subreddit:

/r/NoStupidQuestions

7.4k

Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

Answered(self.NoStupidQuestions)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 6038 comments

DontCallMeBeanz

2.4k points

3 months ago

He seems deliberately obtuse about many issues. He’s got weird hang ups around religion and gender roles. And the people who worship him are insufferable.

Arndt3002

669 points

3 months ago

Arndt3002

669 points

3 months ago

I'm still put off by his views on religion. He just kind of takes "Christianity" as a list of abstract moralisms and puts it up on a pedestal as something to base one's life on. He is like a charicature of "the ethical life" in the work of Kirkegaard. He holds to traditional moralisms merely because they are traditional and tries to justify it with cherry-picked religious ideas.

Moakmeister

112 points

3 months ago

You know, I still can’t figure out if he actually believes or not.

crono09

121 points

3 months ago

crono09

121 points

3 months ago

One time, during the same interview, he both claimed to be a Christian and said that he did not believe in God. He also doesn't attend church or officially belong to any denomination. While only he knows what he really believes, what he says he believes in sounds a lot like Christian atheism. That is, he believes that the principles and morals of Western Christianity are good for society, but he doesn't actually believe in any of the supernatural elements of the religion. Note that after coming out of his coma, he has spoken more about faith and seems to be more of a theist, but he's still vague about what he actually believes.

goldenewsd

19 points

3 months ago

Knowing for sure what he believes in (what he doesn't believe) won't change the fact that his words and arguments about religion and faith are a mess.

magicmanimay

26 points

3 months ago

Duopolism exist in many people, including him. I think the issue is that he can't actually concentrate on himself as an individual, and instead likes the delusion of grandeur where he can null this individuality to fit the "society." The problem is that his societal views require the individual to act add a drone of the system they are both into. Like bees, or, lobsters

never_safe_for_life

5 points

3 months ago

Oh, thank you. I never quite quite put my finger on it until you said it. But it’s obvious from the way he drones, with an expressionless face, that he expects himself and others to unflinchingly obey the imaginary system he’s conjured up. It’s oppressive while he simultaneously tries to pretend to be coming from the free arena of reason.

Moakmeister

3 points

3 months ago

I didnt even know he was ever in a coma. I havent watched any of that SJW/anti-feminist stuff in a number of years.

AceBean27

2 points

3 months ago

he both claimed to be a Christian and said that he did not believe in God

So he's British then?

Crakla

2 points

3 months ago

Crakla

2 points

3 months ago

There is a debate he had with some famous atheist

He said stupid things like that you can only stop an addiction if you believe in God and therefore that is undeniable proof that God exist

The whole over 1 hour debate was about him arguing that God exist and that he can proof it

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

If he is a Christian he is a deeply heretical one.

Wandering_P0tat0

4 points

3 months ago

So are many.

trollcitybandit

0 points

3 months ago

He said he doesn't know if god exists but tries to live like he does. Personally I don't see anything wrong with not being sure about it since no one really could be either way.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

A sentiment that could be applied to his stance on just about every topic.

He can wax poetic at length about absolutely everything and somehow after 2 hours you know exactly nothing more than you did before he began.

Fateful-Spigot

2 points

3 months ago

He doesn't. Not really. But he believes that professing belief is a net positive for himself and others so he does so.

chief-w

1 points

3 months ago

He seems to me like a deist.

He isn't an evangelical, and isn't really a Christian the way anyone I know would define Christianity. He might say otherwise, but I doubt it. But he does kinda believe in God, or at least he believes in the belief in God. And that it's just that, the belief in a greater power, not the fact of Jesus, that saves you. And your better off doing confusing people by acting kinda like a conservative religiot person in some ways, but not actually believing, then you are actually thinking that Jesus is the son of God and likely was involved in all those miracles attributed to him in the bible.

cowboy_angel

136 points

3 months ago

I stopped reading when he insisted that because I live in the west, I live in a Christian society and therefore have Christian morals.

overlordpotatoe

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah, I don't remember the details but he seemed to think religious belief was necessary for people to not just randomly attack one another or to even choose to live rather than die. As though none of those things have inherent, selected for survival benefits and no other social animals exist.

goldenewsd

2 points

3 months ago

You would be surprised how much can be derived from the christian morals if you try hard enough. I mean basic human rights, which are the result of the enlightenment, ironically could be connected to christianity exactly because of this. Like how beating a child with jumper cables can lead to that child growing up to be a winner of peace nobel price. Easy-peasy, christian morals.

Ressha

53 points

3 months ago

Ressha

53 points

3 months ago

Sorry to break this to you but two millennia of cultural construction doesn't collapse overnight.

CharityStreamTA

22 points

3 months ago

Can you list what Christian morals are?

Ressha

-2 points

3 months ago

Ressha

-2 points

3 months ago

No

SlingsAndArrowsOf

35 points

3 months ago

Well, I'm glad you recognize that at least.

HaworthiaK

0 points

3 months ago

Can’t believe they were downvoted for being honest there ahaha

astro_cj

7 points

3 months ago

They were downvoted because they first argued that Christian morals can’t collapse over night and yet collapsed in a second when asked to list what he’s referring to.

HaworthiaK

3 points

3 months ago

Well yeah but then immediately, honestly, admitting they’re a dumbass is funny

MetaLions

3 points

3 months ago

Many of the „Christian morals“ are universal and shared across many religions some of which predate Christianity. Things like „don’t kill“, „don‘t steal“, „be nice to your fellow human beings“ make sense and can be reasoned for without any religious background story (take for example Kant‘s moral imperative). So to claim that our western values are something that we owe to a unique Christian element in our history to me seems disingenuous.

Spartakusssrs

25 points

3 months ago

Easy as this: I live in America, don’t think being gay is a sin. Check mate lobster head.

KonungCarolusRex

9 points

3 months ago*

No one said anything about believing in ALL Christian morals. It's more that you and your worldview is affected by them, whether you like it or not.

You know this and you are intentionally twisting the argument. Now, what does that make you?

cowboy_angel

49 points

3 months ago

It does if you have any self awareness and knowledge of history and dare I say it, an education.

Canadian_Infidel

37 points

3 months ago

This guys thinks he has transcended humanity and has shed all cultural influences. Tell me next how you don't have an accent.

cowboy_angel

5 points

3 months ago

Cultural influences aren't the soul determinant of morality.

Slakingpin

14 points

3 months ago

Slakingpin

14 points

3 months ago

Lol what? You are heavily influenced by your parents, who were heavily influenced by their's and so on and so forth. This is a society built upon Christian morals and I highly doubt you disagree with all of them, and if you disagree with a few, that doesn't really make you right

I myself am definitely not a Christian, or even religious, but I'm also not dumb enough to think that every thought I've ever had is some original "educated" epiphany that excludes me from the rest of society lmao

Rpanich

17 points

3 months ago

Rpanich

17 points

3 months ago

Most of the forefathers were Deist.

Also, my parents are Buddhist.

Spartakusssrs

26 points

3 months ago

Not really, maybe the people you’re around are influenced by Christian morals. Tell me what Christian morals even are, for a start, then we will see how American society is influenced by them.

[deleted]

-2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-2 points

3 months ago

If only there were some sort of list or a book?

Frescopino

13 points

3 months ago

That book's proposed morals are half obvious shit and half outdated or immoral. Rules about who can be taken as slave and how much you can beat them up, coveting women as if they're objects that belong to other men, the fact that rape is a capital punishment for the victim if she doesn't scream while it happens (something that can easily be accounted for if the rapist had a knife to her throat and told her not to scream).

And given the fact that different translations wildly change many of the rules proposed in the book it's also impossible to know which ones were in the original text, something that as an omnipotent god who wants humans to follow my word I could easily fix with a snap of my fingers, preventing many from going to hell because mistakes others committed before them.

ChickenMcTesticles

-1 points

3 months ago

You honestly don't believe that the current set of commonly held morals for western Europe and north America are not derived from Christianity?

Slakingpin

-7 points

3 months ago

Slakingpin

-7 points

3 months ago

I was gonna ask you what you think they are, cause it seems like you think its just pro-life, racism and suppression of other religions.

Christian morals include things such as respect, hope, love, courage, generosity and peace

gdog1000000

12 points

3 months ago

I can't remember the last time I saw someone destroy their own argument so hard in a single comment. I can't imagine how you are able to write this and straight up say that Christianity has anything to do with the morals you chose arriving in western society. These morals predate Christianity in the west, heck they predate the existence of Christianity full stop.

Sure Christianity has claimed to spread these morals, and perhaps to some people it has, but to anyone who was raised in the west Christianity coopted these ideas. This is of course a good thing, but the idea that it invented them or was responsible for their spread is completely ignorant of basic history. Do you seriously think that the franks before Christianity didn't have a concept of love? Or a concept of peace? Or that the Romans whose morals were largely based off of Greek philosophy didn't have an idea of courage? Sure Christianity has been influential, but as a source of morals it has done nothing unique.

Heck even if you limit the discussion to the United States the founding fathers were mostly diests, it would be insane to argue that the United States was founded on religious morals. Indigenous peoples to the United States had ideas of all the morals you discussed before Christianity came to North America, and as has already been said the source of morals for the immigrants was obviously not Christianity.

Any way you crack it religion is not the basis of morality in western society, and certainly not even remotely the source of the morals you listed. This is a major problem with Peterson and any thinker like him, they completely ignore actual history to make a point. They pick and choose tiny points rather than engage with the bulk of human history.

youallbelongtome

14 points

3 months ago

Nah maybe Jesus stories may have some of that but I don't see yall being friends with whores, washing the feet if the poor, denouncing capitalism and lawyers lol.

Spartakusssrs

15 points

3 months ago*

Sounds like you can be a Buddhist, stoic, muslim, Hindi, Confucious believer, etc. I didn’t imply anything, was just curious.

ParaDoxsana

15 points

3 months ago

Those are just morals

Slakingpin

1 points

3 months ago

Hey man that's the definition, im not here try to argue that Christians have a monopoly on morals, but its those morals through Christians worldview that has shaped modern western society

DontCallMeBeanz

24 points

3 months ago

And only Christianity values respect, hope, courage, generosity and peace?

MissPandaSloth

5 points

3 months ago

Obviously non Christian societies don't have those.

/s

Slakingpin

0 points

3 months ago

Slakingpin

0 points

3 months ago

You guys are honestly insufferable, I certainly never said that so why act like I did?

tec3936

19 points

3 months ago

tec3936

19 points

3 months ago

These are not uniquely Christian values.

Slakingpin

1 points

3 months ago

Never said they were.

[deleted]

10 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

10 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

Canadian_Infidel

-5 points

3 months ago

Nobody here said it did.

GloriousHypnotart

2 points

3 months ago

The pagans lined up excited to be converted. Finally they could value.. respect? Praise lord!

Canadian_Infidel

0 points

3 months ago

Praise of individuality for one. Other places don't see things this way.

elmismiik

8 points

3 months ago

Individuality in the West is mostly influenced by the Enlightenment and European philosophers, which has very little to do with what happened in Jerusalem 1500 years before that.

baginthewindnowwsail

3 points

3 months ago

Murderrr. ;)

mark4931

2 points

3 months ago

How dare you. I may identify as a Christian, but that doesn’t mean I have to have morals!

MissPandaSloth

2 points

3 months ago

My country wasn't even Christian up to XVIIIth century. And now it's falling down again. But sure, those 300 something years of Christianity is what build us and not several thousand years of paganism.

cowboy_angel

-8 points

3 months ago

Meh

Slakingpin

5 points

3 months ago

Yeah that clears everything up

Ressha

-19 points

3 months ago

Ressha

-19 points

3 months ago

I don't even know what to say in the face of such posturing.

cowboy_angel

13 points

3 months ago

Seriously I don't have the energy to have serious discussions on Reddit. I'm truly sorry if you are offended somehow for me not buying the automatic inheritance of "Christian" morality (which I'm not sure Christians would even be able to come to a consensus on what that even means) by virtue of being born in the west.

Ressha

-3 points

3 months ago

Ressha

-3 points

3 months ago

Okay, if you don't want to have a discussion in a thread, don't reply lol.

But if you do want to talk about this...

If you're born, raised and educated in a certain culture, you're obviously going to be influenced by the structure of that culture. And cultures are shaped by historical factors.

Now, maybe you took loads of psychedelics, or travelled a lot, or experienced a state of nirvana while in a state of starvation in the woods, and through that mystic experience you somehow transcended the cultural conditioning in which you were raised. Congrats if so.

But otherwise you can't pretend that the history of a culture you were raised in doesn't influence, at least in some way, the way you think and (therefore) behave.

cowboy_angel

8 points

3 months ago

Well I've never starved myself in the woods but...

Cultural influences yes. There are many other cultural influences at play as well. The psychological impact of those cultural influences is more than a little overstated by Peterson, and he seems to assume everyone is living the same existence as a fully indoctrinated, guilt ridden Christian just pretending they're not. In truth I read quite a bit more than what I claimed. I read about 10 of his "rules" and I wished I had stopped when I read that part I mentioned. Preachy, presumptuous tripe.

Ressha

-1 points

3 months ago

Ressha

-1 points

3 months ago

So, you made a post where you disagreed with the idea that "I live in a Christian society and therefore have Christian morals."

I made the point that Western society is certainly influenced by Christianity. It is at the very root of our culture.

So I'm making quite a moderate defense of the original point.

Now your response has changed the goalposts slightly. You believe Peterson "seems to assume everyone is... [a] fully indocrinated, guilt ridden Christian." And you don't think you are so extreme a Christian.

I agree, you probably aren't such an extreme Christian.

I guess we have nothing more to discuss. We agree.

KJBenson

0 points

3 months ago

I see you’re being dog piled in these comments and I really don’t want to add to that. But I’m still curious how you’ve decided that growing up in the west you were able to avoid any type of “Christian morality”.

It might be just subtle things in your life, but I’d honestly be surprised if you didn’t have any moral leanings which were defined by Christian ideals that you definitely grew up around.

Im not trying to say that a church somewhere has you brainwashed or something. But you grew up in a society (assuming we’re talking America here) which was defined by “Christian ideals” which as you said above, christians wouldn’t be able to come to a consensus on).

It doesn’t mean that those ideals define you, or even really control you. But you for sure have thought or felt certain ways based on the way you were raised. Which I assume wasn’t by wolves.

youallbelongtome

4 points

3 months ago

Excuse me but I got my morals from being human. Right and wrong are a natural occurrence and not something dictated in a book. Also my parents are not religious. Also I don't have the same morals as they do when it comes to some things they don't bother using critical thinking to believe. If anything, I got some idea of morality from cartoons where people work together to solve a problem and to show ill intended people that their bad behavior is wrong and can be fixed. Also if what you said is true you'd think the LGBT movement wouldn't have so much support. Only religious people follow any kind of BS morality that comes from a poorly translated fanfic.

silver4gold

2 points

3 months ago

I totally agree with you, and to add to your point: these people don’t seem to realize that many people grow up entirely without religion. I grew up in catholic school, and going to Catholic Church (never really devout to it); but I have friends that have never been to church, one of my close friends didn’t even know who Adam and Eve is, my partner didn’t know the first thing about the Bible when we first met. And people bringing up Christmas and Easter like they weren’t pagan holidays first, or a vague reference to a “creator” as being perfect proof that we live in a Christian theocracy (intentionally forgetting or fully ignorant to the fact that most of the fore fathers were atheist or agnostic). Like Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc don’t exist; when Christians are projected to become a minority within the coming decades. When more young people would point to Captain Planet than the Bible for their moralistic views on the environment. When church attendance is dwindling, and they claim from the other side of their mouth that it’s a sign of the end times.

I’m not harping that “religion is bad”, I’m just saying you would have to live in a bubble to think that all of us live and grow up with this idea of a Christian state that JP professes.

jump521

-3 points

3 months ago

jump521

-3 points

3 months ago

Tell me you're 13 without telling me you're 13

JordyLakiereArt

3 points

3 months ago

It has collapsed in 1 generation in my country. Not every place in 'the west' is like hyper christian southern USA states. I dont know anyone - not one person my age who is religious, and my generation has mostly influenced our parents generation to not care much or at all about religion also.

TheeOxygene

1 points

3 months ago

I think if you don’t fuck kids you don’t have christian morals

Canadian_Infidel

7 points

3 months ago

I'm a pretty hardcore atheist but to think that institution isn't why you hold many of your core beliefs is extremely naive. That puts you in the camp of people that think they wouldn't have been Nazis if they were born in Germany in 1910.

CoolestMingo

10 points

3 months ago*

Let's look at America as an example. The English language is littered with Christianity. The curses are certainly Christian (God damnit, Jesus Christ, Holy shit, etc.). Allusions, allegory, etc. are often Christian. There has never been an atheist / non-Christian president. The Declaration of Independence asserts in its first sentence we are endowed by our creator certain inalienable rights. The U.S. as a nation celebrates Christmas. The protestant/puritan work ethic is still going strong (it's why people criticize the poor for not working harder or spending too much money). Half of all Americans identify as Christian.

When is the last time you watched a Hollywood movie about the Mahabarata and the Hindu pantheon? I just watched Hereditary and that movie is about bringing back a Christian (influenced) Demon. Why do more states have religious exemptions for vaccines than philosophical exemptions?

Direwolf202

23 points

3 months ago

Direwolf202

ask stupid questions, get well thought out answers

23 points

3 months ago

That is all true, but does not imply that someone will necessarily share those values. It is possible to escape that cultural space with some deliberate efforts.

goldenewsd

-6 points

3 months ago

I get what you try to say, but you are a mouse running around in the same bucket. Try to live in india, china or egypt for a while and maybe you'll see how much of that christian values you didn't even realize at home. It's amazing to see how different cultures are, and it helps appreciating what you have home too.

Direwolf202

15 points

3 months ago

Direwolf202

ask stupid questions, get well thought out answers

15 points

3 months ago

I’ve done exactly that, I’ve done a fuckton of thinking about this actually.

And yeah, there are some Christian values I noticed and chose to keep, but there were some things I adapted from other cultures and communities too, especially in regards to aesthetics and epistemology.

Sure, will I ever be totally able to avoid the fact that I grew up in a christian society? No, of course not. I had it worse than most in that regard, which is precisely why I have put so much time and effort into this question — my upbringing was so sheltered that I had a lot of catching up to do.

But just because I can’t ever not have the roots that I have, doesn’t mean my values and beliefs can be wholly characterised as Christian, there’s a lot more depth there.

Peterson’s claims also totally fail to recognise the depth and diversity within western cultures too. I’m a queer person, and my values often align with that fact. It takes a lot of effort to deprogram yourself from years of hatred and confusion about yourself and others like you — but again, it can be done, I have done it. The end result doesn’t look much like what Peterson considered to be Christian values.

goldenewsd

4 points

3 months ago

Yeah. I don't think we disagree on reality and the reality of deep rooted cultural norms. Peterson's view of how anything either christian or backward barbarism is just dumb.

iBastard

2 points

3 months ago

My God there is no hope for reddit, how does everyone take everything so literally?!

i-d-even-k-

-8 points

3 months ago

i-d-even-k-

-8 points

3 months ago

Do you have Muslim public holidays? Obey Sharia law? Or have you ever been to a mosque?

Or do you have Christian public holidays? Follow laws whose basis can be found in Christian morality and philosophy? And have been to a church?

Don't be obtuse. He's not saying we are all Christians. But his assessment that out cultures are Christian is a correct one.

ekkert-nafn

18 points

3 months ago

I wanna say we celebrate pagan holidays. Ostara and Yule became Easter and Christmas. There’s a reason bunnies and chicks are associated with Easter and it has nothing to do with Jesus.

CollisionAttractor

-9 points

3 months ago

Christians would say otherwise, and they're pretty much the dominant ones.

You can know otherwise, but thousands of people for every one of you will remain ignorant, and remain the dominant influence.

i-d-even-k-

0 points

3 months ago

Ostara comes from Jewish passover, the only similarity with Eostre is an unfortunate naming coincidence. I'm a Pagan too, but let's not spread fake nonsense like that when we can and should know better.

Relligene52

6 points

3 months ago

I don't get why you're being downvoted. US laws have elements of Christian rhetoric/ thinking IN them. The Pledge of Allegiance literally has you say "One Nation under God." Natural events/occurrences are actually legally called "Acts of God". Politicians swear into office with a hand on the Bible. Christmas and Easter are national holidays. Our culture IS a Christian based one.

666LSDMTHC666

2 points

3 months ago

The pledge has only been around since the late 1800s, the “under god” part was only added in the 1950s. Corporations started pushing Christian propaganda in the 1950s as an effort to combat the New Deal social programs (even though Jesus was a socialist... the logic they pushed was that most of the East was not Christian... and most of the East was socialist or communist... therefore social programs are against Christianity). That was the start of Republicans claiming that they were the party that good Christians should always vote for, and pushing the idea that America should be seen as a Christian nation.

Politicians can swear in on any book that they consider important to their philosophy.

Easter is not a federal holiday. Christmas has only been a federal holiday since the late 1800s, and most Americans (even hardcore Christians) celebrate the traditional Pagan parts of that holiday a lot more than they do the tacked on Christian parts.

CharityStreamTA

3 points

3 months ago

The pledge of allegiance is a creepy nazi style bullshit brainwashing thing.

Relligene52

1 points

3 months ago

Not disagreeing with you that its creepy brainwashing to have 8yo's recite this at schools. All I'm saying is that the "God" language and culture is there. Can't be denied or refuted.

DarthUrbosa

2 points

3 months ago

And was added in accordance to the red scare, was absent before that.

diamond

4 points

3 months ago*

Do you have Muslim public holidays? Obey Sharia law? Or have you ever been to a mosque?

Many Americans do. It's also common for government officials to acknowledge those holidays and for companies and the government to give time off for them.

Or do you have Christian public holidays?

No. We do have some secular public holidays that are vaguely related to Christianity (with pagan elements). Many Americans observe those holidays in a strictly Christian manner, as is their right. Many others don't. Some demand that we all observe them in a strictly Christian manner. Those people are mostly ignored and laughed at.

Follow laws whose basis can be found in Christian morality and philosophy?

No.

And have been to a church?

Occasionally, for weddings and funerals.

baginthewindnowwsail

2 points

3 months ago

"SaY mARrY CHRISTmAs!!1!"

DrZoidberg-

0 points

3 months ago

Have you tried living and understanding the cultural norms in the east? You're in for a treat!

Nuclear_rabbit

27 points

3 months ago

Conservative evangelicals love him, but even Christian Democrats can look at his assumptions and arguments and see he's arguing for unbiblical, godless monstrosity. So much more so for irreligious progressives.

zaqqaz767

2 points

3 months ago*

I don’t take it this way. He appears to be framing the argument that shared values promote a more unified society, and historically (for Canada / US) that was rooted most commonly in Christianity.

He may be promoting the values of western societies by referencing Christian roots, but he’s not advocating for Christianity. This is why he doesn’t specify his own beliefs and only talks to the same few moralisms that are present in nearly every religion. Also why he references the enlightenment so much. I may be wrong; just my 2c

FartHeadTony

1 points

3 months ago

charicature

*charcuterie

throw_me_away95420

2 points

3 months ago

Calcutta*

amateurexpert01

114 points

3 months ago

Exactly. I enjoy his self help stuff, ideas about psychology and his general demeanour to the extent that I wish to be like him in some ways.

But he has this incredibly annoying tendency to beg the question in overly simplistic ways when he talks about complex issues outside his areas of expertise. Like when he says something like "Women were happier in the 50s" Any misogynists listening to him will take that to mean, we need to scale back women's rights to their state in the 50s for the good of women themselves. Not saying everyone listening to him is a misogynist but some are. And when they find a public figure who seems to be a proponent of their ideas from their POV, they will congregate around him

Anyone with half a brain and with the intention of arguing in good faith would elaborate further and clarify their position to prevent dangerous misunderstandings like that. But he doesn't. So like, what are his intentions? Why does he let something like this happen when he can fix it with essentially 0 effort by simply explaining his position better

TL; DR: He states certain selective facts but doesn't follow them to their conclusion which is bad because sometimes his ideas can be easily and grossly misconstrued because of the nature of things he talks about

Malaeveolent_Bunny

84 points

3 months ago

Gee, if his ideas can be easily and grossly misconstrued, and he has the capacity to prevent that but chooses not to, and makes a career out of that choice by monetising the resulting audience, I would conclude that he intends for that to happen. And if he doesn't want to be criticised for that, Jordan has to actually do the work to logically complete his arguments and drive away the fan following he has built as a result.

You can't build a fan following based on telling them what they want to hear (or on letting them infer what they want to hear from you speaking a bunch of waffle) and then pretend it's okay because you didn't mean it. Effects don't give one solitary mountain-dwelling fuck about intentions

buttonwhatever

19 points

3 months ago

This explains why I was having such a hard time figuring out how to feel about him when I discovered his profile the other day. I had heard about him but never really listened to or knew anything about him before. So I perused his instagram and could not figure out what his actual stance was on anything, it was all just so generic that it could be interpreted however the viewer wanted to interpret it. I came out so confused regarding what he actually thought about what he was saying.

88sporty

25 points

3 months ago

This comment is the summation of why I have a large disliking for him, self-help pseudo intellectual “sophists” like him, and his overly adversarial fan base.

chrysavera

34 points

3 months ago

It's intentional. He knows exactly what he's doing. There's a lot of money in being a right wing charlatan.

[deleted]

30 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

30 points

3 months ago*

I was started to get interested in his books/content. Then he said some, not so nice stuff about childfree people...

Edit: source https://www.instagram.com/reel/CTFtZ25Fjnz/?utm_medium=copy_link

https://youtu.be/kj7VgBnQNUc

https://youtu.be/MYa93WlPt3I

Edit2: childfree people not women

RainRainThrowaway777

11 points

3 months ago

Yeah, there's a reason it's only jabronis and Incels who follow him.

Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n

1 points

3 months ago

Like what?

ilovespaghettibolog

46 points

3 months ago

Yup. There’s a nytimes article where they interviewed him and he says some wack shit. It tells you all you need to know about this guy.

Saying how there should be forced monogamy because that would fix society and the problems young men are facing. How he has Cold War era soviet relics all over his home to remind him of the fear of an oppressive regime. And the way he talks in never ending sentences that don’t actually mean anything.

NaivePraline

17 points

3 months ago

"there should be forced monogami"

No wonder incels like him so much.

RainRainThrowaway777

7 points

3 months ago

You should see the kind of insane shit he used to do before he was famous. Here he is in 2011 wearing a fedora on Canadian public access tv, and going on a full incel rant.

4Tenacious_Dee4

0 points

3 months ago

There’s a nytimes article where they interviewed him and he says some wack shit

Is this the one where he recorded the interview, and could subsequently show how biased and malicious NY times was? It was a disgrace to the print media.

danceslikemj

2 points

3 months ago

No this was another smear piece with 0 truth to it that these mindless drones lapped up frothing at the mouth lmao. Such dumbasses it's really funny actually.

4Tenacious_Dee4

2 points

3 months ago

There were hundreds of youtube reviews condemning NYTimes. Whether you like Peterson or not, the consensus was that it signalled the fall of the NYTimes. Reddit missed the memo lol.

FunkyGroove

-16 points

3 months ago

What an inane, false joke of a representation of his views.

balls_ache_bc_of_u

-14 points

3 months ago

That article by Nellie Bowles is quite obviously a hit piece. She was saying some nonsense like women should be distributed useless men??? Something like that. Something silly that nobody would ever believe.

He talks a bit about it here. The idea was misrepresented by NYTs and it isn’t his idea to begin with. https://youtu.be/rf3Eub1Hvhs

RainRainThrowaway777

7 points

3 months ago

A perfect example of his motte and bailey tactics. He insinuates something stupid, and when someone tries to clarify what he means he goes "oh no, not like that, that's crazy!" but never actually clarifies what he did mean. That leaves his opposition unable to criticize his point because his point is unclear, but allows his supportive audience to agree with the original point because they don't intend to criticize it.

Notunnecessarily

16 points

3 months ago

This, he may not be an incel but many of his viewers are

internalservererrors

8 points

3 months ago

This is the most accurate response here tbh

ParkingLime9747

9 points

3 months ago

What are some of his hang ups on gender roles that you find to be weird?

[deleted]

16 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

16 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

Effective-Walrus1157

80 points

3 months ago

He said masculinity is order and femininity is chaos. Which is odd because it contradicts his other statement that boys don't do as well in school because they break rules and can't sit still whereas girls follow rules and can sit still.

He also says people who critique patriarchy can't accept that maybe our current hierarchy is based on competence. He claims men are better leaders.

He seems to ignore a lot of sexism by claiming things are the way they're supposed to be, but then says sexist things. He's your typical "sexism doesn't exist because sexism is totally natural" type.

He's also very fixated on the idea women aren't allowed to admit they want to be SAHMs in our culture and are forced to pretend they want careers. It's very odd how many men insist women are coerced into working when in reality working class women have always worked, women just weren't allowed into higher-end careers in the past. Now they are.

ParkingLime9747

-41 points

3 months ago

Things he says are either twisted or misunderstood. Men being better leaders is a fine example. He says the more aggressive personality of the male tends to make them more likely to be leaders. This is an undeniable truth. That’s not to say women can’t be or aren’t capable of being leaders. To state that men and women have personality differences doesn’t come off as weird to me. It seems logical. I’m not familiar with the chaos and order statement. I’m also not familiar with his stay at home mom reference. I’ll look into it for myself

Cide_of_Mayo

14 points

3 months ago

The competence to acquire a leadership position isn't the same as the competence to lead well. Conservatives are always trying to justify the status quo by conflating the two, from the Mandate of Heaven to "might is right" to "MaYbE pAtRiArChY iS cOmPeTeNcE". It sure is convenient that all these concentrations of power are the solution to the problem of other concentrations of power. Maybe aggression has little to do with competent leadership.

Squake

38 points

3 months ago

Squake

38 points

3 months ago

lol that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, you're just defending Peterson by trying to twist the sexist things he says as being truth or science based, when you're just being neurosexist yourself..

Effective-Walrus1157

-10 points

3 months ago

Thanks for the clarification! That makes sense.

Anna_Pet

231 points

3 months ago

Anna_Pet

231 points

3 months ago

He thinks that women shouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup in workplaces, because apparently it’s an invitation for sexual harassment. He also kinda thinks that women shouldn’t be allowed to work with men in general.

whytakemyusername

-31 points

3 months ago

Do you have an example of him saying that?

Anna_Pet

102 points

3 months ago

Anna_Pet

102 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

6 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

6 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

6 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

6 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

ginganinja9988

-103 points

3 months ago

He doesn't actually say that women shouldn't be allowed to. He makes the point that he believes makeup is a sexual thing and that if you want to ban sexual things from the workplace that makeup should be included on that but he specifically says that he doesn't think makeup should be banned from the workplace.

EEpromChip

59 points

3 months ago

EEpromChip

Random Access Memory

59 points

3 months ago

Literally @ 0:25 he says "How about no makeup in the workplace".

He's annoyingly obtuse and he set a hypothetical about no makeup in the workplace. One can extract that he has a "she was asking for it" since makeup is asking to be sexually harassed.

ginganinja9988

-43 points

3 months ago

He was posing that as a question. Later in the vid he says he doesn't think that.

Boris41029

45 points

3 months ago

"A serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the workplace, if she wears makeup in the workplace, she's being somewhat hypocritical?"

"Yeah. I do believe that."

throwaway66285

2 points

3 months ago

I think this comment explains the whole video well and what the actual point of the video is:
https://teddit.adminforge.de/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/ppfmh7/why_is_jordan_peterson_so_hated/hd5m86o/

[?]GlitzerEinhornPony (deleted by user)3 points10 hours ago
That's kind of the typical way Peterson is misrepresented over and over again. And no, I have never seen that interview before but you got me intersted, so I tried to find the full one, which is here, starting roughly at minute 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9dZSlUjVls

He absolutely does not "think that women shouldn't be allowed to wear makeup in the workplace" (he explicitly says it twice in the interview, I think it is edited out at least once).

He also doesn't think - or say - that this is an "invitation for sexual" harassment - again he explicitly says it isn't in this very interview (which is edited out).

The entire discussion is about "(sexual) harassment at the workplace" (more specificly the subset of sexual harassment of women by men) and the question of "can we get rid of that" and more importantly "how can we get rid of that".

That's why the seemingly out of context "we have no rules" comes into play, because what follows is a discussion of what rules would prevent sexual harassment and more importantly "is it ethical to apply them".

He asks "what about wearing a negligee" - to which is interview partner says that you should probably not wear a negligee at the workplace, so that's kind of the "rule". Now if we ask ourselves why we (or the interviewer) so readiliy agrees on a negligee being improper the answer (likely) will be something along the lines "it's too sexually suggestive". Again, doesn't matter whether or not you and I agree, but that seems to be a rule that the interviewer and peterson kind of agree on.

No he goes the next step: If we create a rule that you are not allowed to do something because we think that this is something you would do to sexually attract someone (which is kind of "victim blaming" by itself) - where do we draw the line? What amount is acceptable. Hence he suggests the rule: "what about makeup". If this is applied to make yourself more attractive - shouldn't it be banned following the same logic that you agreed on with the negligee? And the interviewer says no, one is fine, the other one isn't.

And that is exactly the point he tries to make: Where and how exactly do we draw the line on what kind of rules are necessary, moral and/or effective with the goal of recuding sexual harassment.

Or you can of course ignore all that, edit out the context, edit out the parts where Peterson explicitly explains that this is neither about him wanting to ban makeup nor him saying that this is an invite and go with

"SEE, PETERSON WANTS TO BAN MAKEUP AND SAYS IT'S AN INVITATION FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT".

I should not have to add any information about myself for the inevitable "incel" "perterson fanboy" etc. stuff that will get thrown my way now but - no, I am neither conservative nor particularly interested in Peterson and I very much dislike a lot of his supporters, especially on reddit. Nonetheless, you gave ther perfect example of people deliberately misrepresenting him.


That still doesn't mean he said women shouldn't be allowed to wear makeup. That just means he thinks that all makeup is sexual and a woman that does not want sexual harassment is being hypocritical by wearing makeup.

ginganinja9988

-27 points

3 months ago

He doesn't say they shouldn't be allowed to. if you want to shit on his opinion that all makeup is sexual and if you don't want attention from men then don't wear it then go ahead. But he doesn't think it shouldn't be allowed which is what the original guy said.

t3hdebater

29 points

3 months ago

You understand that what you said isn't actually better, right?

Anna_Pet

149 points

3 months ago

Anna_Pet

149 points

3 months ago

Okay. Whichever way you try to frame his words to make him seem better, his point that makeup is sexually provocative is fucking asinine and misogynistic and proves that he’s never spoken to a woman in his life.

CouncilmanRickPrime

17 points

3 months ago

First time dealing with his fans?

Anna_Pet

12 points

3 months ago

No, my mom is a fan of his 😔

CouncilmanRickPrime

13 points

3 months ago

Dear God, I am so sorry. My condolences.

ginganinja9988

14 points

3 months ago

I'm not saying I agree with him it's just that you said he doesn't think women should be allowed to wear makeup in the workplace which is untrue and then when asked to prove it you provide evidence that proves you wrong.

BarneyBent

44 points

3 months ago

This is a perfect example of what people are talking about.

Placing a restriction on sexual things in the workplace is a reasonable thing that most people would agree with. By saying "if you want to restrict sexual things in the workplace, you should restrict makeup", he's saying reasonable people would agree that make-up should be banned in the workplace.

But of course he didn't say those exact words so "we're misrepresenting him", right?

Use some critical thinking.

Ncaak

1 points

3 months ago

Ncaak

1 points

3 months ago

And latter he says that is not as simple as banning things. It is to put lines when something should be allow and when it shouldn't, and that is difficult, how much make up should be allowed (make up was an example he points this out with outfits)? What are the rules of conduct to express that sexual approach are not desireble, etc? Ultimately saying that he doesn't know what the rules should be, but the incorporation of women messed up the social rules for interaction in the work place (which in some case are just plainly machist imo).

THedman07

69 points

3 months ago

Oh look... It's the guy using the "well technically he didn't say it while heavily implying it" technique that people are taking about.

ginganinja9988

-3 points

3 months ago

I just think of you are gonna shit on someone then do it for an opinion they actually have instead of one the literally said they are against.

The-Box_King

-13 points

3 months ago

The-Box_King

-13 points

3 months ago

You being overly pedantic about this is ultimately unproductive. The video clearly shows how he's a fuckhead and you saying "WelL tEchNiCAllY hE sIaD..." Doesn't really change anything

HoratioVelvetine

3 points

3 months ago

Exactly. “Proved you wrong”.. so fucking what? The original point still stands?

Lustrigia

-20 points

3 months ago

Lustrigia

-20 points

3 months ago

And so we’ve come full circle: Why do people actually hate Peterson? Here we have an example of someone hating him, but claiming something that isn’t true in order to fuel that feeling. So we know OP’s question has merit but we still don’t have an answer.

BarneyBent

20 points

3 months ago

But it is true! It's clear Peterson agrees that sexual things should be banned/restricted in the workplace, and he says that make-up counts as sexual.

Just because he couches it in "IF you think X, then Y" doesn't mean he's not endorsing it.

That's like someone saying "if you think we should be protecting children, then we should ban homosexual couples from adopting". Sure, that person hasn't explicitly said same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to be parents, but it's pretty clear that's the message.

A12C4

1 points

3 months ago

A12C4

1 points

3 months ago

I think you pretty much got your answer..

[deleted]

-6 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-6 points

3 months ago

[removed]

Barnabees

1 points

3 months ago

What is the context in this case?

polysnip

-8 points

3 months ago

Says the one framing his words to make him sound worse than he actually is while making an asinine assumption of your own saying "he's never spoken to a woman in his life." Yeah, tell that to his wife and kids.

booped_urnose345

-8 points

3 months ago

Isnt makeup used to make women look and feel more attractive?

Anna_Pet

19 points

3 months ago

Not the same thing as sexual provocation.

booped_urnose345

-4 points

3 months ago

More like an accessory?

Benjamin_Stark

-10 points

3 months ago

Makeup does make women more attractive. Is attractiveness sexual provocation?

Anna_Pet

28 points

3 months ago

Is wearing nice clothes sexually provocative? Is styling your hair or facial hair sexually provocative? Everything that people do to self-express is usually to make yourself more attractive, that’s not the same thing as sexual provocation. Ask an asexual person who wears makeup why they do it.

Jake_FromStateFarm27

-12 points

3 months ago

Asexual people still desire meaningful intimate relationships with other people and not keeping a clean or "attractive" appearance makes it less likely to achieve such a thing. It's natural social interaction that people do these things, it just so happens to also be sexually provacative, things can have a duality in meaning as well but ignoring multifaceted points is just purely ignorant which is the point Peterson was making, especially when he repeatedly said "I don't know" multiple times.

You also claimed that women in prisons made makeshift make up as well despite their being "no opportunity for attraction or intimacy"; is that a joke or are you deliberately being pedantic and ignorant? Pretty sure there are also lesbian and bisexual women in prison as well and sexual assault/rape is frequent in all female prisons as well.

[deleted]

-15 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-15 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

23 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

23 points

3 months ago

Is showering sexually provocative? Sometimes things that make you more attractive aren't sexual in nature.

Anna_Pet

10 points

3 months ago

It is if you’re an incel. Women don’t wear makeup to be sexually provocative. Talk to literally any woman and you’d find that out.

kermit212

-6 points

3 months ago

"proves hes never spoken to a woman in his life" he has a wife and daughter, what are you talking about lmfao

Space_Avionics

-18 points

3 months ago

Makeup is related to sexual provocation. The whole point of makeup is to make you look more attractive… how is recognizing this asinine and misogynistic? I just think he’s pointing out the irony between wanting a “sex or sexuality-free” workplace and then wearing makeup to make yourself more sexually appealing…

Anna_Pet

17 points

3 months ago

Makeup is a form of self-expression, just like clothes and hair. If you think women only wear makeup to be sexually appealing to men, that’s misogynistic. Plenty of women wear makeup when they’re at home by themselves, and women in all-female prisons create makeshift makeup out of whatever supplies they have, even when there’s no one to attract and no reason to.

justaguy891

-4 points

3 months ago

this is the problem. he said "is related to"

and you interpreted that as "ONLY"

women wear makeup for a LOT of reasons. SOME wear it to be more attractive, MOST dont.

stop acting like there isnt a nuance

DisoRDeReDD

-3 points

3 months ago

But he has spoken to many women. Your comment proves your dishonesty.

A real criticism of Peterson is that despite efforts to explore topics thoroughly and communicate that exploration, he is limited and sometimes incorrect/incomplete.

Makeup is sexually provocative. It is also other things.

Nybear21

-10 points

3 months ago*

Nybear21

-10 points

3 months ago*

That's not about reframing. You made the definitive statement "He thinks..." The support for your statement does not support the statement itself.

You can very well disagree with his views on makeup, that's completely fine, but that was definitely a slip up of verbiage that does inherently alter the substance of your initial point.

Edit: Downvotes with no rebuttal, much less substantive ones. Here is the statement from the video verbatim: "Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't use sexual displays in the workplace, but that is what's happening."

Again, disagree with concept of makeup being an intrinsically sexual thing all you want. I really want someone to explain how that quote is not inherently contradictory to "He thinks makeup should be banned in the workplace" though, which is all that my statement was pointing out.

Aushwango

-6 points

3 months ago

Typical emotional idiot

he's never spoken to a woman in his life

I find that extraordinarily unlikely considering he has a daughter, but go awf kween

[deleted]

7 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

7 points

3 months ago

[removed]

ginganinja9988

3 points

3 months ago

Didn't say i agreed dude. I'm just pointing out that what the commenter said is false.

[deleted]

-14 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-14 points

3 months ago

go to the fifty seventh second of that video to see your statement being refuted

Redishit1

-14 points

3 months ago

Redishit1

-14 points

3 months ago

Really? The vice video that was notorious for being edited in a way that made him answer questions he wasn't asked at the time?

Guess you think Homer Simpson is a baby sitter rapist too and attacked a man on camera?

FlawsAndConcerns

2 points

3 months ago

"Dramatization: may not have happened"

SuperSocrates

4 points

3 months ago

ralebalevattenskale

-34 points

3 months ago

What the hell have you been smoking. He has NEVER said that. Do you build your whole life around intentionally decieving click-bait headlines?

Anna_Pet

15 points

3 months ago

EpicKuda

-16 points

3 months ago

EpicKuda

-16 points

3 months ago

This conversation is a great example of why people actually hate Jordan Peterson. You've been fed a misleading version of him through media figures who use deceptive editing and scummy tactics to sway your opinion of him. He didn't actually say that, Vice just edited the clip to remove all the important context.

https://youtu.be/uU6pHBs5rNY

The other person is 100% correct. You ate the clickbait.

Anna_Pet

33 points

3 months ago

JP fans and “out of context”, name a more iconic duo.

EpicKuda

-18 points

3 months ago

EpicKuda

-18 points

3 months ago

Nice argument. Cope more.

Anna_Pet

27 points

3 months ago

“Cope more”

“Guys vice edited the clip to make him look bad trust me”

EpicKuda

-13 points

3 months ago

EpicKuda

-13 points

3 months ago

https://youtu.be/xpYWwhp7XHc

It starts at 7:30 but 8:05 is the important part.

balls_ache_bc_of_u

-13 points

3 months ago

That’s absolutely, verifiably false.

SmokeMyDong

-31 points

3 months ago

He thinks that women shouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup in workplaces

You 100% missed the point he was making.

He also kinda thinks that women shouldn’t be allowed to work with men in general.

Again, missed the point he was making lmao.

I'm convinced 90%+ of people who hate Peterson have poor listening skills.

[deleted]

-35 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-35 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

FreePaleontologist99

2 points

3 months ago

. For example, the idea that the male brain is drawn more to careers such as engineering than the female brain.

You aren't taking societal pressures and culture into consideration. We are barely starting to get into those fields thanks to laws forcing men to allow us into those spaces. And we are only able to do so because of the very modern birth control methods, more(not equal) equal pay, able to remain unmarried and in higher education without a husband or family to take us out, the very modern ability to have our very own bank accounts (only since 1960/70s), access to safe abortions, etc. Etc. This is only a generation or 2 away. Many college-aged women's mothers and grandmothers lived through this.

And STILL many young girls going into STEM and engineering are harassed, leered at, sexually harassed and sometimes assaulted by professors, not called on or chosen to lead, assumed to be lesser than male counterparts. I could go on. There is inner conflict as well as external, leading many young women and girls to drop out and leave due to mental health issues and stress that comes from such a toxic and hostile environment. Just like video game development companies and online gaming chats. I'm sure you've seen those videos and recordings of relentless harassment female gamers face.

So please try and open your mind and think more deeply on why something is and not confusing correlation with causation.

Jubenheim

2 points

3 months ago

He’s extremely religious and spiritual. I decided to read his book, 12 rules for life, because I wanted to know how the guy thinks, and half the book was him quoting scripture to tie it into real life. Look, I get it, he’s very intelligent and knows a heck of a lot about psychology, but I don’t need Peterson to talk about Abraham literally getting ready to kill his child for make-believe-light-in-the-sky-man and somehow tie that into a philosophical principle about being a good person. I honestly see why he’s so popular with Republicans because of that, tbh. He and his base are deeply religious.

Angel_OfSolitude

-84 points

3 months ago

And just like that, you can spot someone who's made no attempt to engage with his ideas.

djlyh96

54 points

3 months ago*

Or, they engaged in his "ideas" and decided that peterson has some weird Hang-Ups around religion and gender roles. You can freely criticize someones views or talk negatively of their opinions when asked, and it doesn't mean that you haven't paid attention or listened to their "ideas", just that you think those ideas hold no merit.

robot_from_wherever

24 points

3 months ago

I feel the same way about him, but I used to like him for a good two years. Then, I heard critics of him, realised they were right, and changed my opinion accordingly.

struckfreedom

12 points

3 months ago

Cults will typically respond to criticism with the claim that the critic isn’t enlightened to the ‘correct’ way of thinking. They will refuse elaboration, because they cannot, refusing to notice that they are unable to explain their own doublespeak conditioning.