, and fail to offer any proof of our assertion. We don't need to provide any proof that there's anything wrong with the research in order to sow doubt about it, do we? Welcome to the world of climate change denial, er. I mean skepticism. Sorry.

w: Also important is what he doesn't say anywhere in the interview: that there is any kind of action we should take in regard to climate change.

M: If you don't have beliefs about climate change why would you have solutions to it to offer? What he does suggest is that we look at the consequences of certain actions and weigh them. Shut down coal plants and raise the enerty costs or do without electricity. Who will be hurt by that? Do you know the answer. I don't and he doesn't either.

I don't think he's suggesting anything that nuanced. He isn't really suggesting anything at all. He thinks we're gradually warming on a natural trend because he doubts the science that says otherwise. We know this because that is exactly what he said, regardless of how you may try to parse words to find a different meaning. Given that those are his opinions, why indeed would he offer any solutions?

And no, we don't just throw up our hands in ignorance. The economic impacts of curtailing emissions have been analyzed quite a lot. Try googling it.

w: The conversation on climate change goes on a bit further and if you listen, you'll see he's got nothing in that regard. He thinks action on climate change will hurt the poor, and that for the left, it's a dilemma of tackling climate change or taking care of the poor.

M: No, he said there are some actions you can take that will have consequences. He doesn't see any answer that wont. Do you? I favor movement but I can't make my willing to take risk universal nor do I really know if the kinds of actions I would favor might make things worse. What the fuck is wrong with wanting to be cautious about things?

You've got to be kidding me. Have you read the most recent IPCC report? There's no time for dicking around any more. We should have done something about this a long time ago. If we had, the economic pain of transitioning our power grid for use with renewables would have been a lot less as we would have been able to do it gradually. But we haven't, and the reason is people like JP and the American right who basically have the same opinions as he does, plus of course the fossil fuel industry which has funded a dishonest propaganda campaign to convince people that the science is not settled. That same industry which has largely gotten us into this and has been corrupting our politics, particularly the GOP, for decades.

No one has said energy bills will not go up. What the scientific community is telling us is that the consequences of warming to the extent projected are far worse than higher energy bills. And BTW, the poor can get assistance if they can't afford higher energy bills. It isn't an unsolvable problem.

w: I am failing to see any distinction whatsoever between Peterson and the typical view of the American conservative on climate change here. The most common opinion I see these days is that there is probably warming, but it's more likely a natural phenomenon than man made, and that the science is biased by ideology and/or money. Also that the solutions are worse than the problem itself. Check, check, check.

M: No, thinking like you do, I am absolutely convinced that he wants us to be just like France, that we need nuclear power as our national strategy and global warming will go away. It's a great idea, one that will get us to the next world catastrophe, death by nuclear waste. But all of this is totally absurd in my opinion, because we will either stumble through this crisis or it will kill us. There is not going to be an answer that all of us will get behind. It will happen by the political art of the possible and what is possible will depend on the level to which we become conscious.

w: I think taking action on climate change needs to be a priority of the dem party in 2020 and of the nation itself. Peterson is simply on the wrong side of history here, along with the rest of the political right of which he is firmly a member.

M: Great, if we can get a powerful enough authoritarian left, we can definitely solve the problem by force. I suggest we solve the problem by who can have the biggest tantrum.

Who is throwing a tantrum here and who is being authoritarian? That's not what's happening. What's happening is that you've become a JP fanboy, which you claimed not to be at the outset of this thread. And because you've become a fanboy, you've set out to justify absolutely everything he says, and you're lashing out at his critics. Not very enlightened of you.

Or, we can try to hear what others have to say and try to integrate what is best from all sides.

What others have to say? I've not heard a single proffered solution from a conservative. Ever. That means literally ever. Find me a conservative who takes the problem seriously and actually has a suggested solution. ANY conservative, anywhere. Please find just one. Oh, unless you mean doing nothing at all. Because that's exactly what conservatives want. Yes, so far as I can tell, ever single one of them. Is that what you meant? That we should take total inaction seriously?

Let me ask you this. Do you have kids? Because I do, and I'm concerned about the world my daughter is going to inherit.

JP and the rest of the right are on the wrong side of this. Sounds like you' re pretty close to where they are. BTW, Bernie Sanders, the guy you supported in 2016, couldn't possibly disagree with you and JP more. He thinks we urgently need to act.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/bernie-sanders-climate-change-report-cnntv/index.html

Good on him because he's right.

The American people have got to stand up and say, for the sake of their children and their grandchildren, 'We are going to have to take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry, who consider their short-term profits more important than the kind of lives my grandchildren will have,'" Sanders said.

That's someone who has passion to solve serious problems, not someone who wants to coddle those who are acting as roadblocks.

I hope the left can unite around this issue in 2020 and beyond, but based on how easily liberals are duped by clever right wingers like JP, I have my doubts.

 

[Moonbeam]

A standard obfuscated non-response. No wonder nobody else in this thread is willing to engage with you. The only key takeaway from your non-response is that you can't fathom your man crush, Jordan Peterson, is a typical RWNJ climate change denier and that no amount of evidence is going to convince you - a climate change 'skeptic' - otherwise. Thanks for clearing this up for all of us.

As a genuine skeptic, as you point out, let me add that I'm such a skeptic that I am skeptical of skepticism itself not just of climate science but of you and everybody else who is so naive as to have an opinion about anything. As a person who destroyed all the fantasies and naive dreams about everything in this world that comforted my mind as a child and young adult in such a way as to fight with all I have to stay alive, you will forgive me if you can for being disinclined to baby sit your clinginess to your egotistical opinions. I paid for the stupidity that you believe in with my life and was reduced to nothing but ashes, all of with it turned out was nothing but one more fantasy I held on to. I was utterly humbled and I believe that is the source of my capacity to see your utter pretentiousness, and your fear of uncertainty, your intellectual closed mindedness, and your uncharitable attitude to whatever it is that challenges your pathetic ego world view.

I find Peterson to be interesting, provocative, challenging of assumptions I hold. I don't find him to by typically anything. I see in him erudition, piercing intelligence, dedication to truth, commitment to purpose, and other positive things. You see a threat an ideological threat which I simply cannot have, having abandoned all of my clubs. So I don't think I have a crush on Peterson but a love of moral decency and I see his moral perspicacity to be beyond your own from the kinds of facile assumptions you make here. I think your negativity fouls the world nest.

I think that just as I feel you are irrationally negative about the conservative you see in Peterson, he may in fact be experiencing a similar irrationality about the authoritarian left. It's not that they are dangerous and can lead to the death of millions, but that their perspective that equality of outcome has points of merit he is, more than I am, unwilling to acknowledge, likely owing to his closer proximity to their threat. You don't see the crybabies that want everybody to shut up like I do perhaps, perhaps because you fit right in.

I'm not talking to Moonbeam because he refuses to listen to my bigoted positions on Peterson. I'm listening but I don't hear anything that isn't the product of facile assumptions in my opinion.

PS: You don't have to agree to agree with me if you want to challenge my opinions. I will do my best to respond as best I can. I will try. I don't need a guarantee I am going to win.


"You are old, father William," the young man said,
"And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head --
Do you think, at your age, it is right?

"In my youth," father William replied to his son,
"I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again."

"You are old," said the youth, "as I mentioned before,
And you have grown most uncommonly fat;
Yet you turned a back-somersault in at the door --
Pray what is the reason for that?"

"In my youth," said the sage, as he shook his grey locks,
"I kept all my limbs very supple
By the use of this ointment -- one shilling a box --
Allow me to sell you a couple?"

"You are old," said the youth, "and your jaws are too weak
For anything tougher than suet;
Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak --
Pray, how did you mange to do it?"

"In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life."

"You are old," said the youth, "one would hardly suppose
That your eye was as steady as every;
Yet you balanced an eel on the tend of your nose --
What made you so awfully clever?"

"I have answered three questions, and that is enough,"
Said his father. "Don't give yourself airs!
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?

Be off, or I'll kick you down stairs.

 

[Blackjack200]

I find Peterson to be interesting, provocative, challenging of assumptions I hold. I don't find him to by typically anything. I see in him erudition, piercing intelligence, dedication to truth, commitment to purpose, and other positive things. You see a threat an ideological threat which I simply cannot have, having abandoned all of my clubs. So I don't think I have a crush on Peterson but a love of moral decency and I see his moral perspicacity to be beyond your own from the kinds of facile assumptions you make here. I think your negativity fouls the world nest.

Is that what you see?