I take why people buy it seriously. — fdrake

But that is trivial. People like easy answers and comfortable answers better than true answers and no answers. They like to be empowered even if it is a fantasy of power. They like cheap. They like to get Brexit done and make America great again.

But that is trivial. People like easy answers and comfortable answers better than true answers and no answers. They like to be empowered even if it is a fantasy of power. — unenlightened

Here here, friend. Exactly the case, and because of this we all, as thinkers, if we are serious, must examine ourselves for this bias as much as we possibly can. None of us are immune to it.

It would indeed be comical to see the Peterites attempt the argument that this is why intellectuals are rejecting Peterson, you know, "what he's saying is just too uncomfortable." And yet comfort is the entire direction of his belief structure. It's one of the high benefits of conformity.

But that is trivial. People like easy answers and comfortable answers better than true answers and no answers. They like to be empowered even if it is a fantasy of power. They like cheap. They like to get Brexit done and make America great again. — unenlightened

I've never known you to use "they" like that when talking about an elephant in the room regarding people. I say this despite being critical of Peterson; why him and now? What issues is he palliating in his target demographic? Who are they? I think he addresses a bunch of needs for them; and I don't want to throw the considerations of need out along with the ideas he addresses them with.

Here here, friend. — JerseyFlight

Where where? Hear hear!

I've listened to quite a few JP vids, interviews and whatnot. I'm no expert on him. I agreed with some of the stuff he said, disagreed with some and thought some was a bit wacky. Do we have to be either fans or anti-fans? Am I allowed to agree with some of it? Can I cherry pick? Or is it like the Bible: I have to either swallow it whole or reject the lot?

Do we have to be either fans or anti-fans? Am I allowed to agree with some of it? Can I cherry pick? — bert1

Yes, of course, one can do whatever they so like in the domain of ideas. I have never said and would never say that everything Peterson says is wrong and that the man is just pure evil. I would only note that the truths he does confess are shallow platitudes. Our world is full of so many tremendous thinkers and researchers at this time, Peterson is not one of them. If you like McDonald's eat it, even pretend that it's a Michelin-starred French restaurant if you like, the only problem arises when you demand that other people validate your delusions.

Got it.

What issues is he palliating in his target demographic? — fdrake

Conformity. Submission as opposed to thought's resistance.

Here we have a serious thinker without species consciousness?
Here we have a serious thinker without class consciousness?
Here we have a serious thinker without a dialectical awareness of political systems?
Here we have a serious thinker that manifest zero knowledge of the advances that have been made in Psychology and so many surrounding fields, Sociology, Neurobiology, Neuroscience, Linguistics, Education, Social work practice, Law, Economics etc.?

At some point something has to give.

I say this despite being critical of Peterson; why him and now? — fdrake

Internet phenomenon. but see also any number of charismatists. Why Loreal? Because you're worth it. Why Mcvomit's? Because I'm loving' it. Why David Ike? Why Jim Jones?

Find a common vulnerability - exploit it. This is not a new thing, it's a venerable tradition; people do not like being told that love means taking up your cross and getting crucified, they want to hear that it's being very nice and popular, and having friends and admirers. They want to hear that if they pretend to enjoy being exploited, they will stop being exploited. Peterson is selling soft soap cunningly disguised as hard rock (for real men). But look out, them commies want to steal your freedom!

The nearest answer to 'why now?' is that the generation that kew what fascism was is dying. The furthest answer is that the loss of all social control has resulted from a century of psycho-social manipulation - we have driven ourselves mad.

Peterson is selling soft soap cunningly disguised as hard rock (for real men). — unenlightened

Can't help it, makes me think of Viagra. Hard rock for real men. :lol: :lol: :lol:

The validity of your observations and how you use them are separate things. You should never use your opinions about a class of people to inform yourself about an individual, I fail to see how your justification doesn't also justify racism, classism, sexism and any other kind of bigotry. Really, your entire response to me wasn't an argument at all, you just first questioned whether I had any idea what I was talking about, then started guessing my demographics. You've written two lengthy responses and neither of them contained any actual argumentation, just a heap of unfounded assertions and some ad hominem. If I wanted to play the same game, what could you do about it jerseyflight? How does the power of thought stack up against bigotry?

Actualy, this was pretty good:

This is indeed the dilemma: how does one convince culturated slaves of the evil of slavery? Along comes a man and tells them to adhere to their masters, deep down they have always felt this to be true, when they heed the advice they notice the world makes more sense, their existential angst vanishes, they feel a stronger sense of purpose and they can detect order in the world. All of these things are the products of conformity, they are the result of validating the false truth of what is administered, but this cannot be the way of thinkers. Little does the one who obeys comprehend that his existence is predetermined by a process of production, of the which, he is merely a cog in the wheel. If he never stops to question the system he finds no discontent with it. Let us then praise the preachers of conformity! Let us adhere to their pious ways! After all, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem cannot be systemic, the fault lies with the individual's inability to re-frame his discontent. "Stand up straight, put on a suite, go out and face the world with confidence, for all is equal and fair, opportunity awaits, banish every negative thought." — JerseyFlight

It's congruent with what I have said elsewhere concerning the inability of the privileged to see their own privilege, needing instead ot have it pointed out. In contrast Peterson reinforces and justifies privilege for his readers.

It was pretty good because you agree with it or it was a pretty good argument?

neither of them contained any actual argumentation — Judaka

Since this is the foundation of your complaint, I am happy to probe it with you. What makes an argument actual?

Yep. Both.

Actually I was suggesting it as contradicting your "your entire response to me wasn't an argument at all".

Quote the argument.

It's congruent with what I have said elsewhere concerning the inability of the privileged to see their own privilege, needing instead ot have it pointed out. In contrast Peterson reinforces and justifies privilege for his readers. — Banno

This is an important point, because if we were to engage with such a person, they would, as they always seem to do, simply argue that their experience is a normative standard, all the while ignoring the social benefits that account for their quality. This is indeed a serious problem.

It's interesting that you say he reinforces and justifies privilege. Where do you get that? I get it if it's just a general critique of capitalism or the right but if we're talking about Peterson specifically his position is a little more nuanced.

Here's a segment I was able to dig up from Peterson on privilege. You only need to watch from the 2 minute mark to around 3:30 or maybe 4 minutes (someone made a song out of this, by the way. You can see it on youtube.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-8slOBngqk

I did.

How odd.

Spot on.

You're such a joke.

You're such a joke. — Judaka

Come now, you can do better than this. You just tried to give a rebuke on arguments. I assume you don't think this is one, further, from your own words, you wouldn't want to be a "bigot," right?

I watched the recommended section. The problem is that you are part of your culture, just like slaves were part of theirs. They didn't see anything wrong with it. So when a smart fella like Peterson came along and said, "the problem with the complaint of slavery is that it's true, and then you have to start thinking about all kinds of complicated, fragmented things, look, just forget that, go back to the plantation, obey your masters and life will be good."

This is exactly an example of his message of conformity.

You're such a joke. — Judaka

Yep. And you have difficulty dealing with it, so you attack me instead of my argument.

Go ahead, continue the attack. That helps us understand the defenders of Peterson.

Peterson isn't specifically talking about the culture here, he would consider it just a general truism of life that people are oppressed or fall short of the mark in one way or another. It probably doesn't even matter the type of society.

Peterson isn't specifically talking about the culture here, he would consider it just a general truism of life that people are oppressed or fall short of the mark in one way or another. It probably doesn't even matter the type of society. — BitconnectCarlos

That's all fine and well, but if he admits there's a problem, which he does, he even validates the word "oppression," what caused it? Is his approach to the problem actually targeting the source? We already know the answer, his reply is, forget about the complicated details of reality and just fall back into the Matrix.

"The body of law is something that you act out; that’s why it’s a body of law. That’s why, if you’re a good citizen, you act out the body of law." Jordan Peterson's Bible Lectures, May 17, 2018, I Introduction to the Idea of God.

Fundamentalist conformity.

Yes, indeed, that is not an argument, it is just an opinion. I am not trying to have a debate with Banno, his opinions on what I said aren't of interest to me. It does seem to me that you can see the difference between argument and opinion, why then, do you need it explained? I am not saying that your argument isn't "actual" I'm saying that you've merely given your opinion without justifying it or giving your reasoning in any way. What Peterson has said that you're even characterising remains in the dark. It's basically just a narrative that you've written and you've yet to prove it has any validity or value. I don't even understand your opinion, I just know your conclusions.


Difficulty dealing with what? Your argument is rehashed material, you should already know what I think. You say the privileged need their "privilege" pointed out but your perspective is uniquely insidious and "privilege" is a subjective characterisation, it is not a truth to be pointed out, it's based on an ideology that I reject. Then you say "Peterson reinforces and justifies privilege" full well knowing that I disagree with the privilege conceptualisation to begin with. You actually thought this was new material and that I'm having difficulty with it after we've already argued about it. I wasn't lost for words then, but you were, you had really nothing to say except to restate your beliefs. It makes me wonder why you even bother being here but then I remember the smug one-liners.

It does seem to me that you can see the difference between argument and opinion, why then, do you need it explained? — Judaka

Well friend, you made the charge, which is all fine and well, but you may mean something very different by it, which is what I suspect.

I am not saying that your argument isn't "actual" I'm saying that you've merely given your opinion without justifying it or giving your reasoning in any way. — Judaka

Here we have a clearer exposition wherein you refute your original objection. So the complaint is not that I failed to make an argument, but that I failed to provide rational justification?

Arguments are interesting things. Do you agree that all men are mortal?

I did not refute my original objection but it is certainly quite similar to the response it was criticising, which I admit, there is a sense of irony to that.

Do you agree that all men are mortal? — JerseyFlight

Sure.

Sure. — Judaka

Do you agree that Newton was a man?