I think we need a People With Messy Rooms thread and get these folks over there to continue the autistic Hitler and "anyone who doesn't 100% agree with me is a cuck" discussions.

Principles are a basic, foundational, self-evident propositions that cannot be deduced from any other proposition. They can stand by themselves. Along with facts and logic, principles form the basis for reasoning and argument. Reason, in turn influences decision-making, organization, solution development, strategy, and tactics. Good first principles are rock-solid and unassailable assertions, with no extraneous or unnecessary complexity. Good principles are broadly applicable and remain unchanged over many years and in many different situations.

Solutions, are specific, detailed answers or algorithms aimed at solving to specific, well-defined problems. Solutions are derived by assessing a situation and applying first principles to articulate details.

Your additions to the principles Peterson articulates are not good things to include in a statement of first principles. "Uphold assumptions against competing assumptions ... by any means necessary." That unnecessarily focuses the principle on the idea of competing assumptions, rather than the much broader and simpler "western assumptions are valid," which can be applied in many different scenarios whether assumptions are directly challenged by competing assumptions or not. Furthermore, "must defend with violence if necessary" also clutters the principle with unnecessary prescriptions. This is the kind of directive that is much more appropriate to establish in a specific context, when you have a clearly defined threat and something specific at stake.

The other comments all have similar issues. They are derived conclusions intended for specific conditions and scenarios, not broadly applicable and self-evident first principles. Also, in the speech Peterson actually elaborates on these principles if you're interested in more details. So to answer your question:

Quote:Quote:

So I ask again. Is Peterson offering anything that isn't a boomer's guide to ethnic and civilizational martyrdom?

The answer is quite obviously yes. Peterson offers clear, well-articulated knowledge, ideas, and principles that are the product of rigorous thought and professional experience. When he provides first principles, he articulates strong, refined principles that do exactly what a principle should. If someone wants to start a revolution based on those principles, they can derive a more aggressive manifesto on their own. When he offers advice, the advice is clear and thoroughly explained so the reader or listener can do a fair assessment and choose to adopt or reject the advice (a quality that Roosh's Bang also has and a reason why I was very satisfied with that purchase). Peterson helps provide intellectual tools, knowledge, and advice others can use to further their own goals, whatever those might be.

Quote:Quote:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

These are really proverbs, not principles. The first one is an accidental proverb since it was originally part of a parable and the phrase by itself is out of context. You could call them "rules for life" if you want. But the "rules for life" aren't necessarily principles. The rules for life may be derived from principles, but the rules are meant to be practical guidelines for everyday behavior, not first principles to guide major decision-making on important issues such as mass immigration and population displacement.

The reason I brought up principles is because you have made very careless accusations about the consequences of listening to Peterson, when in fact those accusations are flatly contradicted by very clear statements Peterson has made. Your attempt to assert that Peterson's message is one of martyrdom is not supported by evidence.

The term/title "The Intellectual DarkWeb" is the gayest shit I've heard, physically cringe.

That being said I do enjoy listening to the members of the self titled group, however stale/boring some of them are, although it's interesting they get a good huff piece in the NYT via a (((fellow))) tribesmember...

Quote:Quote:

The term/title "The Intellectual DarkWeb" is the gayest shit I've heard, physically cringe.

I can't disagree with that.

Quote: (01-24-2019 04:33 AM)Emancipator Wrote:  

The term/title "The Intellectual DarkWeb" is the gayest shit I've heard, physically cringe.

I think that regardless of how you feel about Peterson, about immigration, about the future of the West, or about... well, anything, really.
We should be able to come together to agree that "The Intellectual Dark Web" is the stupidest name ever.

The title came from some SJW newspaper (possibly the NY Times) denigrating the group with a hit article. Their fans adopted it later as an ironic middle finger to that. Peterson, Rubin etc. have never referred to themselves as such, unless in context of the fans or others talking about it.

Quote: (01-27-2019 07:54 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

The title came from some SJW newspaper (possibly the NY Times) denigrating the group with a hit article. Their fans adopted it later as an ironic middle finger to that. Peterson, Rubin etc. have never referred to themselves as such, unless in context of the fans or others talking about it.

Honestly that makes so much sense. I was thinking even they can't possibly think that sounds like a good name.

Full disclosure: since Jordan Peterson first and mostly importantly second appearance on Joe Rogan, I was a fan. How could you not? Explaining human psyche desire for archetypes by giving some credits to the thousand of years wisdom of the Bible was great. Plus he was slashing and dismantling leftits like no-one else, equally impressive as a fellow citizen of Canadistan.

But there seems to be a chink in his armor.

See this:





Dont bother reading the comments on youtube, they are unproductive.

But the 4chan thread has a great clash of ideas:
http://boards.4chan.org/pol//thread/2012...dismantled

IMO, the first half of the video had no real substance, but then the second part was a quite serious criticism.

What do you guys think?

Sherman posted the same video in the Jordan Peterson Political Thread, which is where the discussion belongs.

Thank goodness this thread is being policed properly.

Quote: (01-28-2019 01:44 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Sherman posted the same video in the Jordan Peterson Political Thread, which is where the discussion belongs.

Thanks I actually didnt know there were 2 threads.

Quote: (01-28-2019 03:38 PM)rotekz Wrote:  

Thank goodness this thread is being policed properly.

Right, because God forbid people discuss Peterson without being interrupted by recycled muh ethnostate arguments all the time.

Or discussions of Vox Day.

Or discussions of how Peterson's daughter is a slut and it is all his fault.

Or charges that Sargon supported him early so he should leave Patreon in support.

And then when he does exactly that, the same people say it doesn't mean anything because he is rich anyway.

Or charges that the hereditary depression that has plagued his family for generations is his fault and his fault alone.

These things are indispensable to the discussion of Peterson and his ideas.

Whose crazy idea was it to start a separate thread for discussing Peterson's polticial ideas in the first place?

What a waste of time.

It's so much more fun to derail this thread.

Quote: (01-28-2019 01:41 PM)HD668B Wrote:  

But there seems to be a chink in his armor.

Did he start talking about Asian IQ distributions as well?

Quote: (01-28-2019 06:55 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

...
Whose crazy idea was it to start a separate thread for discussing Peterson's polticial ideas in the first place?

What a waste of time.

It's so much more fun to derail this thread.

It was mine IIRC but the Peterson fans who wanted their clean thread kept engaging the guys bringing politics in and after several pages of me trying to defend the right of the Peterson guys not to have political shit slung at them while they were simultaneously slinging political shit back in the other direction I gave up.

All said and done it was an exercise in futility. If Peterson didn't want his works getting bogged in the quagmire of the modern political fuckfest then he should have stayed out of it, but he wanted that hard hit of attention to break through into mainstream relevance and stay there so now he gets the good with the bad.

It's testament to the faith people had in him that anyone would bother to try wall off his psych stuff from his politics. Nobody else gets the benefit of that doubt. Personally I stopped giving a shit about that after the "Kavanaugh should step down" debacle.

The dude is his own distraction.

I have read and been watching Jordan over the last few (???) years. If you watch his earlier videos when he was just a full on professor, you could tell he was a guy touching on the truths. If you're familiar with Myers Briggs (pseudo scientific personality test based off how you process information) he strikes me as a xNTP (either I or E, they are similar). That means he's pretty open minded, which also would include how to fucking not lose the money you've been making.

His personality matches up very closely with mine. I make decent money, but it involves navigating an environment of diversity and inclusion landmines. I would sooner bite my tongue than lose my income, as much as it irritates me. If I got to "fuck you" money status, my filter would come off. I have a feeling that's what he is working towards versus him being a shill.

Quote: (01-28-2019 09:04 PM)astro Wrote:  

If you're familiar with Myers Briggs (pseudo scientific personality test based off how you process information) he strikes me as a xNTP

A former Nasa Test Pilot?

Quote: (01-28-2019 08:46 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It's testament to the faith people had in him that anyone would bother to try wall off his psych stuff from his politics. Nobody else gets the benefit of that doubt. Personally I stopped giving a shit about that after the "Kavanaugh should step down" debacle.

The dude is his own distraction.

I think his "Kavanaugh" decison tells you all you need to know about his psychology. With all of his "sophisticated" insight, he couldn't make a decision that someone with a high school education and an ounce of decency could have made. You don't throw an innocent man to a ruthless mob. The ability to find a Jungian archetype behind every tree doesn't make anyone better at living life.

In regards to Peterson, it is often said "he has helped many young men."

Does anyone have proof of this (testimonials etc?)

There are thousands of guys that he seems to have inspired and some of the guys on the forum have testified to some of his programs having a measurably positive impact on their lives. My suspicion and I've noted it before is that people who find value in him fall under two separate categories of thinkers and cultists.

The thinkers are able to take what works and ignore the dross. They don't have to tie their personal worth to their support for Peterson. I'd say that's the case for most people on the forum that gain benefits from what he has to offer.

The Buckeroo Buddies as they've been nicknamed by some are more like cultists with fedoras. For them Peterson is a messianic figure they follow pseudo religiously, having attached their self value to the market value of Peterson's brand. It's those guys that will sing the loudest praises and in 10 years time when Peterson is gone from the public eye realize they haven't really gained much of anything. That's just humanity for you. Some people worship Kim Kardashian. Others worship Peterson. Followers gonna follow.

I should add that opposition to him falls into about the same categories. Thinkers and cultists. Some of us oppose his views on strictly intellectual grounds while for others the cult of Peterson is simply a rival cult that by default stands in defiance their own ideological leaders.

Myers-Briggs is a glorified horoscope.

Article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/d...-1.4992909


Peterson met with the Ontario Premier today regarding the removal of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. This is basically court leftists use when they believe they have been "discriminated against" (as if the constitutions and the charter of rights are not enough). This court is heavily biased towards leftists and recently this court tried to block his proposal to change back sex education even though it is within his right and he platformed on changing it back. The sex education the liberals were trying to teach included promotion of transgenderism and gender identity. if Doug Ford actually follows through then maybe there is hope in Canada.

Quote: (01-28-2019 11:25 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Myers-Briggs is a glorified horoscope.

I used to think so, until I looked into it. I can usually identify somebody within a few minutes of meeting them.

@Leonard

I've been thinking the same lately. How do you separate the one from the other? Peterson's politics and Peterson's philosophy? They're connected at the hip.

His philosophy implies political action; a rejection of the radical left, and a renewal of the father/patriarchy. But then we find him bending to the radical left, endorsing their views and working with their gatekeepers. Then people start to look deeper into his philosophy - Vox Day in particular - who then argue that the surface impression being offered is the opposite of what's under the surface.

One is left feeling betrayed. Certainly, we can learn from him - about the Big Five, about archetypes, about themes from Solzhenitsyn and Jung... but then when we look into the elements he added, personified by his political behaviour, we learn that he's not a promoter of these philosophies but a corrupter.

At least, that's where I'm sitting.

Part of me was worrying that this post was too political... but given that it's mainly focused on his philosophy, the initial conundrum I posted remains.

Quote: (01-28-2019 09:35 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

In regards to Peterson, it is often said "he has helped many young men."

Does anyone have proof of this (testimonials etc?)

You see them in just about every social media post he makes e.g on Facebook, or the Q&A session at the end of every lecture.

@Aurini, if millions of people each put a microscope on every view we make, everything we say, we all come out as inconsistent because we are human.

Leonard here frequently has strong ethno-nationalist views, yet he has a Latino wife and mixed kids. I'm sure he's been criticised by many on that already.

Vox Day, for all his alt-right nationalist blabber, is an American who lives in Italy, with zero dog in the game.

Roosh talks a lot about how feminism has corrupted our society, yet he himself sleeps around and writes books for other guys to do the same, thus partially causing the very societal corruptions he criticises.

Note: I understand why each of the above does and says the things they do, but you can see why, if one sets out to find faults and inconsistencies in their views, one can easily do so.

Peterson is fighting very effective battles against some of our biggest enemies in academia, media, education system etc. while his critics seem to do very little but talk about him (e.g Vox Day and Milo these days). I don't care about the minute detail of his life and views, it's obvious that he brings a lot of values to civilisation. For that, his good reputation is well earned.

E. Michael Jones on Jordan Peterson