PDA

View Full Version : Jordan Peterson



Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 12:19
As usual I only here about people like him very late in the game.
But I took some time to watch some of his presentations, interviews and one debate where which Steven Fry seemed to be in his corner.

I must say I am intrigued by some of his rhetoric, but at the same time I do get an icky feeling..
Anyone want to help me pick apart some of the ideas he is propagating?

At the very least they need some deeper thought.

With Love

Chuckie
18th June 2020, 13:00
:) ... I will. His ideas for the most part I consider specious and lacking in true intellectual depth. They are valid in essence, but that icky feeling of yours is right on the money. He wants to blame social progressives for the ongoing disorder in our society. His mind is clipped, like so much of the propaganda that we see. He needs to grow a real mind, if he wants to hang out with the biggies... Case, in point, Ken Wilber. Wilber, covers ALL the bases in social expositions unlike Peterson.

Political Correctness moment: This is just my opinion... :)

After the fact, it occurred to me that a better description of his style would be 'sophistry'

Chris
18th June 2020, 13:00
He has some great ideas, but he is also a deeply depressed and miserable person, who almost died recently because of his addictions to various pharmaceuticals. I don't get though why he is so controversial in liberal circles, he talks simple common sense in my mind.

Chuckie
18th June 2020, 13:11
Sophistry is the word:

soph·ist·ry
/ˈsäfəstrē/

noun
the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
"trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry"
a fallacious argument.
plural noun: sophistries

It's interesting that he has had trouble...Hate to say it, but he asked for it...old fashioned Karma

Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 13:25
Thank you, I've just downloaded his 12 rules for life. Books tend to give me a bit more distance for contemplation.

For now I am looking for the sweet spot between the validity of his arguments and the way his ideas could become equally dangerous as the anti-communist examples he is using.
The idea of rewarding the (subjective) good and punishing the (subjective) evil comes to mind.

That said the current destruction of angry BLM mobs do have me worried.
I support the idea of reserving space for grief and anger of the "oppressed" black community. At the same time the white privilege and equilitarian speech mandates which may or may not be valid has me questioning my self worth as well.

Chuckie
18th June 2020, 13:35
Hi Cats,

It is most assuredly a tightrope walk...it has me worried...perhaps in the end we will be closer to the ideal...balance.

Cearna
18th June 2020, 14:10
OK I'll bite, who is he? I'm on the other side of the world, and we don't get all that much of the kind of thing like this, we tend to do our own kind of social what ever, none of it much good, except on our ABC (Australian broadcasting commission- which is a bit like the BBC).

I've had someone in my mind (because I hear other than ordinary hearing something like ESP. They threatened to kill me, if I came on TOT or used the computer, to find out What was going on in the world. Some story about you are not to know what is to know, or own what is to own (especially seemingly all the topics I have written on on TOT), or write anything whatsoever on anything whatsoever.

So I'm woefully ignorant now, because I just recently decided to hell with you I need to live, and with some purpose. So catch me up, if you don't mind. We colonials are so not to own you know.

Elen
18th June 2020, 14:34
OK I'll bite, who is he? I'm on the other side of the world, and we don't get all that much of the kind of thing like this, we tend to do our own kind of social what ever, none of it much good, except on our ABC (Australian broadcasting commission- which is a bit like the BBC).

I've had someone in my mind (because I hear other than ordinary hearing something like ESP. They threatened to kill me, if I came on TOT or used the computer, to find out What was going on in the world. Some story about you are not to know what is to know, or own what is to own (especially seemingly all the topics I have written on on TOT), or write anything whatsoever on anything whatsoever.

So I'm woefully ignorant now, because I just recently decided to hell with you I need to live, and with some purpose. So catch me up, if you don't mind. We colonials are so not to own you know.

This is the latest one out.....it's really too many to choose from Colleen...ask your intuition (you've got plenty of it).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iQL1IfKTN4

Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 15:05
This is the latest one out.....it's really too many to choose from Colleen...ask your intuition (you've got plenty of it).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iQL1IfKTN4
This is also one of the more palatable ones. I'll post a few of the others later tonight. I'm in the middle of making dinner

Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 15:49
I just thought of who Jordan reminds me of.
He's Nathan from the Sophie's choice story.

Wind
18th June 2020, 15:52
He is known as the champion of free speech and has been a divisive political figure for expressing anti-pc things. He is against identity politics and that makes him quite wise I think. I've seen him live and I've read his books, watched countless lectures too. I appreciate his take on Jungian psychology, I feel that he is a good man. He has a temper though and that's why he rubs many people the wrong way. I must say that Joseph Campbell had a better grasp on Jung and mythology, but JP is the second best thing when it comes to that these days.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhrpcwIZdiQ

http://youtu.be/JsfOrJs5SV4

Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 16:55
ST6kj9OEYf0

PfH8IG7Awk0

These are the ones I saw which led me to start this thread although From the first I only saw a "possibly biased" compilation so I am linking to the whole debate.
The second one I watched after haven been linked to a few shorter vids where He is quite adamant about the dangers of post modernism.
Although I cannot deny some of his logic, especially when we look at the examples of how ideologies like marxism and communism have given rise to some of the most abhorant acts people are capable of I have yet to reconcile with the idea that that is Proof for the proposition that every and all ideological structures are doomed to Fail and result in an equaly tyrannical and abhorant display of inhuman behaviour.
That said it isn't looking good when looking around in the world.

As for the western praise of the individual within society as the saving grace for human kind is not a conclusion I would draw (yet) however.

With Love
Eelco

Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 17:14
DeYRK16PIlA

This one led me down this particular rabbit hole

Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 17:39
One thing I am having trouble understanding is that individualism as he explains it is biased.

If an individual therefore adopts an ideology. Say following post modernistic ideas. I am for #blacklivesmatter or against white priveledge etc. It seems he is advocating that at that point you are excluding other individuals. Or at least labeling them as desirable or undesirable examples of individual expression.

Confusing stuff for sure

Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 18:02
sSDClxjcR-4

Wind
18th June 2020, 18:03
Catsquotl, you should look into Jordan's Biblical lectures.

I think his political stuff isn't so interesting and he has some not so good points there.

Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 18:16
Catsquotl, you should look into Jordan's Biblical lectures.

I think his political stuff isn't so interesting and he has some not so good points there.

I am planning to, But I only known about him 2 days. And as the reason For getting to know him pertained the growing black lives matter and political activist movement we see in play these days this is what was introduced to me first..

With Love

Wind
18th June 2020, 18:22
I am planning to, But I only known about him 2 days. And as the reason For getting to know him pertained the growing black lives matter and political activist movement we see in play these days this is what was introduced to me first..

With Love

Well, after all he did become a known figure in fall 2016 because of the political controversy.

I found him over two years ago when really got famous, before that I had only heard the name.

Catsquotl
18th June 2020, 18:30
I wonder though if his biblical series was thought of to enhance his idea of establishing/ reinforcing the idea that western Civilization is the best of a series of worst ideas..

Wind
18th June 2020, 18:33
Well, the truth is that the Western civilization is the best we currently have. Yet it's still quite bad or unfinished, corrupt...

Dreamtimer
19th June 2020, 02:31
I listened to Jordan on Joe Rogan's podcast. I think I listened to all three. That was enough for me. He had some good stuff to offer and then I moved on.

Octopus Garden
19th June 2020, 06:00
He's pretty much a motivational speaker on the libertarian spectrum somewhere. I value some of his ideas but some leave me scratching my head. He is way too enthralled with successful business types. He describes their success as being based purely on competence and hard work. His apparent political sophistication is at clear odds with the reality. 40% of the real riches in the U.S was made the old fashioned way -- inherited. He is an ivory tower philosopher and psychologist who has never been in the business world.

His value is in reminding people what they can control -- like showing up on time, cleaning their rooms, and not insisting they be addressed in one of 30 different pronouns.

He conflates the Swiftian nature of campus idiocy with a Communist threat, when it will clearly go the way of the dinosaur now that we are faced with real existential threats.

His emphasis on personal responsibility is so tired so old so almost amusing. How can some people rise above circumstances? Does Jordan Peterson even know about how policing, the judiciary, the prison system works in the U.S? If you are a young black man you are at a disadvantage. You trip up once and you may never be able to get back on your feet.

If Peterson devoted just a small portion more of his time to the much more menacing threat of emerging global fascism I would not have lost faith in him. But he doesn't and as he is Canadian I figure he likely knows nothing about it.

I do enjoy seeing him debate people who are completely idiotic though. That's fun. He is a great debater.

Octopus Garden
19th June 2020, 06:15
Thank you, I've just downloaded his 12 rules for life. Books tend to give me a bit more distance for contemplation.

For now I am looking for the sweet spot between the validity of his arguments and the way his ideas could become equally dangerous as the anti-communist examples he is using.
The idea of rewarding the (subjective) good and punishing the (subjective) evil comes to mind.

That said the current destruction of angry BLM mobs do have me worried.
I support the idea of reserving space for grief and anger of the "oppressed" black community. At the same time the white privilege and equilitarian speech mandates which may or may not be valid has me questioning my self worth as well.

Look up Jordan Peterson and IQ. Listen to his interviews and see how often IQ comes up. I think he almost single handedly brought IQ back as a measure of an individual. There is something a bit irksome in the concept. And measuring people this way could make a big comeback in fascist times.

He does concede that those who are incompetent due to lower IQ scores are just as valuable as others. Big of him! The culture will absorb the main message and ignore qualifiers. He's a terrible dope to make this error.

Catsquotl
19th June 2020, 06:16
He conflates the Swiftian nature of campus idiocy with a Communist threat, when it will clearly go the way of the dinosaur now that we are faced with real existential threats.

His emphasis on personal responsibility is so tired so old so almost amusing. How can some people rise above circumstances? Does Jordan Peterson even know about how policing, the judiciary, the prison system works in the U.S? If you are a young black man you are at a disadvantage. You trip up once and you may never be able to get back on your feet.


Thank you, I wondered about that, The way I have come to understand it though is that getting back on your feet or rising to circumstances is not a given or even possible/needed. Like the Buddha he proposes that life is suffering, but in order to get some personal meaning from it he proposes to get as much grip as you can on that which you can control. Which in some or even most cases may not be that much.

What I find valuable is the insistent reminder that ideological egalitarian regimes in practice so far have yielded more death and destruction than ours..
That i.m.o. is a reminder that may be brought to the fore more often.

WIth Love

Octopus Garden
19th June 2020, 06:28
I think that at this point in history we are at far more risk of populist nationalism breaking down the old globalist order and then slowly reconsolidating in global fascism -- which is the antithesis of egalitarianism.

As far as suffering goes, Peterson makes the very valid differentiation of meaningful and meaningless suffering.

The issues BLM ( the original group, not imposters) are protesting are meaningless suffering. Nobody should have to endure that at the hands of another, at the wrong end of a gun, or through someone's knee pressing on their neck.

Octopus Garden
19th June 2020, 06:39
Thank you, I wondered about that, The way I have come to understand it though is that getting back on your feet or rising to circumstances is not a given or even possible/needed. Like the Buddha he proposes that life is suffering, but in order to get some personal meaning from it he proposes to get as much grip as you can on that which you can control. Which in some or even most cases may not be that much.

What I find valuable is the insistent reminder that ideological egalitarian regimes in practice so far have yielded more death and destruction than ours..
That i.m.o. is a reminder that may be brought to the fore more often.

WIth Love

What do you mean by ideological egalitarian regimes? Democratic socialism is pretty much egalitarian and works the best, imho. Authoritarian regimes don't work, be they right or left.

Catsquotl
19th June 2020, 06:42
Democratic socialism? How would you define that?

Aianawa
19th June 2020, 06:53
Like DT, first came upon JP on Joe Rogan podcasts, his common sense data really upset people.

Cearna
19th June 2020, 07:19
What do you mean by ideological egalitarian regimes? Democratic socialism is pretty much egalitarian and works the best, imho. Authoritarian regimes don't work, be they right or left.

You know what I'm a simple High School teacher of 40 years experience in Australia. Is it possible for a more simple English language to be used by some of you egg heads? I haven't a clue of the context of your story, because they are filled with terms that I believe may have multiple meanings, depending on the mind of the writer.

Possibly we need a dictionary definition of these terms that are being used so freely, because we have many different cultural backgrounds, and levels of English and other languages in use by not only the members, but the visiting guests as well. If you are University trained, maybe you can either dumb it back or give us some understanding.

I've only had time to watch the first one Ellen put up, and find myself so far fighting my instinct to not watch anymore. I find him coming from a head space, which is switching around too much too quickly.

He reminds me of a Tibetan Rampa, I once went to listen to, and unfortunately most of the audience gradually walked out on. It was stuff we all knew as kids.

So, although I am criticising, I admit that many of the statements made, do cause you to realise that these are part and parcel of our everyday life causing great distress, which I grappled with from back in the 1980s, as did many of the people I met. So, I might digress onto some of these, when I have time later.

Catsquotl
19th June 2020, 11:56
Well the following article was a fun read..

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


But, having examined Peterson’s work closely, I think the “misinterpretation” of Peterson is only partially a result of leftists reading him through an ideological prism. A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.” People can have such angry arguments about Peterson, seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected.

With Love

Wind
19th June 2020, 12:25
Democratic socialism? How would you define that?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/democratic-socialist-countries/

Dreamtimer
19th June 2020, 12:28
Many progressives whom I have listened to describe themselves as Democrat socialist.

Chuckie
19th June 2020, 12:37
Like DT, first came upon JP on Joe Rogan podcasts, his common sense data really upset people.

Common sense, with the usual knife embedded in it. Motivation...it can and does have an ugly head to rear.

The best metaphor I've heard regarding I.Q.:

"Peas from the same pod will grow very differently if one is tended with care within nurturing earth and one is cast aside on stony sand and left to wither."

that's a total massacree of a paraphrase, but I hope one gets the idea... :)

Cearna
19th June 2020, 12:37
In my country then you might follow them Labor Party or they Greens or be Independent??
:angel:.

Chuckie
19th June 2020, 12:38
Self description...hmm, let's see, Oh, I know...I'm stark raving mad.

Elen
19th June 2020, 15:31
Self description...hmm, let's see, Oh, I know...I'm stark raving mad.

Don't be so hard on yourself, dear!

Chuckie
19th June 2020, 16:32
lol ... aaauuuggghhhh!!!!!!!!!! :)

Dreamtimer
19th June 2020, 17:48
I'm only raving. With an occasional stark. ;)

Aragorn
20th June 2020, 10:50
I'm only raving. With an occasional stark. ;)

Well, so long as it's not a stork... :p

Cearna
20th June 2020, 12:02
Common sense, with the usual knife embedded in it. Motivation...it can and does have an ugly head to rear.

The best metaphor I've heard regarding I.Q.:

"Peas from the same pod will grow very differently if one is tended with care within nurturing earth and one is cast aside on stony sand and left to wither."

that's a total massacree of a paraphrase, but I hope one gets the idea... :)

I like this story, so true. You know, my nephew was sent off every day to a lady who loved him and was paid to look after him. He cried every day to leave his mum, till he went to school. My story was that he started off with a high IQ, but by then time he was 4 and had his IQ tested he had become a slow learner of about 80 something IQ and this was how his parents treated him for his entire schooling, and for me that last time I met him in 1993, he was a bit like a lump of lard. I see some parents of autistic who do everything they can for their children, and others who do precious little, yet tie government try to give them whatever they can afford under our National Disability Insurance Scheme. Grandparents can work wonders.

:hug:

Chuckie
20th June 2020, 12:10
Truly Grandparents are and have always been in a position to be saving grace. Actually, my brother and sister-in-law have been filling that role for a long time. What isn't really related to your post Cearna, is the fact that my brother was a grandfather at 32 and and a great grandfather at somewhere in his early fifties. His line of people wasted no time at all.

Wind
20th June 2020, 21:33
I'd put more importance on emotional intelligence:
https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/13-things-emotionally-intelligent-people-do.html

Dreamtimer
20th June 2020, 23:27
I bought Daniel Golemen's book for my husband when it came out. And I think my mom, too.

Wind
21st June 2020, 01:00
Theory of multiple intelligences
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences)

http://youtu.be/8N2pnYne0ZA

Octopus Garden
21st June 2020, 01:12
Well, so long as it's not a stork... :p

Here is stork raving mad for you!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2c8IhVRlvo

totally off topic...but cute.

Dreamtimer
21st June 2020, 02:18
The Great Argus Pheasant display looks just like the bustle of certain Native American dancers.


I wonder what Jordan would think... :rolleyes:

Octopus Garden
21st June 2020, 02:59
The Great Argus Pheasant display looks just like the bustle of certain Native American dancers.


I wonder what Jordan would think... :rolleyes:

As long as they took personal responsibility for it, he'd probably approve!:)

Elen
21st June 2020, 06:19
:ha: As far as I could see, they totally did. No rape.

Dreamtimer
21st June 2020, 10:01
Those males are willing to take as much responsibility as they can, especially if their genes continue.

Chuckie
21st June 2020, 12:35
Theory of multiple intelligences
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences)

http://youtu.be/8N2pnYne0ZA

This is cool, I noticed something...just for fun... When he was explaining the Danfloss (I think) universe he literally did a tongue-in-cheek thing. I think it was because he felt that he was flattering himself given his suggestion for testing intrapersonal intelligence. A suggestion to solve a problem that the directors had not been able to solve.

For a long time I wondered why it was stated that linguistic intelligence could be used in a sociopathic way, my pre forum days ... :) ...it seems only too obvious now.

Chester
21st June 2020, 16:23
That said the current destruction of angry BLM mobs do have me worried.
I support the idea of reserving space for grief and anger of the "oppressed" black community. At the same time the white privilege and equilitarian speech mandates which may or may not be valid has me questioning my self worth as well.

This resolves the dilemma for those who understand it -

The Soul’s First Step

The soul starts at a single point in a “soulscape.”
It is empty of experience, a totally empty vessel. The vessel is named “a soul” and at its “birth” it has only one quality, that being that it is individuated.

Again… no other quality.

Thus, all souls start out equal - if that term, “equal,” appeals to you, the reader.

I would say, “All souls start with the same potential.”

A “lifetime” the emerges as a physical body that exists within a shared reality is one of potentially infinite lifetimes - certainly hundreds if not thousands if not as many as one may wish or as many as might be possible, limited only by infinity.

Question: How likely is it that at the moment of conception and/or birth… but actually the question is, how likely is it at the moment a particular soul enters that particular physical body vehicle, that that very “soul’s state” (its “soul location” along its “soul journey” with all the baggage accumulated along the way and the attitudes it has developed and possesses)… that that soul at that very moment of insertion is “equal” in every aspect and/or quality to any other incarnate soul?

The greatest mistake we make on Earth is that we want what is “not equal” to be regarded equally and thus to be perceived the same.

Equal rights are not the same thing as “all ‘men’ (ie. all women and men) are equal.” The line doesn't say "all men are equal."

Referring to a well-known phrase -

The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" appears in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, written in 1776.

Note that the phrase says, “created equal.” When you look at it from the level of soul, and from the perspective that honors the greater framework of many “soul experiences” available for each soul, and you consider the “soul journey,” you can restate the phrase as –

“All souls are created equal.”

And now one can see the brilliance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s perhaps most famous quote - "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Aianawa
26th June 2020, 21:19
Chestor, this soul or quality you talk of, why does it get given/gifted/stamped/forced upon/identified etc as a number when born ?.

Wind
30th June 2020, 16:45
http://youtu.be/HLWgVpmo1e0

Elen
1st July 2020, 07:05
:omg: I wouldn't wish this experience on anyone. There are no shortcuts for suffering. Thanks for posting Wind!

Lord Sidious
2nd July 2020, 08:14
Well, the truth is that the Western civilization is the best we currently have. Yet it's still quite bad or unfinished, corrupt...

According to whom?
Westerners?

Wind
2nd December 2020, 17:30
I take issues with things like this and I will definitely read or actually listen to the book when it comes out.

Iu635BJxBQE

Jordan Peterson: how the left manufactured a folk devil (https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/11/27/jordan-peterson-how-the-left-manufactured-a-folk-devil/)


The hysterical response to Peterson’s latest book is totally disconnected from anything he has actually said.

Over the past few days, Jordan Peterson’s critics have been doing their utmost to publicise his forthcoming book, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life. The famous clinical psychologist announced the publication on his YouTube channel on Monday, and within hours the book was being widely denounced on social media for its hateful content. This is quite a feat of the collective imagination, given that nobody has read it yet.

Much of the furore has come about because employees at the Canadian branch of the publisher, Penguin Random House, have called for the book to be cancelled. After multiple complaints were filed, they confronted their management at a meeting in which some burst into tears and shared their stories of how the evil Professor Peterson had caused such emotional havoc in their lives due to his ‘problematic’ opinions. According to a report in Vice, ‘one co-worker discussed how Peterson had radicalised their father and another talked about how publishing the book will negatively affect their non-binary friend’.

This is just the latest example of a new trend of activist employees threatening to strike for ideological reasons. At the audio-streaming company Spotify, workers recently demanded editorial control of Joe Rogan’s newly acquired podcast series, after they had successfully removed a number of episodes deemed to be controversial. At publishing giant Hachette, employees threatened to walk out after JK Rowling’s children’s book, The Ickabog, was announced. All these internal revolts have failed, presumably because figures such as Rowling, Rogan and Peterson are too popular to cancel. One wonders how a less lucrative artist would fare under such circumstances.

When I reviewed 12 Rules for Life for spiked (published alongside a counterview by Luke Gittos), I noted that there were two Jordan Petersons. The first ‘a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto with a particular interest in religious and ideological belief systems’, and the second ‘a notorious firebrand of the alt-right… a transphobic provocateur whose lectures amount to little more than hate speech’. As I pointed out, only the first of these two actually exists.

The viperous attacks on Peterson we have seen on social media over the last few days can only be described as a kind of hysteria. He has been smeared as a ‘Nazi apologist’ and a ‘fascist’ by people whose familiarity with Peterson’s work amounts to a few bad-faith articles and a smattering of selective quotations taken out of context. He has routinely been called ‘far right’, even though the core tenets of the actual far right – a sense of racial or national superiority, support for authoritarianism and the worship of the state – represent the polar opposite of Peterson’s worldview. Many critics have attempted to broaden the traditional definition of the ‘far right’ – incorporating cultural conservatism, a belief in the importance of personal responsibility and an awareness of biological sex differences – so that it can then be applied to Peterson. This is the equivalent of attaching plastic horns to a bulldog so that you can call it a monster.

True, there are subsidiary features common to the far right: homophobia, sexism and other reactionary viewpoints. But to brand anyone as ‘far right’ on the basis of these things alone – particularly when they are imagined rather than supported by the evidence – is a form of political illiteracy. Peterson’s opposition to feminism is well documented and there are legitimate arguments to be had over the merits of his views. But even if one were convinced that they are tantamount to chauvinism, this would not be sufficient to justify the epithet of ‘far right’. Were that the case, then there would no longer be any distinction to be made between Benny Hill and Hermann Göring.

The determination to misrepresent Peterson’s ideas is on a par with the frenzy surrounding JK Rowling, whose compassionate and nuanced views on the ways in which gender-critical feminism and trans activism are in conflict have been taken as proof that she is the devil incarnate. This monstering of public figures, based on the flimsiest of evidence, is indicative of a cultural and intellectual malaise that we would be foolish to ignore. There are all sorts of sensible reasons to take issue with Peterson’s opinions, but why has it become so difficult for so many to present a counter-argument without resorting to adolescent catastrophising?

Consider the words of a junior employee at Penguin Random House. Peterson is apparently ‘an icon of hate speech and transphobia’ and ‘an icon of white supremacy, regardless of the content of his book’. When pushed for further detail, such people invariably claim the power to intuit Peterson’s private feelings, but simply declaring that your ideological opponents are harbouring malevolent intentions is only evidence of your desire that they should. This is why the accusation of ‘dog whistling’ – sending out secret signals that only one’s followers can hear – is so common. As one of his critics put it on Twitter, ‘one thing Peterson does consistently is toss bones and winks to his far-right followers, couched in vague or ambiguous terms that allow him to say that of course he didn’t mean THAT’. It takes an acute kind of narcissism to assume that you are able to divine the secret workings of someone else’s mind simply because you have decided that it must be so.

It should go without saying that if you believe that books ought to be cancelled simply because you disagree with their contents, a career in publishing is probably not for you. We need to reckon with this new reality of our times: that there exists a substantial proportion of the adult population, educated to university level, who are nonetheless incapable of critical thinking and lack the basic skills of argumentation. Worse still, many of the most vicious comments about Peterson – including mocking him for a benzodiazepine addiction brought on by his wife’s cancer diagnosis – have come from those who believe themselves to be compassionate and virtuous campaigners for justice. If such people really are ‘on the right side of history’, then the future of humanity looks pretty bleak.

Peterson’s key thesis is that life is unbearable without a sense of purpose, and that this can largely be achieved through personal responsibility and taking charge of one’s life. He believes that civilisations collapse without structure, which is why children ought to be socialised in accordance with the ethical parameters we set for ourselves. He maintains that science and technology have improved our lives, but do not satisfy our need for meaning. This is why his work focuses on the stories that recur in ancient traditions and religious beliefs. There is wisdom in these narratives, he argues, even if their supernatural elements have no basis in reality.

If you find these views rebarbative, you can always offer a rebuttal or choose not to expose yourself to Peterson’s output. If you need to indulge in straw-man arguments, or convince yourself that he is ‘alt right’ or ‘fascist adjacent’ in order to justify your opposition, then you are in no position to complain if you are not taken seriously. Screaming abuse at those who enjoy Peterson’s writing, or calling for his book to be cancelled, is not the behaviour of a responsible member of a civilised society. If you don’t like his work – either because of its actual contents or what you have simply imagined them to be – then don’t buy his books. Problem solved.

We need to ask ourselves how we have reached the point where grown adults are willing to accept such wild mischaracterisations of public figures without even attempting to engage with the reality of what they say and think. We need to redress the widespread historical ignorance that dilutes the terms ‘Nazi’ and ‘fascist’ to meaningless slurs. We need to restore critical thinking in our education system to counteract the ongoing degradation of public and political discourse. We need to consider how anyone above the age of 16 believes that throwing insults is an effective form of rebuttal. This isn’t simply about Jordan Peterson; this is about the kind of hysteria he inspires in an infantile society. Something has to change.

Andrew Doyle is a comedian and spiked columnist. His new book, My First Little Book of Intersectional Activism (written by his alter-ego Titania McGrath), is released this week.

Chuckie
2nd December 2020, 19:33
you know that Kuklinski did a segment on the new book:

I think this is his daddy: I didn't exactly mean to get into this that much but Dr. Park Dietz is a professional witness for homicide cases and with over 45 testimonies has never found any reason at all to find a defendant lacking in competency to stand trial:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5izoYwYZMzU

Wind
2nd December 2020, 23:38
You sure are funny. Seen that interview many years ago, chilling stuff.

Besides being a cold-blooded killer he was also a known liar so the bodycount he has provided is highly unreliable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kuklinski#Reliability_of_Kuklinski's_claim s).


Many of Kuklinski's admissions about his criminal life have not been corroborated and have long been met with scepticism. His claim to have committed hundreds of murders has been described as "many times more than could ever be substantiated". Paul Smith, a member of the task force which arrested Kuklinski and later a supervisor of the organized crime division of the New Jersey Attorney General's office, said "I checked every one of the murders that Kuklinski said he committed, and not one was true." Dominick Polifrone said "I don’t believe he killed 200 people. I don’t believe he killed 100 people. I’ll go as high as 15, maybe." Kuklinski biographer Anthony Bruno described him as a "part-time liar" and acknowledged that “many of his stories didn't pass the smell test”. During one of their conversations, Bruno joked: "Richard, I have a feeling if I listen to you long enough, you'll tell me you shot President Lincoln." Kuklinski laughed and said "Yeah. You're probably right."

yo2uVWfODYM

:back to topic:

Chuckie
2nd December 2020, 23:50
yeah, I was just watching, I think he was lying about the cats...I remember people saying that when I was just a kid ... I'm not sure it would even be possible.

Octopus Garden
27th January 2022, 02:35
Jordan Peterson has lost his mind. He describes the climate crisis as propaganda perpetuated by those who want to impose a totalitarian state. Trudeau is merely an actor promoting a false crisis.

And though, this may seem kind of harmless it's actually a dangerous idea when its coming from someone who is angling more and more towards the hard right and 'Christianity.' He is preparing to run for office in Canada. He doesn't stand a chance, not this time around. But God help us, if he ever is in a position to do any real damage. He's from Alberta and is pro-Big Oil. I find his political stances, with regards large corporations, almost unfathomable.

He makes me wince.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEWEEZ8rp24

Chuckie
27th January 2022, 07:08
Jordan Peterson has lost his mind. He describes the climate crisis as propaganda perpetuated by those who want to impose a totalitarian state. Trudeau is merely an actor promoting a false crisis.

And though, this may seem kind of harmless it's actually a dangerous idea when its coming from someone who is angling more and more towards the hard right and 'Christianity.' He is preparing to run for office in Canada. He doesn't stand a chance, not this time around. But God help us, if he ever is in a position to do any real damage. He's from Alberta and is pro-Big Oil. I find his political stances, with regards large corporations, almost unfathomable.

He makes me wince.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEWEEZ8rp24

Hi OG,

yeah, I've sensed that of him from my first exposure...I don't know what sends people off in that direction but a good guess I think would be a deficient personality, ego, money, etc. All the usual suspects.

Aragorn
27th January 2022, 07:16
Hi OG,

yeah, I've sensed that of him from my first exposure...I don't know what sends people off in that direction but a good guess I think would be a deficient personality, ego, money, etc. All the usual suspects.

It's the curmudgeon syndrome. He was already conservative to begin with, and as he's growing older ─ in addition to more social turmoil taking place nowadays ─ he's also growing less tolerant, which therefore makes him become even more conservative.

Dreamtimer
27th January 2022, 12:37
Jordan Peterson has lost his mind. He describes the climate crisis as propaganda perpetuated by those who want to impose a totalitarian state. Trudeau is merely an actor promoting a false crisis.

And though, this may seem kind of harmless it's actually a dangerous idea when its coming from someone who is angling more and more towards the hard right and 'Christianity.' He is preparing to run for office in Canada. He doesn't stand a chance, not this time around. But God help us, if he ever is in a position to do any real damage. He's from Alberta and is pro-Big Oil. I find his political stances, with regards large corporations, almost unfathomable.

He makes me wince.

I agree with you and with Aragorn. Jordan told Joe Rogan years ago that he's making a living 'owning the libs'. It's now his job. He has no choice but to go off the deep end. That's all that remains.

I don't know about Canada, but here in the US, creating bogeyman is the name of the game with the right. Currently it's Seuss and Potato Head and Cancel Culture and Critical Race Theory and the evil, evil radical left wingers (which do not exist here), because they desperately need the bogeymen to keep pushing their agenda.

Jordan has fallen into that trap.

And yes, it is very dangerous. Climate change is going to do a number on us whether we believe in it or not. This dangerous sort of rhetoric leads to more unrest and more violence which then feeds the vicious cycle.

As a psychologist he knows this. And therefore there is no excuse.

He's become a terribly irresponsible human being, imo.

Fred Steeves
27th January 2022, 12:56
So here we are again. Jordan Peterson doesn’t believe that climate change is the end of the world as we know it, so therefore he’s a dangerous and irresponsible human being.

And supposedly it’s only the Right that likes to create boogie men?

This is the classic either/or fame of mind: either he believes as we do, or he’s dangerous. One of “them”.

Dreamtimer
27th January 2022, 13:08
No Fred, it's his rhetoric which is dangerous. And Jordan should know better.

The left may like to create bogeymen, but they suck at it. We all know that the Dems simply can't play the Republican games. They don't have the skills.

Therefore they don't have the influence.

And they don't.

Aragorn
27th January 2022, 13:10
So here we are again. Jordan Peterson doesn’t believe that climate change is the end of the world as we know it, so therefore he’s a dangerous and irresponsible human being.

Not for believing it, but if he's actively promoting that climate change isn't real, then as a public figure, he's co-responsible for the tenacity of the climate change denialists. He's not exactly a low-profile person.


And supposedly it’s only the Right that likes to create boogie men?

In my personal opinion, no, most definitely not. They all do it, because it has already long stopped being about right and wrong.

Chuckie
27th January 2022, 13:12
So here we are again. Jordan Peterson doesn’t believe that climate change is the end of the world as we know it, so therefore he’s a dangerous and irresponsible human being.

And supposedly it’s only the Right that likes to create boogie men?

This is the classic either/or fame of mind: either he believes as we do, or he’s dangerous. One of “them”.

Freddie, Freddie, Freddie, the other possibility is that what he has presented throughout his fame trip is a manifestation of his true nature. That intrinsic nature makes him a bad person. I know you identify with that syndrome, so perhaps a little introspection could actually help make you better. Something to consider, hey?

I was thinking OGs post over night and it occurred to me that Peterson's above presentation was even out of character for him. I started thinking is it 'real'. Addictions are obviously challenges that can morph personalities and he has been through the dregs of it. One of the hallmark personality markers of addiction are the inability to see oneself as one actually is, and to never accept responsibility for what one has wrought. That sounds like Jordan Peterson to me.

Aragorn
27th January 2022, 13:20
Freddie, Freddie, Freddie, the other possibility is that what he has presented throughout his fame trip is a manifestation of his true nature. That intrinsic nature makes him a bad person. I know you identify with that syndrome, so perhaps a little introspection could actually help make you better. Something to consider, hey?

Cut it out, BoB. That's the second time you're going ad hominem with Fred today.

Chuckie
27th January 2022, 13:42
Cut it out, BoB. That's the second time you're going ad hominem with Fred today.

Aragorn, honestly, I am a very straightforward person, if Fred stops playing with me, I will be happy to stop playing with him. Aragorn, you are the man around here, I know it and I have no recourse but to accept it, I could formulate a precise definition of ad hominem and twist it to my advantage but I won't because it would be pointless and counter-productive to my desire for straight honesty. Please inform Fred that I will not tolerate his twisted personality and dysregulated outbursts.

Aragorn
27th January 2022, 13:57
Aragorn, honestly, I am a very straightforward person, if Fred stops playing with me, I will be happy to stop playing with him. Aragorn, you are the man around here, I know it and I have no recourse but to accept it, I could formulate a precise definition of ad hominem and twist it to my advantage but I won't because it would be pointless and counter-productive to my desire for straight honesty. Please inform Fred that I will not tolerate his twisted personality and dysregulated outbursts.

BoB, you're crossing the line. Stop throwing ad hominems at Fred (or anyone else here) or I'm going to have to ban you from this thread. I've already deleted another ad hominem of yours on another thread a few minutes ago.

If you don't like Fred, then add him to your ignore list, but stop insulting the man on open threads. I'm not kidding. I won't stand for it.

Chuckie
27th January 2022, 14:01
BoB, you're crossing the line. Stop throwing ad hominems at Fred (or anyone else here) or I'm going to have to ban you from this thread. I've already deleted another ad hominem of yours on another thread a few minutes ago.

If you don't like Fred, then add him to your ignore list, but stop insulting the man on open threads. I'm not kidding. I won't stand for it.

That is the coward's way out in my estimation, that would just give him leave to carry on castigating my input. I understand your position, please ensure that Fred understands mine.

with due respect,

the BoBCat... :)

I should have mentioned that my character matters, too

Chuckie
27th January 2022, 14:38
I hate wasting space, in fact, I hate wasting anything, particularly a good jab. Incidentally, I love the metaphor, got that from my daddy who was the master of the mixed metaphor :)

Wind
27th January 2022, 16:39
Not for believing it, but if he's actively promoting that climate change isn't real, then as a public figure, he's co-responsible for the tenacity of the climate change denialists. He's not exactly a low-profile person.

I'm not sure what that video is about as I haven't watched it yet, but the thing about climate thing is that it is real, but man-made activity has very little to do with it. There is this global warming and garbon emission scam, when it fact it's mostly just a natural cycle. The science isn't "settled", there is enough data to see that there is more to this than just some human causes. Yes, we do pollute the Earth and have been destroying it, but that's another thing natural climate change.

When it comes to Jordan, I have noticed that lately he has become more upset. I don't know if I can really blame him as Canada seems to have gone nuts thanks to Trudeau. I am not a proponent of conservatism, Christianity or right wing thoughts for that matter though. At least earlier the critique and backlash Jordan received was completely unfair and out of touch with reality, but now he is more of the "angry man" type I suppose. It will be interesting to see the full development of his character arc.

Chuckie
27th January 2022, 16:44
I'm not sure what that video is about as I haven't watched it yet, but the thing about climate thing is that it is real, but man-made activity has very little to do with it. There is this global warming and garbon emission scam, when it fact it's mostly just a natural cycle. The science isn't "settled", there is enough data to see that there is more to this than just some human causes. Yes, we do pollute the Earth and have been destroying it, but that's another thing natural climate change.

When it comes to Jordan, I have noticed that lately he has become more upset. I don't know if I can really blame him as Canada seems to have gone nuts thanks to Trudeau. I am not a proponent of conservatism, Christianity or right wing thoughts for that matter though. At least earlier the critique and backlash Jordan received was completely unfair and out of touch with reality, but now he is more of the "angry man" type I suppose.

the cause in my opinion Wind, is mostly irrelevant, the fact that it exists is plenty of reason to concerned about it and take whatever measures that are within our capacity to ameliorate it. From just you and me to the major corporate villains, to the mindless nations. It's been over 40 years that I started taking steps to shrink my energy use footprint, mostly because it is good for me. :)

Wind
27th January 2022, 16:46
For what it's worth, I am as ecological as I can be, I don't trash and I try to recycle things. I hate seeing things going wasted.

I would hope that people woulds stop trashing and polluting the Earth.

Chuckie
27th January 2022, 16:52
For what it's worth, I am as ecological as I can be, I don't trash and I try to recycle things. I hate seeing things going wasted.

I would hope that people woulds stop trashing and polluting the Earth.

Amen to that...

Octopus Garden
27th January 2022, 23:40
When Americans refer to 'the left,' I don't know what they mean exactly. In terms of political parties the R's and D's both lean to the right. The nutty university justice warrior preoccupations of people who are certifiably insane aren't traditionally liberal at all. They are the flip side of the same coin and have a dictatorial bent, as well.

I liked the part of Jordan Peterson, that called that out for what it was. But I don't appreciate him holding forth as an expert on subjects he doesn't have expertise in. And climate is one of them. He is an Albertan and his buddies are, no doubt, people who are ceo's of oil companies.

That is very likenly where he is getting his information. When it comes to big issues, I try to do at least cursory research on anybody who's point of view is gaining traction. If their bio is 'clean' I am more inclined to pay attention. Peterson's professional bio is 'clean' enough, but his background--where he grew up, who he hung out with, etc...probably not. There's too much money rattling around there.

As far as Canada going kind of looney lately, under Trudeau...that's an exaggeration. Trudeau is a weird guy and typical politician, but he has done okay, steering the country through some terrible times. The knives are out for him though, and mainstream media is not necessarily on his side.

Octopus Garden
27th January 2022, 23:55
So here we are again. Jordan Peterson doesn’t believe that climate change is the end of the world as we know it, so therefore he’s a dangerous and irresponsible human being.

And supposedly it’s only the Right that likes to create boogie men?

This is the classic either/or fame of mind: either he believes as we do, or he’s dangerous. One of “them”.

People, often on the left, who are rigid ecologists, with a plants and animals first and f*** people, philosophy, are dangerous too. They create boogeymen out of the average person, just trying to get by, and bury that 'enemy' in red tape when they are trying to start a business, build a house, etc...The answer, imo is to honor people and the natural world simultaneously, while being as objective as possible about climate. It's a tough row to hoe. No easy answers there and is one issue that has angled small business owners, builders etc...towards Trump. It's understandable.

Chuckie
28th January 2022, 00:02
People, often on the left, who are rigid ecologists, with a plants and animals first and f*** people, philosophy, are dangerous too. They create boogeymen out of the average person, just trying to get by, and bury that 'enemy' in red tape when they are trying to start a business, build a house, etc...The answer, imo is to honor people and the natural world simultaneously, while being as objective as possible about climate. It's a tough row to hoe. No easy answers there and is one issue that has angled small business owners, builders etc...towards Trump. It's understandable.

:) True OG but they are in the minority ... despite how much I have tried in the past one cannot paint a single political party into the category of dysfunctional mental types. But if we look from what some might call a helicopter view (or maybe Wind would prefer a drone's eye view) the predominance is on one side. And there is a reason for it and it's not intelligence nor values nor anything else that would expose a coherent motivation. And that my OG is the answer to the question.

Octopus Garden
28th January 2022, 00:58
Both parties are dysfunctional, imo. It can be broken down pretty easily. What Americans refer to as liberals, control the East and West coasts and a smattering of fly over counties, depending on their demographic make up.

The white and black professional class, who are employees rather than self employed, vote Democrat.

The self employed, trades people, Mom and Pop shop vote more republican. They are on the front lines when it comes to dealing with local state and federal bureaucrats. The laws that they have to obey are one size fits all, frequently and it is beyond frustrating.

So, the way I look at it (and tried without much success on Avalon,) is this-- its not so much that Trump supporters are wrong in being furious about a number of issues, it was simply that Trump is not the guy who is going to fix it for them. He's a typical manipulative populist, with tremendous support from big money interest. And they are salivating, itching for complete control. And I have no doubt, that barring divine intervention, they will get it.

If the Dems were truly liberal, in spirit, they would have cut military budgets in half by now, institutedmedicare for all. No liberal politician would object to , on establishing an iron clad rule that bars congress from having brokerage accounts. That's state sanctioned insider trading.

Anyway, I have a migraine aura right now, BB so I am having trouble reading. Will read what you wrote more thoroughly later when I can see properly. Am writing e through a haze of sparkles that don't have the decency to become proper kaledscopic patters.

Aragorn
28th January 2022, 09:17
If the Dems were truly liberal, in spirit, they would have cut military budgets in half by now, institutedmedicare for all. No liberal politician would object to , on establishing an iron clad rule that bars congress from having brokerage accounts. That's state sanctioned insider trading.

QED: Marianne Williamson ran for Democratic Presidential Nominee on exactly those points, and she was the first one to get pushed out of the race by the DNC. They would sooner have consented to letting Bernie Sanders run against Trump than Marianne, and we all know what they did to Bernie.

Bernie Sanders saw the other candidates ─ who were by far not as progressive as Marianne ─ fall one by one, and he decided that he was going to hold on until the last moment. But of course, he never stood a chance, because the DNC hated him ─ they had already agreed to all vote against him as Democratic Nominee unless he could gather an absolute majority vote, which they knew he couldn't.

The DNC wanted a status quo candidate to run against Trump, because they wanted to return to the status quo ruling of the USA as it had existed before Trump. That's why they chose Biden. And with that, it was the second time that they fucked Bernie over, because they had also already forced him to concede to Hillary Clinton in the run-up for the 2016 elections.

The DNC will never allow a truly progressive candidate to run for office. A semi-African American, yes. A woman, yes. Hell, if push comes to shove, they'll even support an LGBTQ+ candidate ─ which is a subject the Democrats have somehow always had a strange fixation with. But they will never ─ repeat: never ─ consent to supporting someone who would overturn the very fabric of the American corporate-globalist empire and its beloved military-industrial complex.

Chuckie
28th January 2022, 11:27
Both parties are dysfunctional, imo. It can be broken down pretty easily. What Americans refer to as liberals, control the East and West coasts and a smattering of fly over counties, depending on their demographic make up.

The white and black professional class, who are employees rather than self employed, vote Democrat.

The self employed, trades people, Mom and Pop shop vote more republican. They are on the front lines when it comes to dealing with local state and federal bureaucrats. The laws that they have to obey are one size fits all, frequently and it is beyond frustrating.

So, the way I look at it (and tried without much success on Avalon,) is this-- its not so much that Trump supporters are wrong in being furious about a number of issues, it was simply that Trump is not the guy who is going to fix it for them. He's a typical manipulative populist, with tremendous support from big money interest. And they are salivating, itching for complete control. And I have no doubt, that barring divine intervention, they will get it.

If the Dems were truly liberal, in spirit, they would have cut military budgets in half by now, institutedmedicare for all. No liberal politician would object to , on establishing an iron clad rule that bars congress from having brokerage accounts. That's state sanctioned insider trading.

Anyway, I have a migraine aura right now, BB so I am having trouble reading. Will read what you wrote more thoroughly later when I can see properly. Am writing e through a haze of sparkles that don't have the decency to become proper kaledscopic patters.

I have that same problem with Ocular migraines. Actually, that is a pretty good analysis of American political stances that one doesn't often see. Historically it was a matter of white collar elitists and blue collar whites as hateful Republicans and 'other' blue collars as basically not involved and hiding behind any cover they could find to shield their otherness. But as we know times change. The hateful blue collars became 'Libertarians', the white collar middle tier became concerned Demos, and the others came out of the closet. So, in effect, everyone is pissed off. I understand... I've been to the Department of Motor Vehicles and caused more than one ruckus. In truth, congress is congress and they take care of their kind, just as you will find labor union officials doing the same, small business can and should hook into all the tax dodges that their political brethren have instituted over the years.

Insofar, as you are correct about Trump, he is a psychopathic conman, the unfortunate byproduct of frustration is the propensity to lash out at those that are sometimes not even remotely connected to their frustration. And it happens most often that the 'other' is the scapegoat. Repubs use that and it is sinister, immoral, and works wonderfully to spread an overarching dysfunction of thought and deed.

Depending on one's philosophical leanings (sometimes in people their are no guiding philosophical principles) political dysfunction can be viewed as it's everybody fault, in my estimation if one zooms in from the helicopter view and applies 'root cause' analysis, it does emerge that the Hegelian Dialectic is the rule that guides and forms the product. And then one can apply a personal analysis and either face the reality or not. But all that said you hit an important point. Despite all the differing views, there are major categories of thought: helicopter view and root cause analyis and it is possible and often ,in fact, the two views provide very different looks.


QED: Marianne Williamson ran for Democratic Presidential Nominee on exactly those points, and she was the first one to get pushed out of the race by the DNC. They would sooner have consented to letting Bernie Sanders run against Trump than Marianne, and we all know what they did to Bernie.

Bernie Sanders saw the other candidates ─ who were by far not as progressive as Marianne ─ fall one by one, and he decided that he was going to hold on until the last moment. But of course, he never stood a chance, because the DNC hated him ─ they had already agreed to all vote against him as Democratic Nominee unless he could gather an absolute majority vote, which they knew he couldn't.

The DNC wanted a status quo candidate to run against Trump, because they wanted to return to the status quo ruling of the USA as it had existed before Trump. That's why they chose Biden. And with that, it was the second time that they fucked Bernie over, because they had also already forced him to concede to Hillary Clinton in the run-up for the 2016 elections.

The DNC will never allow a truly progressive candidate to run for office. A semi-African American, yes. A woman, yes. Hell, if push comes to shove, they'll even support an LGBTQ+ candidate ─ which is a subject the Democrats have somehow always had a strange fixation with. But they will never ─ repeat: never ─ consent to supporting someone who would overturn the very fabric of the American corporate-globalist empire and its beloved military-industrial complex.

They don't want Aragorn, they are compelled to run that kind of candidate to stand a ghost of a chance of survival. As you've pointed out, Americans are crypto-cultural retards. Americans, en toto, will not tolerate anyone that isn't one of them. Dems have to compromise in deference to the Hegelian Dialectic. They have no choice, witness the current state with Democratic cultural retards Manchin and Sinema.

Chuckie
28th January 2022, 11:40
I have that same problem with Ocular migraines. Actually, that is a pretty good analysis of American political stances that one doesn't often see. Historically it was a matter of white collar elitists and blue collar whites as hateful Republicans and 'other' blue collars as basically not involved and hiding behind any cover they could find to shield their otherness. But as we know times change. The hateful blue collars became 'Libertarians', the white collar middle tier became concerned Demos, and the others came out of the closet. So, in effect, everyone is pissed off. I understand... I've been to the Department of Motor Vehicles and caused more than one ruckus. In truth, congress is congress and they take care of their kind, just as you will find labor union officials doing the same, small business can and should hook into all the tax dodges that their political brethren have instituted over the years.

Insofar, as you are correct about Trump, he is a psychopathic conman, the unfortunate byproduct of frustration is the propensity to lash out at those that are sometimes not even remotely connected to their frustration. And it happens most often that the 'other' is the scapegoat. Repubs use that and it is sinister, immoral, and works wonderfully to spread an overarching dysfunction of thought and deed.

Depending on one's philosophical leanings (sometimes in people their are no guiding philosophical principles) political dysfunction can be viewed as it's everybody fault, in my estimation if one zooms in from the helicopter view and applies 'root cause' analysis, it does emerge that the Hegelian Dialectic is the rule that guides and forms the product. And then one can apply a personal analysis and either face the reality or not. But all that said you hit an important point. Despite all the differing views, there are major categories of thought: helicopter view and root cause analyis and it is possible and often ,in fact, the two views provide very different looks.



They don't want Aragorn, they are compelled to run that kind of candidate to stand a ghost of a chance of survival. As you've pointed out, Americans are crypto-cultural retards. Americans, en toto, will not tolerate anyone that isn't one of them. Dems have to compromise in deference to the Hegelian Dialectic. They have no choice, witness the current state with Democratic cultural retards Manchin and Sinema.

In my morning short meditative interlude something occurred to me: The Hegelian Dialectic is a full-blown dynamic in the American two-party system. The youngest generation has an intuitive understanding of that and it is perhaps why they are enamored of a one-party system, a three-party system, or a no-party system at all.

Aragorn
28th January 2022, 12:06
QED: Marianne Williamson ran for Democratic Presidential Nominee on exactly those points, and she was the first one to get pushed out of the race by the DNC. They would sooner have consented to letting Bernie Sanders run against Trump than Marianne, and we all know what they did to Bernie.

Bernie Sanders saw the other candidates ─ who were by far not as progressive as Marianne ─ fall one by one, and he decided that he was going to hold on until the last moment. But of course, he never stood a chance, because the DNC hated him ─ they had already agreed to all vote against him as Democratic Nominee unless he could gather an absolute majority vote, which they knew he couldn't.

The DNC wanted a status quo candidate to run against Trump, because they wanted to return to the status quo ruling of the USA as it had existed before Trump. That's why they chose Biden. And with that, it was the second time that they fucked Bernie over, because they had also already forced him to concede to Hillary Clinton in the run-up for the 2016 elections.

The DNC will never allow a truly progressive candidate to run for office. A semi-African American, yes. A woman, yes. Hell, if push comes to shove, they'll even support an LGBTQ+ candidate ─ which is a subject the Democrats have somehow always had a strange fixation with. But they will never ─ repeat: never ─ consent to supporting someone who would overturn the very fabric of the American corporate-globalist empire and its beloved military-industrial complex.

They don't want Aragorn, they are compelled to run that kind of candidate to stand a ghost of a chance of survival. As you've pointed out, Americans are crypto-cultural retards. Americans, en toto, will not tolerate anyone that isn't one of them.

But Marianne Williamson is one of them. She's a born and bred US American citizen, and she's a member of the Democratic Party. The same goes for Bernie Sanders.

No, it's the elite-run corporate-imperialist structure with its military-industrial right arm that they wanted to return to. As Abby Martin has once famously said, "The Republicans and the Democrats run on different agenda points and have different methodologies, but whoever wins the elections doesn't matter, because the policy never changes." Or something to that effect ─ I'm not sure anymore whether she said it in one of the Empire Files videos or when she still had her "Breaking The Set" show on RT.

Chuckie
28th January 2022, 12:28
But Marianne Williamson is one of them. She's a born and bred US American citizen, and she's a member of the Democratic Party. The same goes for Bernie Sanders.

No, it's the elite-run corporate-imperialist structure with its military-industrial right arm that they wanted to return to. As Abby Martin has once famously said, "The Republicans and the Democrats run on different agenda points and have different methodologies, but whoever wins the elections doesn't matter, because the policy never changes." Or something to that effect ─ I'm not sure anymore whether she said it in one of the Empire Files videos or when she still had her "Breaking The Set" show on RT.

I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint Aragorn, but I need to impress upon you that Marianne Williamson is decidedly 'not' representative of most anything mainstream American. She is an intelligent, thoughtful, spiritually enlightened human being. Does that sound like an American to you? Bernie is much closer and if you think about it, it could explain why he is a much stronger force in Democratic leftist politics, but even at that he is an outlier and it is why he has failed. In retrospect, I have to agree that Dems missed a golden opportunity to pit Bernie against Trump. History could have been much different and we could be on the verge of socialism instead of Nazism. But even that is representative of a wider arc of inertia. Hillary had history, connections, decades of supporters that lived to counter the right's demonization of her. All the dominos were in place for the big fall and it happened.

Dreamtimer
28th January 2022, 13:03
Both parties are dysfunctional, imo. It can be broken down pretty easily. What Americans refer to as liberals, control the East and West coasts and a smattering of fly over counties, depending on their demographic make up.

The white and black professional class, who are employees rather than self employed, vote Democrat.

The self employed, trades people, Mom and Pop shop vote more republican. They are on the front lines when it comes to dealing with local state and federal bureaucrats. The laws that they have to obey are one size fits all, frequently and it is beyond frustrating.

So, the way I look at it (and tried without much success on Avalon,) is this-- its not so much that Trump supporters are wrong in being furious about a number of issues, it was simply that Trump is not the guy who is going to fix it for them. He's a typical manipulative populist, with tremendous support from big money interest. And they are salivating, itching for complete control. And I have no doubt, that barring divine intervention, they will get it.

If the Dems were truly liberal, in spirit, they would have cut military budgets in half by now, institutedmedicare for all. No liberal politician would object to , on establishing an iron clad rule that bars congress from having brokerage accounts. That's state sanctioned insider trading.

Anyway, I have a migraine aura right now, BB so I am having trouble reading. Will read what you wrote more thoroughly later when I can see properly. Am writing e through a haze of sparkles that don't have the decency to become proper kaledscopic patters.

That's a really interesting summation, so to speak, of America. Reality doesn't break down so neatly that way but it's an interesting framework to look through.

You're right about Trump not being the man who will fix their problems. He doesn't give a shit about their problems. Only their vote, their donations (which continue automatically unless you say otherwise) and their anger at their fellow Americans.

All authoritarians know that if you keep folks angry and fighting each other you get to grasp and keep power. Trump knew which team would let him get away with it.

I hearkens back to what my brother told me in the Gingrich years. "The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans get away with it." When I asked what, he replied, "It doesn't matter. They don't get caught."

That's because they don't hold each other responsible. The numero uno Republexcuse (a term I coined decades ago) is liberal, progressive, or Democrat. The only question is which word gets the most punch.

Trump knew exactly what he was doing. And he projected his plans to steal the next election for four years straight.

One team thinks it's A-OK. The other doesn't. That's one very important difference.

Jordan Peterson has taken sides with reality. And combined with his curmudgeon attitude, he's not thinking straight either, imo.

Wind
28th January 2022, 19:50
If the Democrats want to challenge Trump again then they will have to have a better candidate than Biden.

Octopus Garden
28th January 2022, 20:14
Don't have too much to add, other than, lest we forget, the federal state and local prison system saw its grandest expansion under Clinton, with the three strikes law.

He also deregulated the financial industry, setting the stage for the economic collapse of 2008. And let's not forget his dismantling of the rules concerning concentration of ownership within media. The DEMOCRATS created this weird duopoly in the media, that you can't go anywhere but social media to escape from. And now social media is beyond mirroring that dynamic. But it really took off under Clinton.

Among other things, the bill brought deregulation to the cable industry and lifted the national cap on radio station ownership. It also eased the rules that apply to broadcasters.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/268459-bill-clintons-telecom-law-twenty-years-lat

Prison Industrial Complex and Clintons

Some in the Black Lives Matter movement have blamed that provision for mass incarceration

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/bill-clinton-and-the-1994-crime-bill/

Deregulation of financial industry

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/

I watch what pols do, not what they say, or the image they present.

Octopus Garden
28th January 2022, 20:42
Back to Jordan Peterson's climate claims:

The source for author Jordan Peterson’s recent claim that climate change cannot be modelled was a climate science denier who received money from a libertarian think tank funded by oil companies.

https://www.desmog.com/2022/01/28/jordan-petersons-climate-expert-is-science-denier-funded-by-oil-backed-think-tank/

Chuckie
28th January 2022, 20:50
Don't have too much to add, other than, lest we forget, the federal state and local prison system saw its grandest expansion under Clinton, with the three strikes law.

He also deregulated the financial industry, setting the stage for the economic collapse of 2008. And let's not forget his dismantling of the rules concerning concentration of ownership within media. The DEMOCRATS created this weird duopoly in the media, that you can't go anywhere but social media to escape from. And now social media is beyond mirroring that dynamic. But it really took off under Clinton.

Among other things, the bill brought deregulation to the cable industry and lifted the national cap on radio station ownership. It also eased the rules that apply to broadcasters.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/268459-bill-clintons-telecom-law-twenty-years-lat

Prison Industrial Complex and Clintons

Some in the Black Lives Matter movement have blamed that provision for mass incarceration

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/bill-clinton-and-the-1994-crime-bill/

Deregulation of financial industry

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/

I watch what pols do, not what they say, or the image they present.

Well, we have the Hegelian Dialectic at work in my opinion. I can't verify that what you stated is completely accurate, But ... I think those moves were meant to be compromises and those that would took unbridled advantage to gouge those in need ... very nice work. The same thing happened with international trade agreements. They start with good intentions and to devolve to the usual hell on Earth. He was sorry about many of the things he compromised on when the reality came clear that he had been had in a major way. During his tenure, crime was first and foremost in most people's minds but, of course, the right was rabid about the prior propensity to let those damn n*ggers, sp*cs, m*cks, w*ps trash their precious and pristine lives. Another philosophical compromise that came to haunt him and Hillary. It's the same old story, Hegel was a mastermind of social manipulation... awareness, not to imply that he himself was the bottom of reptilian style humanity.

Aragorn
29th January 2022, 04:08
Hegel was a mastermind of social manipulation... awareness, not to imply that he himself was the bottom of reptilian style humanity.

Actually, that's not quite true. You're getting Georg Hegel mixed up with Nicolo Machiavelli.

The meaning of the Hegelian dialectic as "Problem → Reaction → Solution" was popularized by David Icke and others, but Hegel never meant for it to ever mean anything other than that out of thesis and antithesis comes synthesis, which ─ I believe ─ actually traces back its origins to Friedrich Nietzsche.

Chuckie
29th January 2022, 11:16
Actually, that's not quite true. You're getting Georg Hegel mixed up with Nicolo Machiavelli.

The meaning of the Hegelian dialectic as "Problem → Reaction → Solution" was popularized by David Icke and others, but Hegel never meant for it to ever mean anything other than that out of thesis and antithesis comes synthesis, which ─ I believe ─ actually traces back its origins to Friedrich Nietzsche.

yeah, that's probably a more accurate description, but I meant that I believed that Hegel had a good understanding of the process but it wasn't to imply that he himself was a practitioner, he just knew it when he saw it.

Dreamtimer
29th January 2022, 12:31
The Rational National (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_ADtoO-f0Q) did a piece about Jordan's latest gig with Rogan. He says that interview is a "perfect example" of why he doesn't listen to Joe's podcast anymore. Four hours of nothing. Two guys going on and on about something they don't know.

(Personally I stopped listening in 2020 once Joe started getting stupid about Covid).

Sam Seder finished a segment (https://youtu.be/MPWNVux6zAk?t=337) on his show yesterday with a hilarious impression of Jordan talking about climate.

Jordan is now in the 'preaching to the choir' phase of his adventures. He does not appear to be trying to do sincere analysis. Just more 'entertainment'. As he himself admitted when he told Joe he's making a living off of 'Owning the Libs'.

Chuckie
29th January 2022, 12:52
The Rational National (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_ADtoO-f0Q) did a piece about Jordan's latest gig with Rogan. He says that interview is a "perfect example" of why he doesn't listen to Joe's podcast anymore. Four hours of nothing. Two guys going on and on about something they don't know.

(Personally I stopped listening in 2020 once Joe started getting stupid about Covid).

Sam Seder finished a segment (https://youtu.be/MPWNVux6zAk?t=337) on his show yesterday with a hilarious impression of Jordan talking about climate.

Jordan is now in the 'preaching to the choir' phase of his adventures. He does not appear to be trying to do sincere analysis. Just more 'entertainment'. As he himself admitted when he told Joe he's making a living off of 'Owning the Libs'.

As Deputy Marshall McCloud once and many times said, "There ya' go"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zI6btbvREk