What Jordan Peterson says

He didn't ask for it, maybe not, but he wholeheartedly went along with it. Painting him as some unwilling/reluctant hero archetype is faulty. He has a huge ego, massive even and now it's being feed into more than ever while making himself rich.

It's why he had to make excuses of why he was destroyed by Sam Harris instead of being humble and going "I lost that day; it happens". Ego; massive ego.

Don't get me wrong, you find him helpful in your depression; that's a good thing regardless of what I think of him.

Originally posted by Robtard
He didn't ask for it, maybe not, but he wholeheartedly went along with it. Painting him as some unwilling/reluctant hero archetype is faulty. He has a huge ego, massive even and now it's being feed into more than ever while making himself rich.

It's why he had to make excuses of why he was destroyed by Sam Harris instead of being humble and going "I lost that day; it happens". Ego; massive ego.

Don't get me wrong, you find him helpful in your depression; that's a good thing regardless of what I think of him.

The time he got 'destroyed' by Sam Harris (which isn't how either of them think, they're actually above that level of pettiness like good intellectuals tend to be) was just a ridiculous 4-hour podcast where they debated the meaning of truth for too long that basically nobody listened to – it doesn't refer to their later stage-debates. He 'made excuses' for his bad form in that debate as a sideline and brief aside about another topic he and Joe Rogan were talking about at the time.

It's funny how different perspectives are when all of your knowledge isn't second-hand. I've seen and listened to all of the things you mentioned, and it's clear that you haven't. The fact that you see intellectual discourse as some kind of macho wrestling arena is hilarious, btw. Not everyone argues as a way of point-scoring and ego-feeding.

Originally posted by Robtard
For the shit I've given Peterson, I should say that I respect him in a weird way. He's intelligent, at least very clever. He quickly figured out that there's a sizeable population of younger white males (his base) that are eagerly looking for a daddy figure type, someone to tell them everything's going to be alright while preying on their insecurities, doubts and shortcomings and he has capitalized in on that. He's a lower-end millionaire and earns between 50-80K at month (depending where you look) from donations alone.

Morals aside as one could argue that's unscrupulous, but he's very successful in what he does.

This has got to be the most inaccurate thing I've ever seen you post.

What are you even talking about? His ENTIRE philosophy is about taking responsibility and FACING your problems. Owning up to your own shit. Facing your demons. His message is radically different from what you claim.

This reads like a shitty Vox article or a flyattractor post with spell check. Wtf?

His message btw resonates a lot with males (I have no clue where you got the idea that they are white however) but he suggests that this has to do with society's failing of young men in the last 10 years (And he is not wrong. Something HAS gone wrong. Just pure statistics at this point), and his simple message about responsibility has shown marked improvement among the lost boys.

This post really frustrates me. You dismiss his stance so casually and with so much inaccuracy I'm not sure how to continue discourse. Even if you and Dr. Peterson are arch-enemies like Goku/Freeza, there is a huge market for his notions of responsibility among young men. He is genuinely helping a lot of people. The amount of people (Young men, of all nationalities) I've seen genuinely better off because of the hole his lectures have helped him drag themselves out of is a tangible net good for society. Boys are being less stimulated in today's educational systems than ever before. It is a real problem, and in 10-15 years, it will be a goddamn crisis if things don't change.

I can't even imagine the damage being done to young boys right now. Imagine being 15 years old right now as a young male, especially white. It must be terrifying and frustrating depending on where you live. A majority of people don't live in a good-old boys club in the deep south.

Btw, there is a shitload of women at his lectures too.

@scribs That's not really fair now is it? Could just as well have said you're not seeing clearly because you're glamoured by the man, but I didn't.

People don't really make weird/sad excuses for something unless they personally felt they've lost. If it was a no-nothing, then why bother to excuse.

"The fact that you see intellectual discourse as some kind of macho wrestling arena is hilarious, btw. Not everyone argues as a way of point-scoring and ego-feeding." That's something negative you've made up and applied to me simply because I have different views of Peterson than you, it really says more about you then it does about me, Scribs.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Btw, there is a shitload of women at his lectures too.

Originally posted by Robtard
@scribs That's not really fair now is it? Could just as well have said you're not seeing clearly because you're glamoured by the man, but I didn't.

People don't really make weird/sad excuses for something unless they personally felt they've lost. If it was a no-nothing, then why bother to excuse.

"The fact that you see intellectual discourse as some kind of macho wrestling arena is hilarious, btw. Not everyone argues as a way of point-scoring and ego-feeding." That's something negative you've made up and applied to me simply because I have different views of Peterson than you, it really says more about you then it does about me, Scribs.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
This has got to be the most inaccurate thing I've ever seen you post.

What are you even talking about? His ENTIRE philosophy is about taking responsibility and FACING your problems. Owning up to your own shit. Facing your demons. His message is radically different from what you claim.

This reads like a shitty Vox article or a flyattractor post with spell check. Wtf?

His message btw resonates a lot with males (I have no clue where you got the idea that they are white however) but he suggests that this has to do with society's failing of young men in the last 10 years (And he is not wrong. Something HAS gone wrong. Just pure statistics at this point), and his simple message about responsibility has shown marked improvement among the lost boys.

This post really frustrates me. You dismiss his stance so casually and with so much inaccuracy I'm not sure how to continue discourse. Even if you and Dr. Peterson are arch-enemies like Goku/Freeza, there is a huge market for his notions of responsibility among young men. He is genuinely helping a lot of people. The amount of people (Young men, of all nationalities) I've seen genuinely better off because of the hole his lectures have helped him drag themselves out of is a tangible net good for society. Boys are being less stimulated in today's educational systems than ever before. It is a real problem, and in 10-15 years, it will be a goddamn crisis if things don't change.

I can't even imagine the damage being done to young boys right now. Imagine being 15 years old right now as a young male, especially white. It must be terrifying and frustrating depending on where you live. A majority of people don't live in a good-old boys club in the deep south.

Btw, there is a shitload of women at his lectures too.

I dunno, you say I'm wrong and then what you said is in-line with that I said. Do these "boys" he helps have insecurities? Shortcomings? Doubts? Seems so, why he's there to help, no? Is he helping people without issues? I don't get it.

Sorry to frustrate you though. Not my intent.

Originally posted by Scribble
I've made plenty of cases for his positive, anti-cynical and utilitarian outlook on life far beyond my reasonable admiration for the man, and have shown your reasons for the contrary to be false and grounded in ignorance. If we're turning to personal insinuations purely now, then I'd rather just leave it there. I know how these things work, and they don't interest me.

Feel like I'm in crazy-land now, we were exchanging opposing views cordially, then you went personal. It wasn't me. I just pointed out that you went personal because of my differing view with Peterson.

Originally posted by Robtard
I dunno, you say I'm wrong and then what you said is in-line with that I said. Do these "boys" he helps have insecurities? Shortcomings? Doubts? Seems so, why he's there to help, no? Is he helping people without issues? I don't get it.

Sorry to frustrate you though. Not my intent.

Everyone has short-comings, but your post, whether intentionally or unintentionally came off as painting a confidence man preying on the weak.

That is not what he is. Maybe a lot of young men are clamoring for a strong male figure in their lives to tell them to man up, get shit done, or what have you. That seems to be the case to some extent. Which is really sad, but understandable.

And your post has Dr. Peterson's core philosophy as more predatory and opportunistic than it is. He points out that everything can and WILL go to shit most of the time. Life sucks, it's hard, and seems pointless at times. Nothing is going to be alright. So stop being a little b*tch and start making your goddamn bed. Work hard, keep pushing forward, and MAYBE you'll make something of yourself worth being proud about. This seems to be simplistic to many, but, it's one of the first things they teach you in most militaristic structures.

This is my personal observation.

Every single institution built by men from church to military organizations are heavily defined by rules, tiered, team-based activities and defined by merit-based success. Boys thrive in those organizations the most. There seems to be a huge gaping hole in society in regards to these as more egalitarian protocols are enacted through society.

Simply put, societies rise and fall on the backs of young men. If we have a shortage of able-bodied, hard-working young men, society objectively suffers. We can preach diversity all day-long, but the most dangerous, valuable, and critical occupations that keep a society running will always be mostly made up by-men. And as cold as this sounds, we need a constant and steady supply of them to keep us moving forward.

Originally posted by Robtard
Feel like I'm in crazy-land now, we were exchanging opposing views cordially, then you went personal. It wasn't me. I just pointed out that you went personal because of my differing view with Peterson.

I agree that my the last part of my post fell too far into aggressive rhetoric, and for that, I apologise. I am continually trying to fully control my debating manner so as not to fall into personal attacks, and although I originally deemed that part of my post to be satisfactory (I specifically removed a final "I think that says more about you than anything else" due to it being such an obnoxious cliche), on reflection, it should have been more measured. I should have chosen my words better.

However, none of this removes the fact that you have shown zero evidence for Peterson's supposed 'arrogance', whilst I have presented multiple articles for the contrary.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Everyone has short-comings, but your post, whether intentionally or unintentionally came off as painting a confidence man preying on the weak.

That is not what he is. Maybe a lot of young men are clamoring for a strong male figure in their lives to tell them to man up, get shit done, or what have you. That seems to be the case to some extent. Which is really sad, but understandable.

And your post has Dr. Peterson's core philosophy as more predatory and opportunistic than it is. He points out that everything can and WILL go to shit most of the time. Life sucks, it's hard, and seems pointless at times. Nothing is going to be alright. So stop being a little b*tch and start making your goddamn bed. Work hard, keep pushing forward, and MAYBE you'll make something of yourself worth being proud about. This seems to be simplistic to many, but, it's one of the first things they teach you in most militaristic structures.

This is my personal observation.

Every single institution built by men from church to military organizations are heavily defined by rules, tiered, team-based activities and defined by merit-based success. Boys thrive in those organizations the most. There seems to be a huge gaping hole in society in regards to these as more egalitarian protocols are enacted through society.

Simply put, societies rise and fall on the backs of young men. If we have a shortage of able-bodied, hard-working young men, society objectively suffers. We can preach diversity all day-long, but the most dangerous, valuable, and critical occupations that keep a society running will always be mostly made up by-men. And as cold as this sounds, we need a constant and steady supply of them to keep us moving forward.

What you're saying of his philosophy seems really recycled though. Like he laid a blank piece of paper over other's works and traced it. A tautology of sorts. Who hasn't heard life's hard, you're on your own etc. etc. etc before.

The rest is kinda pro-macho-man talk skirting on silliness if I'm being honest.

Though not sure what issue you have with "egalitarian protocols? Personally, I believe in equality for all, think you have to be a decent person. Doesn't mean everyone is capable of doing everything though. eg the 97lbs woman probably shouldn't be a firefighter as she's likely not capable of carrying a 200lbs person to safety. That doesn't mean equality is out in a society though.

Peterson's teachings:

Step 1 - Make your bed and stand up straight.

Step 2 - ???

Step 3 - Profit!

Originally posted by Scribble
My opening 'personal remark' was a thesis statement on what came next, i.e. evidence for why I was seeing your perspective on Peterson as unduly skewed due to unfounded cynicism or outright ignorance. It had a purpose, it wasn't intended as an attack. I think you read it that way, though, so I could have phrased it better to avoid confusion.

I agree that my the last part of my post fell too far into aggressive rhetoric, and for that, I apologise. I am continually trying to fully control my debating manner so as not to fall into personal attacks, and although I originally deemed that part of my post to be satisfactory (I specifically removed a final "I think that says more about you than anything else" due to it being such an obnoxious cliche), on reflection, it should have been more measured. I should have chosen my words better.

However, none of this removes the fact that you have shown zero evidence for Peterson's supposed 'arrogance', whilst I have presented multiple articles for the contrary.

No worries and admittedly I can be rather blunt when I have a not great view of something/someone. So please excuse that but don't take it personal, it's not against you. As I said, if you found help in the man, great, you seem like a decent person and I wish you good fortune.

While that is cliche, I specifically shoplifted it from Peterson in this instance. He has said that in regards to his critics. 'More about them than me'. I was being clever.

eg Last time I saw a clip of his was his appearance of Bill Maher and he was outright arrogant to the core. I forget who is was (the woman on the panel), he went on and on about her life, her motherhood, her womenhood etc. She even sarcastically remarked that he knew her so well despite only meeting her minutes before. If that's not arrogance and ego, what is it?

Originally posted by BackFire
Peterson's teachings:

Step 1 - Make your bed and stand up straight.

Step 2 - ???

Step 3 - Profit!

I'm a bit of a neat freak, but bed making is one of the few areas of tidiness in where I severely slack. I'd fail Peterson 101.

It must be why your family hates you so.

Originally posted by BackFire
It must be why your family hates you so.

Pftt, your family loves me; that's enough.

I'm so alone.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm so alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life

I suddenly hate gays and jews.

Originally posted by Robtard
No worries and admittedly I can be rather blunt when I have a not great view of something/someone. So please excuse that but don't take it personal, it's not against you. As I said, if you found help in the man, great, you seem like a decent person and I wish you good fortune.

While that is cliche, I specifically shoplifted it from Peterson in this instance. He has said that in regards to his critics. 'More about them than me'. I was being clever.

eg Last time I saw a clip of his was his appearance of Bill Maher and he was outright arrogant to the core. I forget who is was (the woman on the panel), he went on and on about her life, her motherhood, her womenhood etc. She even sarcastically remarked that he knew her so well despite only meeting her minutes before. If that's not arrogance and ego, what is it?

I know that Peterson uses that phrase, and it's certainly useful at times, but people seem too quick to use it these days.