[yellowfever]

Great clip from a recent Dr Peterson lecture where he touches on Feminism being a test that men failed, and the incongruent alliance between Feminism and Islam.

Also he made an interesting point that: "men test ideas, and women test men".

[Nascimento]

(06-06-2017 04:37 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

There have been some rumblings that the generation of people currently aged 16-21 are very conservative.

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

I thought the up and coming generations would lean more liberal, given the state of the educational systems in the West.

[Ghost Tiger]

(06-13-2017 04:40 PM)Nascimento Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 04:37 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

There have been some rumblings that the generation of people currently aged 16-21 are very conservative.

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

I thought the up and coming generations would lean more liberal, given the state of the educational systems in the West.

This might help explain it.

[Sooth]

(06-13-2017 04:40 PM)Nascimento Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 04:37 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

There have been some rumblings that the generation of people currently aged 16-21 are very conservative.

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

I thought the up and coming generations would lean more liberal, given the state of the educational systems in the West.

The way I understand it is that the young generation pushes the counter culture, where the current culture is liberal progressivism.

Teens rebel against their parents, so if their parents are poorly tattooed libtards with weird hair and shit piercings they wind them up by being conservative and supporting Trump.

[QuietDog]

Everything this guy says gives me something to chew on for a while, incredibly insightful man. Stumbled across this little interview he did with the Toronto Sun about some silly CBC controversy:

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/23/pro...on-fallout

In it happened to be the best explanation I've come across for why one should never apologize to the leftist hivemind:

Quote:

In some cases, the journalist apologized. Why wasn’t that enough?

“You never apologize to a mob. You’re not dealing with individuals who you can reestablish a relationship with. You’re dealing with a soulless idea that has people in its possession. And it’s a shifting entity, it doesn’t even involve the same people necessarily across time although there’s often a core, and all the idea is going to do with your apology is note that you believe that the game is fair, the game that they foisted on you is fair and that you’re guilty of breaking the rules.”

[xmlenigma]

[Lunostrelki]

Peterson's interview with The Epoch Times, my emphasis in bold.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2259668-...-politics/

Quote:

The postmodern philosophy “came into vogue” in the 1970s, according to Jordan Peterson, Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, “after classic Marxism, especially of the economic type, had been so thoroughly discredited that no one but an absolute reprobate could support it publicly.”

Peterson said it’s not possible to understand our current society without considering the role postmodernism plays within it, “because postmodernism, in many ways—especially as it’s played out politically—is the new skin that the old Marxism now inhabits.”

“Even the French intellectuals had to admit that communism was a bad deal by the end of the 1960s,” he said. From there, the communists played a “sleight of hand game, in some sense,” and rebranded their ideology “under a postmodern guise.”

Quote:

Rather than do away with the ideology, however, they merely gave it a new face and a new name. “They were all Marxists. But they couldn’t be Marxists anymore, because you couldn’t be a Marxist and claim you were a human being by the end of the 1960s,” said Peterson.

The postmodernists built on the Marxist ideology, Peterson said. “They started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name.”

“It was no longer specifically about economics,” he said. “It was about power. And everything to the postmodernists is about power. And that’s actually why they’re so dangerous, because if you’re engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power, all they are motivated to do is to accrue all the power to them, because what else is there?” he said. “There’s no logic, there’s no investigation, there’s no negotiation, there’s no dialogue, there’s no discussion, there’s no meeting of minds and consensus. There’s power.”

“And so since the 1970s, under the guise of postmodernism, we’ve seen the rapid expansion of identity politics throughout the universities,” he said. “It’s come to dominate all of the humanities—which are dead as far as I can tell—and a huge proportion of the social sciences.”

“We’ve been publicly funding extremely radical, postmodern leftist thinkers who are hellbent on demolishing the fundamental substructure of Western civilization. And that’s no paranoid delusion. That’s their self-admitted goal,” he said, noting that their philosophy is heavily based in the ideas of French philosopher Jacques Derrida, “who, I think, most trenchantly formulated the anti-Western philosophy that is being pursued so assiduously by the radical left.”

“The people who hold this doctrine—this radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramount—they’ve got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well,” he said. “But even in the United States, where you know a lot of the governmental institutions have swung back to the Republican side, the postmodernist types have infiltrated bureaucratic organizations at the mid-to-upper level.”

“I don’t think its dangers can be overstated,” Peterson said. “And I also don’t think the degree to which it’s already infiltrated our culture can be overstated.”

[Ghost Tiger]

[/url]

[url=https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/878122452630601728]

[Ghost Tiger]

[url=https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/878970878435971073][/url]

[Blaster]

1. The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=44m18s

2. Peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and to war. In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual impulse and idiosyncrasy.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=46m52s

"Individual impulse and idiosyncrasy" = special snowflake syndrome.

3. Hierarchies of competence are desirable and should be promoted.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=49m53s

AKA Radical Equalism is the bane of functional society if you consider a functional society to be one where people do their jobs well whether it's a plumber or a neurosurgeon. He tells a story of an experience with a bad plumber and argues that there's no reason why you shouldn't be a plumber and try to be the best damn plumber you can be and take pride in it.

4. Borders are reasonable. Likewise, limits on immigration are reasonable. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that citizens of societies that have not evolved functional individual-rights predicated polities will hold values in keeping with such polities.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=1h1m42s

"Our society is complex and complex systems can not tolerate massive changes over a short period of time"

5. People should be paid so that they are able and willing to perform socially useful and desirable duties.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=1h9m27s

6. Citizens have the inalienable right to benefit from the result of their own honest labor.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=1h12m59s

7. It is more noble to teach young people about responsibilities than about rights.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=1h15m54s

8. It is better to do what everyone has always done, unless you have some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise.
(He appears to skip this one in the talk, but it's listed in the description)

9. Radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=1h16m56s

10. The government, local and distant, should leave people to their own devices as much as possible.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=1h19m49s

11. Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.
This is actually covered in the discussion if #9: https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=1h17m35s

12. We should judge our political system in comparison to other actual political systems and not to hypothetical utopias.
https://youtu.be/Nyw4rTywyY0?t=1h25m33s

"You have every right to be conservative. There's nothing wrong with you for being conservative."

[debeguiled]

Thanks Blaster, good summary.

[loremipsum]

(06-26-2017 12:00 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

11. Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.[/

In all seriousness God bless that madman. Psychology is one SJW invested pit but gladly this guy has a mission on this earth.

[sonoran_]

Peterson's biblical series keeps getting better and better. As a Christian myself, it brings understanding from a different angle and always seems to mesmerize me in a few different ways. One, is Petersons ability to display the meaning of the Biblical stories from a psychological perspective and two, the fact that these stories hold this much truth, reality and power.


The only downside to Peterson is that since I have only ever listened to him on 2x speed on youtube, I could not listen to him at normal speed lol.

[oldbeliever]

[QuietDog]

Morality is such an interesting puzzle. It seems to require belief in learning from being and perhaps self-evidently true no matter how much we try to ignore it.

Denial of responsibility seems like the way to suffering. "The Gates of Hell are locked from the inside," as CS Lewis insightfully said.

The idea of physical existence and inherent limitation has given me a lot to think about as well, is advancing the material world a worthwhile goal? I hope so.

His explanation of the ubiquity of suffering is really freeing too. Knowing that you're not the only one having a hard time and that discontentment is a condition of human existence helps liberate you to seek solutions I think.

The thing I admire most about Dr. Peterson is that he's realized despite how wise he is, he knows he always has a deeper insight to gain. Every one of his lectures feels like he's trying to work out his own ideas and to encourage people to think more deeply. He really is a treasure in this modernist world.

[MMX2010]

Blaster, thanks for summarizing Jordan Peterson's points on conservatism. My brother, who is center left and only tangentially familiar with him said, "I've never seen Jordan Peterson so fired up before."

[puckerman]

I am listening to him talk with Joe Rogan. That is certainly worthwhile. I wish I had time to listen to all of Rogan's stuff.

He also reminds me of an older version of Sebastian Valmont from Cruel Intentions:

[Hannibal]

(05-06-2017 10:11 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

Peterson makes Molyneux look like the relative lightweight he is.

I like Molyneux as well, but he takes 45 minutes to speak a 5 minute point.

Jordan Peterson takes 5 minutes to speak a 45 minute point.

[agskor]

(07-10-2017 02:51 AM)Hannibal Wrote:  

Jordan Peterson takes 5 minutes to speak a 45 minute point.

unfortunately after 45-minutes of speaking in total [which equals 9 45-minute points according to your math] JBP is fully spent and can only repeat himself afterwards - which he seems to have been doing for years

[debeguiled]

(07-11-2017 07:05 AM)agskor Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 02:51 AM)Hannibal Wrote:  

Jordan Peterson takes 5 minutes to speak a 45 minute point.

unfortunately after 45-minutes of speaking in total [which equals 9 45-minute points according to your math] JBP is fully spent and can only repeat himself afterwards - which he seems to have been doing for years

Bold anti-Peterson stance.

Also troll-tell.

[agskor]

(07-11-2017 10:42 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Bold anti-Peterson stance.

Bold pro-originality stance. I've listened to probably 6x45min of his work and it started to get repetitive right around a half-mark

Quote:

Also troll-tell.

Yes, anybody who doesn't accept JBP as son of God and our only Savior must be a troll

[debeguiled]

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly.

Clearly not a troll waiting to see who took the bait.

What next?

A bunch of condescending statement and pronouncements appended with:

"Just curious."

"It's a sincere question."

Also saw you over in the "Unspoken (Nobody Talks About This, unironic division) Advantages of Light Smoking." extolling the positives of destructive behavior:

thread-63579...pid1609687

Quote:

Once you clear yourself of addictions/attachments/emotional black holes, you can engage with addictive substances without going over

So let's see, against people who defend the virtues of the West, and in favor of self destructive habits, and, worst of all, against ending your sentences in a period.

Definitely not a troll.

[TooFineAPoint]

(07-11-2017 10:49 AM)agskor Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:42 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Bold anti-Peterson stance.

Bold pro-originality stance. I've listened to probably 6x45min of his work and it started to get repetitive right around a half-mark

So it's not good enough for Jordan to intelligently assess a few serious societal issues and then clearly communicate them.

Now he has to come up with new material every week to keep you entertained?

[agskor]

(07-11-2017 11:52 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

So it's not good enough for Jordan to intelligently assess a few serious societal issues and then clearly communicate them.

Yes, not good enough for me to keep on listening to him basically on the repeat now that he hit the publicity road

[agskor]

(07-11-2017 11:47 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

So let's see, against people who defend the virtues of the West

Where did I express a stance against the virtues of the West?

Quote:

and in favor of self destructive habits

I'm in favor of intelligent constructive non-habitual use of whatever tools are available - including, but not limited to, sex, alcohol, weed, tobacco, coffee, coca leaves, aya, peyote, mushrooms, rooshvforum, game, travel, pua, etc., etc., etc

Quote:

worst of all, against ending your sentences in a period.

Let this be my biggest transgression against your vanilla sensibilities

Quote:

Definitely not a troll.

Damn right