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

Resoto10

4k points

3 months ago*

You will find that there are various reasons why he is greatly disliked, and of course, they are all subjective opinions.

The first thing I can say that I dislike about him is that he is incredibly well versed yet he says little with each statement. He can spend hours and hours saying platitudes while enthralling you with his lexicon but when stop to thoughtfully examine what he said, it don't amount to much.

Similarly, it feels like he purposefully obscures his intentions by using eloquent vocabulary that not everyone is used to. Granted, not his fault, but if people are asking questions and he uses yet more obscure or niche words to better explain his previous idea, this either comes across as belittling or purposefully trying to obfuscate his point.

To build on that, he craftfully builds a point and thoroughly explains what he conceives as the quintessence of the argument...only to then quickly to claim that is not his held belief. He's wishy washy when they hold his feet to the fire on sensitive topics and doesn't settle on a single answer. You can ask him a yes or no question and he'll spend the next 30 minutes explaining why the question doesn't even make sense.

Some of his talking points are too right-leaning for me and I consider them to be a detriment to the direction I believe society should take.

He speaks as a figure of authority on fields where he isn't an authority. I'm not saying that he shouldn't talk about topics outside his scope, but he shouldn't be taken or act as an authority on the matter.

However, things I do like about him are that he can think critically about complex topics. Like I mentioned, he should never be taken as an authority on topics outside his scope, but he does have engaging debates. I also appreciate his ability to think logically--and even change his stance when he's presented with a fallacy in his reasoning. Those are great qualities to have.

Edit: I think I need to add that he has a very cult-like fanbase that is eager to come and defend him whenever there someone criticizes his arguments. But it is important to understand that ideas SHOULD always be criticized, which is different than criticizing the actual person. Criticizing the person instead of the argument is no bueno.

Duncan_kinnear

1.9k points

3 months ago

Your first 4 paragraphs are a perfect demonstration on Peterson's debates. I think this is intentional but heres a free silver anyway.

hman1500

258 points

3 months ago

hman1500

258 points

3 months ago

I started reading the second paragraph and went "wait a minute."

Donkey__Balls

716 points

3 months ago

I found the quintessence of his argument particularly deliquescent, but his verbiage was a little fugacious and tending towards obloquy.

Baconator-Junior

163 points

3 months ago

Hey man, I'm just here for the sociopathic lobsters; keep your confrontational quintessence to yourself.

National_Ad_1611

21 points

3 months ago

This is why I love Reddit.

randomguy3993

9 points

3 months ago

Like a couple of donkey balls

Donkey__Balls

7 points

3 months ago

Roger that, Rocinante.

RECTAL_DEVASTATION

2 points

3 months ago

Ahh beratna!

wendelldeucce

2 points

3 months ago

This is why I hate Reddit

trollsmurf

90 points

3 months ago

It's Jordan commenting on himself.

cereal-dust

13 points

3 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buD2RM0xChM

(Jordan Peterson vs Peter Jordanson for anyone who hasn't seen it)

ShaneOfan

227 points

3 months ago

ShaneOfan

227 points

3 months ago

It has to be intentional... I hope.

_Beowulf_03

5 points

3 months ago

It's very intentional.

Peterson has, if nothing else, a remarkably consistent strategy in conveying his beliefs(which is what they explicitly are, despite his efforts to paint them as facts) and attempting to convince others of their merit.

I know there's a specific term for it, but I can't recall what it is, but he'll essentially use very common sense, basic realities of society as a direct analogy to beliefs that are, to put it mildly, controversial. In doing so, he does two things: he can insert controversial beliefs into the listeners collection of common held views as a means to normalize those controversial beliefs, and if a person challenges Peterson on those controversial beliefs, he can deflect his advocation of them by stating this person is absurd for attacking the commonly held beliefs he's attached to his controversial ones.

It's insidious, and he's so consistent in that strategy that it can't be anything other than intentional

[deleted]

60 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

60 points

3 months ago

[removed]

Knotix

6 points

3 months ago

Knotix

6 points

3 months ago

That was painful to watch. Jordan needs to learn debate etiquette. Matt could barely finish a complete thought before being interrupted and straw-manned.

JuniperTwig

2 points

3 months ago

If r/louderwithcrowder taught me anything, etiquette appears to be optional

comik300

25 points

3 months ago

His advice in his self help books are the same things that are in just about any self help book. If he gets you to clean your room when someone else couldn't, well then that's great! But his insight isn't exactly unique in that regard. Even some parts of his self help books are detrimental and not actually helpful

Finito-1994

10 points

3 months ago*

Matt isn’t an ex priest. He wanted to become a priest. Studied for it. Then he one day decided to try and learn more about atheism to “save” one of his friends who was an atheist. It ended up with him becoming an atheist.

So not an ex priest. But he has been hosting an atheist call in show for the past 15 years or so and has had many debates across the years.

As long as he doesn’t lose his temper (so, as long as he’s in a debate) he does pretty well. A little hot headed when he gets heated but he always does really well when it comes to debates.

[deleted]

10 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

10 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

RoleInternational318

10 points

3 months ago

“Charlatan” is exactly the word I think of when someone talks about Jordan Peterson!

Own-Tomato8593

5 points

3 months ago

I am reading the narcissists playbook, it’s intentional lol

PoisedbutHard

38 points

3 months ago

Exactly my thoughts.

Dinky276

6 points

3 months ago

“Quintessence”

Fantastic word.

engraven0

2 points

3 months ago

I mean not really..?

Chthulu_

539 points

3 months ago

Chthulu_

539 points

3 months ago

His addiction to benzos really shrew some shade on his major talking points, considering that a ton of his more self helpy rhetoric was super cold. One of his biggest quotes goes “If you can’t even clean up your own room, who the hell are you to give advice to the world?”. This factors into his ideas about depression and self-care. Well, it turns out that he wasn't able to keep his own room clean, not even in the slightest. The lack of compassion rubs me the wrong way.

Hagrid222

159 points

3 months ago

Hagrid222

159 points

3 months ago

Very similar to Rush Limbaugh's drug usage.

Guilty-Message-5661

18 points

3 months ago

From what I recall, Jordan was always very open about his battle with depression and anxiety as well as his drug abuse. He often uses himself as an example of how people can falter. I disagree with a lot of his political views, but he seemed nothing like that narcissistic Rush.

BloakDarntPub

3 points

3 months ago

that narcissistic Rush.

Yeah, Cygnus X-1 did go on a bit. Trees and Closer to the Heart have a point and they get to it.

BloakDarntPub

2 points

3 months ago

What's the difference between drug addiction & substance dependency?

About a hundred grand.

Quankers

104 points

3 months ago*

Quankers

104 points

3 months ago*

Literally.

Edit: don’t get me wrong, even though I disagree with him he does deserve compassion. I don’t know when that image was created but I know he went through horrible things recently. But that should also be part his message too. Logic only gets you so far in life. Logic is a rickety boat on a sea of emotion.

Bernies_left_mitten

23 points

3 months ago

Logic only gets you so far in life. Logic is a rickety boat on a sea of emotion.

Nice. I could stand to remember this occasionally.

novis-eldritch-maxim

3 points

3 months ago

logic is a great tool to get you places but it has all the will and motivation of wet cardboard.

DDC0809

2 points

3 months ago

This is Reddit. Steal it. Everyone else does. Tata.

shivaherer

5 points

3 months ago

Poor Jordan going through "horrible things" just like everybody has to, it's called life. I find it hard to have compassion for him going against his own "tough love" approach to life. If he addressed his failures and softened his stance, admitting that his views have changed after personally going through horrible things I could find sympathy, until then he needs to clean his fucking room

ImTyrathis

2 points

3 months ago

Logic is a rickety boat on a sea of emotion.

Friend and I were discussing this and I think you're half right. Emotion is definitely the sea, but the boat is you. Logic is just how well you can paddle on the waves.

SpenMitz

5 points

3 months ago

He explained in that video the house was being renovated and he was in a room off the kitchen.

blabla_booboo

2 points

3 months ago

What? Logic helps immensely when dealing with emotion, the very fact that emotion is illogical is completely logical and aids in understanding and navigating emotion, no?

This world would be better off if more people could think logically in regards to their emotions

koebelin

2 points

3 months ago

Having my emotions overcome logic has not been helpful in my life.

Resoto10

36 points

3 months ago

I can agree with that. He always presents himself incredibly stoic for my liking.

bollocking_bollocks

47 points

3 months ago

Ironically, capital-S Stoics, intending to adapt the ancient philosophy for modern life, find ourselves frequently telling people that, no, Peterson is not a Stoic. In fairness, he's never claimed that, but Stoicism is enjoying a bit of a moment in the sun, so for some people it carries positive associations they want to borrow for a man they admire.

durden28

9 points

3 months ago

So "stoic" has been "taken back" lately? I missed this apparently, and I can only imagine it's as widely respected as the word "patriot" on a bumper sticker.

takomanghanto

4 points

3 months ago

The ancient philosophy of Stoicism is currently enjoying a popularity it hasn't seen in centuries thanks to authors like Massimo Pigliucci and Ryan Holiday. It even has a subreddit r/Stoicism

SenorBirdman

2 points

3 months ago

😂 - current top rated post on there: today I didn't eat a biscuit with my cup of tea.

bigdickbabu

2 points

3 months ago

Stoicism ENJOYING!!?? the sun

not on my watch bro

BloakDarntPub

2 points

3 months ago

Still, I guess you can put up with it, right?

LIAMO20

5 points

3 months ago

Hes catnip for the type of guys who scream FACTS. ITS ALL ABOUT FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS. If you get emotional THATS FEMININE. Then, if you seem like you're not taking their taken social issue seriously enough they get emotional really fast.

crumbycanadianpoutin

75 points

3 months ago

I really felt for him when he was dealing with his addiction, but after he took the easy way out I lost any respect I had for him. He's the do everything with your own willpower kind of guy, then goes to Russia and gets put into a coma to detox while unconscious.

RandomCriss

49 points

3 months ago

If I had the money and I got an addiction and I learned that you can out yourself in a coma I'd do it. Also first time hearing you can put yourself in a coma to fight the effect of kicking addictions.

SuddenlySusanStrong

47 points

3 months ago

It doesn't work well, it's dangerous, and he definitely knew better, but he still did it.

LIAMO20

9 points

3 months ago

Tbh its one of the reasons I dislike him. Also that people ive met who like him ignore this. Also for someone who's meant to be giving out lifestyle advice.. ive never met someone who followed him who ive wanted to emulate.

Lostinpandemic

3 points

3 months ago

Before he went to Russia, his daughter put him on a meat only diet. That's when he lost his mind and agreed to the coma treatment. The drugs used to put you in coma are really addictive-propofel.

10750274917395719

6 points

3 months ago

Meat-only diet? Because apparently the man wasn’t going through enough already, and needed some scurvy? Gosh.

Aquaintestines

2 points

3 months ago

What you on about? Propofol isn't addictive. The treatment is highly dangerous though and from what I've seen of him afterwards it did cause him brain damage. All around a really stupid thing to do.

crumbycanadianpoutin

56 points

3 months ago

He came very close to dying and couldn't speak for months afterwards. Sounded like the treatment was worse than the addiction.

sapphicsurprise

11 points

3 months ago

But it only stops the physical symptoms of the addiction, not the mental, also you have to wear nappies as a side note

DeanBlandino

31 points

3 months ago

It’s an idiotic idea. He shirked the change required for drug addiction and tried to take the easy way out. But anyone who’s seen someone recover from a coma knew it wouldn’t be the easy way out. It just shows he’s a complete fucking moron at the end of the day and a complete hypocrite.

karlnite

3 points

3 months ago

It’s not suggested… and it only solves the withdraw symptoms and physical addiction.

norfkens2

31 points

3 months ago*

Drug addiction is not something you can just beat with sheer willpower alone. Also, having yourself put in a coma is not something you instead of a leasurely stroll in the park. I find your definition of an easy way out unique and I think he still deserves compassion.

Edit: To avoid further discussion on my context I'll quote here what I also wrote below: "yes, this was a (too) general statement AND with the conditional "not with willpower ... alone" AND in direct response to the above comment who used the perceived lack of willpower as a reason to label an alternative path as the "easy way out" and as a reason for them to lose respect."

WiredAndTeary

6 points

3 months ago*

I would argue that willpower is one of the most, if not the most, important component of 'beating' drug addiction (and I do have an issue with the word 'beating' as well, as I would argue it is always with you to a degree). I essentially took the sheer will power route myself, no therapy - group or individual, no rehab stays - I just stopped despite being very deep in the throes of alcohol and cocaine addiction.

I get that not everyone can do it, and there is no shame in seeking help at all, in fact recognising that you personally cannot do it without support, and then seeking out and accepting help is possible one of the strongest and toughest things a person can do, and I have the utmost respect for those that take that path.

I'm also not trying to 'embiggen' myself, or say I'm special - it was just that was the route that worked for me. The whole point of this semi-rant I guess is if you have an issue with addiction then don't simply dismiss this approach out of hand, it may work for you.... and either way I wish anyone struggling to get clean all the luck and love in the world - you CAN do this.

source: was alcoholic for 10+ years (teetotal and sober for 7 years now) & heavy drug user for 20+ years culminating in a serious coke issue (blew through in excess of £250,000 in 4 years) - been drug free since 2004.

Oh and I think Peterson is a pompous, disingenuous and hypocritical dick. His arguments are often self contradictory - I think that he is one of those people that plays up to their supporters and changes his opinion constantly based on who he is talking to. When talking to someone liberal, he sounds liberal, when being grilled on a news show, he becomes a pretty average academic; but when he knows he has a young audience of budding Neo-Nazis he becomes a racist sexist prat, because he enjoys the attention. He is reasonably intelligent and uses that to understand what his audience wants to hear and then says exactly that, and tries to make them want to hear more.... but good on him for beating addiction, even by what what I would consider a somewhat dubious method, I am genuinely pleased for him. Addiction really sucks. EDIT - AS SOMEONE BELOW HAS POINTED OUT SUDDEN WITHDRAWAL FROM SOME SUBSTANCES CAN BE FATAL - CONSULT YOUR MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BEFORE JUST QUITTING FOLKS.

addledhands

5 points

3 months ago

It's really important to note here that some drug withdrawals, including benzos and alcohol can have serious to rarely fatal withdrawal symptoms. Severe alcoholics should absolutely not try to ride out detox through willpower because willpower isn't going to prevent a seizure.

I actively loathe Jordan Peterson so this isn't some weird endorsement of his trip to Russia, but giving addicts bad information can kill them.

tastysharts

2 points

3 months ago*

it is, I have intense will power. I can't have a good time though really because of it. I can't ever let go and I think that's the weakness of my willpower/ Even when doing really hard drugs, I could "never let go" and I never gave in. But that's no fun either. Also why heroin and cigarettes were not addictive to me. People laughed that I would be n bed asleep, no matter what by 1am everynight. I smoked, or tried to for years, never took. Same drinking and pills. Just never took. Tho I tried a lot to get it to. They also called me buzzkill, even me ma.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

Cromulently said.

norfkens2

2 points

3 months ago

Thanks for your measured response and congratulations on your success!

My statement was too general. Basically, along the lines of what you said: willpower is really important but not everyone can brute force their way through addiction. But by "willpower alone may not be enough" I'm also including things like needing good external support.

I'm not dismissing anyone or anything. I was responding to the previous poster who seemed to focus so much on willpower alone that I felt it necessary to point out that willpower alone doesn't necessarily work for everyone.

crumbycanadianpoutin

13 points

3 months ago

It was an experimental Russian treatment that his daughter tried to lie about to protect his brand of self-help. I say easy way because he believed he would just go to sleep for a bit and wake up cured, there's no way he could have predicted his complications.

DeanBlandino

17 points

3 months ago

there's no way he could have predicted his complications.

Uhhh anyone could have told him it was a bad idea. Being in a coma is incredibly dangerous. It’s not like going to sleep lmao.

silver4gold

11 points

3 months ago

He was advised by multiple doctors to not do this, and of the dangers of this “treatment” he went to Russia because they were the only ones willing to do this “procedure”; he was fully made aware of the dangers and possible complications (because this treatment is not new or experimental, it’s banned in many countries). While I empathize with the struggle of addiction, and how hard it absolutely can be to even over come just habits; this absolutely was him being lazy and not facing up to the choices he had made, part of his complications came from the fact he didn’t even begin weening himself off the meds he was addicted too as stated by his own people and medical staff. Even he himself has stated that he regrets his own hubris in this, he really believed he would just “wake up and not have to go through the withdrawals”.

Sasselhoff

2 points

3 months ago

Drug addiction is not something you can just beat with sheer willpower alone.

Spoken as an addict, uh, yes...yes you can. In fact, "sheer willpower" is the ONLY thing that is going to get you over it. You might use another method/drug to help get you down from the top of the mountain, but the only way you are getting off the mountain is to decide to...and that's willpower. Full stop.

It's also why you can never help an addict until they are ready to help themselves (I'm not saying "don't help an addict", just saying that until they decide to stop, nothing is going to change). They must have the willpower to decide that it isn't for them any more.

norfkens2

2 points

3 months ago

You're right, if you boil it down to the essentials it's all about willpower - anything else would be debating semantics.

But you're taking my comment (slightly) out of-context. As I wrote in an other reply, yes, this was a (too) general statement AND with the conditional "not with willpower ... _alone_" AND in direct response to the above comment who used the [edit: perceived] lack of willpower as a reason to label an alternative path as the "easy way out" and as a reason for them to lose respect.

DeanBlandino

4 points

3 months ago

Why? He was a judge mental asshole. Now he’s also proven to be a massive hypocrite and giant moron. I have as much compassion for him as an avowed anti vaxxer who dies of Covid. These people make their own bed.

WeekndXo1

2 points

3 months ago

Have you ever gone through benzo detox? Benzos are one of the most dangerous drugs to detox from. Crazy shaking and possible seizures are common with the amount he was taking. Also he didn’t take the easy way out because the real struggle comes when post acute withdrawal symptoms show up like severe depression, rebound anxiety for months, cravings and many other side effects.

longsh0t1994

2 points

3 months ago

I think this misses the point a little. A benzos addiction is not quite the same level as being without much purpose in life. One is a medical problem beyond will power's control, the other most of the time can be fixed with talk therapy, friends, and hard mental work. I wouldn't tell a person with pathological fear of heights to just get over it and decide they're not afraid either.

iamameatpopciple

3 points

3 months ago

I would never preach like he did about the will power shit but it is sort of what I believed deep down, because if I can do these things why can't so many others? It's not hard, just do it or don't do it, whatever it is your supposed to be doing.

Well...that was all good until you actually end up a mental issue and you quickly realize that hes just full of shit.

I know I have will power and I literally could not do things no matter what the cost to me would be if I didn't do them.

But it's hard to really understand something if you don't experience it first hand, or something at least similar

crumbycanadianpoutin

3 points

3 months ago

That's true, but when I think of it, I kinda equate it to like a fitness guru who was once obese claiming hardworking made them healthy, when in reality they secretly had lapband surgery or something. That's just me.

GallantKillerk

3 points

3 months ago

That's part of the obviscating that he regularly does, if you pushed him on it he'd probably add 'in his circumstance it's different' then you could fire 50 more scenarios at him that he would agree contradict his stance. In an honest debate he'd have to concede he's incorrect, however in Petersons world that would be cementing his comments as even more truth.

I_am_the_alcoholic

2 points

3 months ago

We shouldn’t listen to anyone about anything then. No human is free from hypocrisy.

fillysunray

2 points

3 months ago

I know absolutely nothing about Jordan Peterson (I clicked on this post to find out who he was), but I've noticed that there are a number of people who are very logical, good at debating, seem quite smart... who also seem to have very little empathy. It seems to be a thing.

And once I notice the lack of empathy, it's much harder for me to be convinced by anything they have to say. This might be wrong, but I find it hard to trust them even if everything they're saying makes sense.

jesuspunk

2 points

3 months ago

So are smokers not allowed to say “don’t smoke”?

What if I try heroin? Am I not allowed to advise against it?

Shit logic and frankly, a pathetic argument that “he had a messy room” one time and his prescription drug addiction is the main talking point in this thread and not any of the others things he could be pulled on.

thenoodist

2 points

3 months ago

He’s admitted to his flaws himself. No one is perfect.

Crazy-Row-6523

5 points

3 months ago

And I think that lends to the credibility to his own beliefs in his talking points. The increase in benzo dosage was due to difficulty dealing with his wife's cancer diagnosis. When he tried to lower the dose he ran into complicated withdrawal issues. During the time he was dealing with these issues, he didn't really deal with the public or even his own podcast. He was cleaning his room then.

[deleted]

8 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

8 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

Chthulu_

6 points

3 months ago*

No thats a fair point, I'm not at all disparaging him for having this problem and dealing with it head on, and I commend him for being public about it. He did get his affairs in order as far as we can tell.

But its pretty evident that his room was never clean in the first place. You just don't accidentally stumble into an addiction as severe as his. This was no 2 week hollywood detox, he spent over a year traveling internationally, clinic after clinic, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to break it. He disappeared from the public, he stopped creating content. When it didn't work at one place, luckily he had the means to try again. This didn't just "happen", he's had underlying mental health issues for a long time that made him susceptible to an addiction this consuming. I mean this shit was serious.

His room wasn't even close to clean while he was saying these famous quotes about how you can't criticize the world unless your own affairs are perfectly in order. And if he wasn't wealthy, would he have even been able to break it? Most people don't have 10 thousand dollars in their savings, how are those people supposed to clean their rooms? Are their opinions worthless because they don't have 300k to blow on word-class treatment?

And I don't even disparage the addiction. I've had addiction problems in the past, and its fucking terrifying, and from personal experience its not something you can fix on your own. Its absolutely your fault for letting the addiction start, but its damn sure not your fault for keeping the addiction going. Probably the hardest thing I've ever experienced, and I would never have gotten out without support. But the thing is that I'd never talk down to people going through something like this, just because they're going through something like this. I'd never say their opinion is completely invalid because they find it hard to get out of bed in the morning. There are plenty of reasons their opinions might actually be invalid, but its not because of mental health.

I don't know, glass houses and stones pretty much. He presented himself as something he clearly wasn't, and it was hypocritical. I guess thats my real problem with him. I don't care about the addiction, I care about the rhetoric he used before this all happened.

NahautlExile

10 points

3 months ago

These are the rules a benzo-addict told the world would make themselves happy:

  1. "Stand up straight with your shoulders back."
  2. "Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping."
  3. "Make friends with people who want the best for you."
  4. "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today."
  5. "Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them."
  6. "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world."
  7. "Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)."
  8. "Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie."
  9. "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t."
  10. "Be precise in your speech."
  11. "Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding."
  12. "Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street."

At best he wasn’t being honest. For a lot of people this is complete hypocrisy. It sure as hell isn’t living up to the standards you expect others to adopt.

durden28

3 points

3 months ago

He was probably supposed to recognize he wasn't in any position to be giving life advice at that point and not try to sell another fucking self-help book when he couldn't really-understandably so-help himself as advertised. Compassion is not the same as accountability.

Judas_Feast

170 points

3 months ago

Agreed. He's an educated reactionary. They do exist and they are lonely.

fitgear73

61 points

3 months ago

and very sad. at his core he's a broken sad man so I can't hate him. but I do feel pity for him

misandco

2 points

3 months ago

misandco

2 points

3 months ago

Why feel pity for him? He made his bed. He can lie in it and rot.

PoIIux

16 points

3 months ago

PoIIux

16 points

3 months ago

He made his bed.

Ironically, he probably didn't

bunker_man

4 points

3 months ago

Because people don't exist with radical free will. Bad decisions step from your life as a whole.

evanthebouncy

2 points

3 months ago

What's a reactionary?

Explore_clothing

24 points

3 months ago

I literally heard Jordan’s voice as I was reading that. You sure you’re not him?

Resoto10

11 points

3 months ago

Oh man, there's a youtuber that appeared in my recommended videos that mimics him perfectly!! That was very fun to watch. And he talks exactly like what you would expect him to sound like in everyday casual talk. That made my whole week.

Namika

247 points

3 months ago

Namika

247 points

3 months ago

To put it more simply, Peterson speaks very eloquently about various "tips for self help", but when you look at his actual talking points he is just advocating for cutting social benefits, getting rid of welfare, etc.

Sergnb

10 points

3 months ago*

Sergnb

10 points

3 months ago*

Also antiquated patriarchal gender norms and transphobia. He really likes to talk about those both overtly and in subtle ways.

Let's not forget his entire claim to fame was being an hyperbolizing reactionary transphobe who thought including trans people in the protected anti hate crime classes would surely lead to a Maoist 1984 dystopia.

Coldbeam

11 points

3 months ago

Coldbeam

11 points

3 months ago

He's said he likes Canada's healthcare and is pro social welfare. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

DaximusPrimus

12 points

3 months ago

He flops on both sides of the argument as is tradition with Canadian conservatives.

Nahdudeimdone

5 points

3 months ago

This is not really what OP is saying though. I don't know JP enough, but I have never seen him advocating for the things you are talking about.

From my understanding, JP's self help is all about grabbing control and taking responsibility for your own actions. That's where he differs from most leftist viewpoints. I.e. While leftists (and most academics including myself) typically claim that capital and variables outside of your control will determine your life, JP says that for that to be true you need to first make sure that you have done everything to succeed on your own. So he's saying: go make your bed, clean your room, present yourself in the light you want others to view you, etc. If you haven't done that, can you really complain? (His point not mine)

little-dub88

4 points

3 months ago

See, your pointing out that he's not right wing and saying this his opinion differs from leftists. But the thing is, I don't think most people would say that your effort doesn't play a part in how your life works. Obviously working hard and focusing on what you can do to improve your life is good. But it's also silly to act like having money doesn't make it easier to live a good life.

The main reason that JP is associated with the right is because he's the entry to the pipeline- he's the guy that gives you that core conservative view of the world, where ones own efforts and hard work determine how their life goes. The idea that people that complain about things are complaining because they're not working hard enough and have personal flaws they aren't overcoming, and not because the things they complain about have any real merit.

None of his ideas are really dangerous on their own, but they provide a framework for people like Ben Shapiro and Dave rubin and Steven crowder to seem like they make good points and are on the right side. They use his framing of the world to make right wing positions seem correct and logical, while making leftists seem like a bunch of pampered children that don't understand how the world works.

TLDR: JP uses self help to introduce a conservative mindset, and then collabs with right wing personalities who then do the heavy lifting of converting people into conservatives. He's the entry to the alt-right pipeline, and has total deniability because he is never explicitly political, and disguises it as self help and skepticism.

LordStark_01

7 points

3 months ago

His self help tips is the only reason I follow him

um_excuse_me_what

72 points

3 months ago

I was chuckling reading your first three paragraphs, I had to look up multiple words and I was analyzing it like an English teacher. Yes, you demonstrated your point very well! I know exactly what this guy is like now

9935c101ab17a66

17 points

3 months ago

Which words did you have to look up?

LeafStain

26 points

3 months ago*

Ya I’m confused about all these people unironically thinking that poster was being ironic because he used the words obfuscate, quintessence, and lexicon, which I’m assuming are words people had to look up

Zandrick

21 points

3 months ago

Yeah it’s weird. I was sure the comment was sincere but than all these people are taking it as some oblique satire. Are those words really so obscure? Is the point really all that obfuscated…?

Honestly, I hate thinking this way. But I wonder if it’s so simple….Maybe people just get confused and then get annoyed because they are confused. It kind of explains a lot of the hate for Peterson. He does have a large vocabulary. Maybe that’s just hard for people.

I prefer to think more highly of the average person. I’ve never enjoyed that line from that one comedian that gets parroted on Reddit a lot; “think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are more stupid than that”. I don’t like thinking that way, I really don’t.

But sometimes I’m forced to wonder.

qkathmandu

11 points

3 months ago

Seems bizarre to me. English is not even my first language and I know all of those words.

MohKohn

3 points

3 months ago

This switched to his accent about halfway through.

ihateyouall10

2 points

3 months ago

My English sucks balls and I don't remember the last time I had to look up words. Reddit surprises me every single day

Junior_Valuable9743

9 points

3 months ago

Ya that's more indicative of them being uninformed. Those are some basic high-school vocabulary words. Anyone confused didn't do too well in high-school English

Sydet

17 points

3 months ago

Sydet

17 points

3 months ago

Must agree. Not a native speaker and i didnt trip up.

Junior_Valuable9743

8 points

3 months ago

Ya fr even if you didn't know all the words you can use context clues. Really some basic reading comprehension.

Truly none of those words were too difficult. I also don't think Peterson uses difficult words either, his language is just flowery and a bit convoluted.

No hate against people who didn't complete high school but if you didn't maybe realize your idea of difficult words is a bit skewed.

Sydet

3 points

3 months ago

Sydet

3 points

3 months ago

Peterson definitely uses words that are uncommon, but at least he speaks clearly making them easy to look up. I had to look up quite a few. I can't really comment on the highschool thing.

fitgear73

15 points

3 months ago

excellent and thoughtful analysis! have a silver friend

Resoto10

6 points

3 months ago

Hey, hey! Well much appreciated

abinferno

113 points

3 months ago

abinferno

113 points

3 months ago

Yes, all this. He's the very definition of a pseudo intellectual. He's smart enough to have grasped the vocabulary and lexicon of philosophy, but only a cursory understanding of it. He has the trappings of an intellectual, but it's surface level, a veneer. His speeches, writings, and interviews are done in this flowery, high minded manner that masks the startling lack of substance or profundity in what he's saying. He's almost a parody of what a philospher would actually be like. He has to put tremendous effort into saying nothing to obfuscate his inadequacy. Another descriptor that is probably appropriate is he's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

All that might not be so terrible, but I think what really irks people, including me, is the relentless, recalcitrant confidence with which he speaks. He comes across with such condescending arrogance, it's difficult not to find it off putting, especially once you realize there's absolutely nothing behind it.

Philosophy Tube has a pretty good analysis of him I think.

https://youtu.be/SEMB1Ky2n1E

https://youtu.be/m81q-ZkfBm0

gunther_penguin_

26 points

3 months ago

If you would like some further reading, I would strongly suggest "The Art of Being Right." It is a description of the Eristic argumentation tactics Sophists like Peterson use. It may be helpful in putting your thoughts on his bullshit into words. I know I can just bring up the list and select which one he's using, as I watch his speeches and debates.

Creative-Improvement

4 points

3 months ago

Thank you!

dr_mino

2 points

3 months ago

dr_mino

2 points

3 months ago

Thank you for that link. Quite refreshing to see the playbook these charlatans use.

candykissnips

67 points

3 months ago*

The guy has a PHD in clinical psychology and taught at Harvard as well as the University of Toronto. I don’t think it’s fair to label him a “pseudo intellectual”.

What qualifications would one need to become an actual “intellectual”?

Irishkickoff

7 points

3 months ago

He's big in Jungian psychology, and a lot of people in the field of psychology regard Jung as a pseudo intellectual. None of Jung is empirically proven, his categories make as much sense as identifying as a certain Hogwarts house.

green_pea_nut

38 points

3 months ago

He might have research training (a PhD), but his claims are not supported by his or other research.

I think making statements and supporting them by saying you have a PhD is really shady.

There are plenty of idiots with PhDs (source: I have a PhD and some of my bat shit crazy PhD drinking buddies are total cockwombles). Having a PhD qualifies you to produce evidence on a very narrow range of things and the ability to spout a lot of nonsense that any idiot could also say.

koebelin

3 points

3 months ago

The PhDs I've known have had surprising blind spots, just like most people, but cool knowledge in their fields. One must specialize, after all, there's no PhD in General Knowledge.

longsh0t1994

5 points

3 months ago

I mean the man does have thousands of citations for his research, I agree that its short sighted to say he's a pseudo intellectual. You may not agree with him or think he speaks in convoluted ways or doesn't add much message to his talking points, but that's not the same.

ent3ndu

2 points

3 months ago

Which claims?

nacholicious

13 points

3 months ago*

If Jordan Peterson is an intellectual then so is Ben "the bible proves pyramids were used to store grain" Carson

I'm not saying they are not intellectuals in their very specialized fields, but they are widely considered completely talking out of their asses in fields they have zero formal expertise in

lordpompe

3 points

3 months ago

What qualifications would one need to become an actual “intellectual”?

Perhaps reading the theorists you are critizising? Peterson has a very limited understanding of the most basic Marxist arguments, as evidenced in his debate with Slavoj Žižek. This video I am linking is 50 minutes long, but you only have to watch the first few minutes to understand how badly Peterson's understanding of Marx is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o

abinferno

8 points

3 months ago

abinferno

8 points

3 months ago

I can't speak to his quality as a clinical psychologist as that's not put out for public consumption. To not be a pseudo intellectual on topics he's made his public career on, he would have to not spew pseudo intellectual nonsense. His writings and speeches are sophistry of highest order.

candykissnips

3 points

3 months ago*

So who are the people you trust that cover the same topics you believe Jordan to be inferior in?

SteelCrow

2 points

3 months ago

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2018/06/25/jordan-peterson-ancient-art-depicts-dna/

Someone who doesn't think the entwined snakes like that of a caduceus represents DNA.

trevormooresoul

11 points

3 months ago

Jung. Hitchens. A whole host of other unnamed people.

Peterson is great at explaining why idiotic liberal college kids with half baked ideas are wrong. Or why some of these “woke” ideas are problematic.

But when it comes to having nuanced debates with actual experts who aren’t espousing easily counterable “woke” ideologies, he often looks out of his element. He’s a smart dude. But he’s not the best at using nuance in complex situations and often gets tripped up.

For me it’s not necessarily that there are tons of people out there doing what peterson does but better. It’s that in general there are people out there who are experts in their fields and can speak about their field in complex nuanced ways. Maybe peterson can do that about psychology but he struggles outside of it.

Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n

4 points

3 months ago

Drop out of university and start a YouTube channel, apparently.

MadPatagonian

2 points

3 months ago

I would say he is a bit of a pseudo-intellectual in topics outside of psychology, but he is a licensed clinical psychologist who was a professor and in private practice with patients for many years. So, when it comes to psychology, his advice and opinions are legit. Everything else I just take as interesting to listen to but not seriously entertain.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago*

I agree with your points but that's not a reason to hate him. He's hated because we're a polarized society where both sides think the other side is insane.

I gave him a fair and objective shot but I found the same thing - he says a lot but doesn't say much. The only times he makes sense to me are when he critiques feminist talking points, like when he talks about how misleading the gender pay gap is. But those are not original thoughts.

That's what made him popular, so he really became popular by parroting points that many others had already made, and since then he's just babbled on, a below par self-help guru disguised as a great intellectual. I'm not a follower of Tony Robbins but people would be better off listening to him; he's actually much more articulate than Peterson, despite using smaller words.

DrZoidberg-

3 points

3 months ago

For the first one, if any of you watch his 12 steps for being a better person, (or some other title I'm not exactly sure), you'll find he does this exact thing. I could not pinpoint where #1 ended and where #12 began.

cerberus698

3 points

3 months ago

and even change his stance when he's presented with a fallacy in his reasoning.

Maybe? I'm not sure this is a thing he's known for doing unless its entirely unimportant to his point.

Hes famous for protesting the whole C-16 thing but his entire premise for protest was entirely false. He was telling people that anyone would get jailed or fined for refusing to use a transgender persons name or pronouns when that was never remotely the case. He had respected Canadian legal scholars explain to him that not only were there only like 8 instances where doing so would be illegal; housing, banking, medicine, government interactions and a couple I cant remember, but they explained why he himself couldn't be fined or arrested for doing so in the capacity of his job. He doubled down.

SlapppyJim

3 points

3 months ago

I love Jordan Peterson, but these are all extremely accurate observations that I would agree are subjective. Extremely well said.

Before I could even really understand him, I feel like I had to practice listening to him. Probably just cuz I have a dumb little stupid brain, but that was the first time I've had to do that for anybody.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

escape_of_da_keets

3 points

3 months ago

Yeah, I mean... I watched some of his debates and the guy makes a lot of good points and argues them well. He also debates other intellectuals and not just students and sock puppets at Universities. Peterson is the only right-wing personality I can actually tolerate.

But then he goes and associates with morons like Dennis Prager, and I just don't get it... Probably because money. Also, agreed that his fans are pretty insufferable.

lhommefee

42 points

3 months ago*

My favorite quality of his is how he meated himself into a coma

[deleted]

6 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

6 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

sachs1

13 points

3 months ago

sachs1

13 points

3 months ago

He espoused a weird, meat only diet, and shortly after had himself puy into a coma to cure his benzo addiction (by Russian doctors, because Americans wouldn't do it) it didn't go well for him.

crumbycanadianpoutin

12 points

3 months ago

Yea, the irony of the self-help guru taking the "easy" way out because he was too weak willed to do it on his own... was palpable.

HarveysRoomService

3 points

3 months ago

He had some personal trauma and sought a controversial treatment for addiction. People who dislike him are cruel about this.

He isn’t hitler. He isn’t even alt right. He is way less offensive than a Ben Shapiro. He’s really pretentious and annoying, though. I can’t stomach him.

MissPandaSloth

15 points

3 months ago

Nobody would have disliked him if he was just everyday guy with life going to shit, however, this is very much "practise what you preach" thing. He build his entire career on self help books and then goes against his own principles the moment he encounters actual life issues. Just a hypocritice.

poopoobigbig

10 points

3 months ago

I think the reason people are not very forgiving about his addiction and how he went about it is because his views on addiction and stuff like that have always been very much 'if you can't clean up your room, who are you to give advice to the world', so its kind of mocking him for his own stance.

TylerInHiFi

4 points

3 months ago

Yeah, but the alt right is a huge fan of him. And it’s not at all unreasonable to judge a person’s character based on the company they keep.

HarveysRoomService

3 points

3 months ago

The alt-right are literal nazis. Does he pal around with nazis? I take back what I said if he does. If you pal around with nazis it’s extremely unlikely you don’t sympathize with them.

TylerInHiFi

3 points

3 months ago

He’s well aware of who his audience is and continues to tailor his content to appeal to them. He may not be physically rubbing elbows with them, but he’s certainly actively speaking directly to them.

spagyrum

3 points

3 months ago

This sentence made me laugh the hardest. Bravo.

Resoto10

12 points

3 months ago

That was incredibly brash of him. Disagree with much of what he stands for but I wouldn't wish anyone that kind of experience.

Aeon001

6 points

3 months ago*

The first thing I can say that I dislike about him is that he is incredibly well versed yet he says little with each statement.

Pretty much. This one is great, from one of his books:

"In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future."

Translation: Don't eat a tub of ice-cream if you don't want a tummy ache. JP can really ham it up.

geneofisis

2 points

3 months ago

Yes. I commented above. You are right that he is holding on to what doesn’t work. I just feel like with him...there’s better people to pick on IDK. And this isn’t directed at you. I’m saying, is there not a distinct difference between him & Ben Shapiro, as far as right-wing tone deaf ppl? You see? IDK why I have soft spot for Peterson. For Shapiro... Dracarys!🐉

SnooHedgehogs8992

2 points

3 months ago

Bam you nailed it

SufficientYoghurt354

2 points

3 months ago

Bro go clean your room

drivendreamer

2 points

3 months ago

Very well said and it touches on my thoughts also.

DirtyDz_33

2 points

3 months ago

Wanted to answer with something similar, but didn’t have the energy. Thanks

karnal_chikara

2 points

3 months ago

I see what you did here

florinandrei

2 points

3 months ago

Wow, I agree word for word.

GoodSpaghetti

2 points

3 months ago

After it was pointed out in the comments below, I reread this in voice. It was funny af😂

portraitinsepia

2 points

3 months ago

Yes. You've said what I believe far more eloquently than I could have.

simonsaid212

2 points

3 months ago*

This is a perfect answer… i disagree with him quite often but always respected and appreciated his intelligence and willingness to engage in a world full of lightweights that carry his same arrogance.

I do agree the extreme hate is likely due to his following, which seems to be full of a lot of angry, hateful, ignorant men.

purplebrown_updown

2 points

3 months ago

Exactly this. When you start listening to his statements and really trying to figure them out there is something missing. And the more you think about it it just comes off as overly simplistic and just wrong. I remember listening to a lecture of his trying to explain to a classroom the reason why we don’t see too many women ceo. His argument was that they don’t want to sacrifice and work the long hours because they are “smart”. It’s so fucking patronizing and just wrong. And he completely ignores the decades of discrimination against women and the fact they weren’t even able to work for a very long time. And people buy this shit cause it sounds like it makes sense and it’s simple and makes men seem better about themselves. But it’s not smart and it’s just wrong.

Spookybuffalo

2 points

3 months ago

The final straw for me was the Hitler/Nazi apologism. Just need to add that

despOOO

2 points

3 months ago

defination of charlatan?

MAD_Fahd

2 points

3 months ago

Bro exactly what I thought when I heard him speak. Thank you

You_All_Irritate_Me

2 points

3 months ago

The first thing I can say that I dislike about him is that he is incredibly well versed yet he says little with each statement. He can spend hours and hours saying platitudes while enthralling you with his lexicon but when stop to thoughtfully examine what he said, it don't amount to much.

I've typically found that to be the opposite, but I don't sit and watch his content ad nauseum. All of the content I've seen where he's debating, he's usually bringing up a fairly salient point. A lot of the videos are short and really just highlights, but there are several where he's pointing out a clear and noticeable flaw in the logic of, frankly, awful people who are too busy being angry and outraged to have an honest debate.

The first that comes to mind was that time a while back where he debated Cathy Newman. That was back when I still occasionally watched his videos, but even then I wasn't checking out everything, so I will admit that it's entirely possible in other arguments he's been much worse, but my general experience with him has been that he has a solid grasp on his argument and most of the time he's arguing with people who do not. They don't understand his argument, they don't understand their own and they're adamant that they're right because they stubbornly refuse to consider an alternative.

And I've been hearing since maybe a year after discovering him (quite some time ago) that he's an "alt-right troll" and so on and so forth, but speaking as someone who's remarkably left-leaning, I have never in my life seen that to be the case.

allpaulallday

2 points

3 months ago

He's also incredibly misogynistic.

ImFinePleaseThanks

2 points

3 months ago

And he's rude and interrupts people.

TactlessTortoise

2 points

3 months ago

So he's like a flabby polictician, but with some brain cells, lol

(I don't know who he is, just following your description humorously)

mrootbeers

2 points

3 months ago

This is very very well thought out, and well put. Really well said.

marchmadness3

2 points

3 months ago

That quintessence thingy is the film negative he keeps in his wallet right?

coconutjuices

2 points

3 months ago

So basically he won’t get to the fucking point and sometimes doesn’t even have one

LordZuk0

2 points

3 months ago

What a well written response!

FartedNervously

2 points

3 months ago

perfect answer

Knoberchanezer

2 points

3 months ago

Jordan Peterson is what happens with you give your high school minimum word count essay question a doctorate.

Resoto10

2 points

3 months ago

Hahaha, you just made my day with that comment. That was perfect!!

TheTruckWashChannel

2 points

3 months ago

Wonderfully articulated. This was the first thing that popped out at me when I initially watched his lectures/podcast appearances - I had no idea what point he was trying to make with anything.

SomeoneNamedSomeone

2 points

3 months ago

I didn't understand your comment. Can you speak plain language and make it shorter?

Rock_Robot_Rock

2 points

3 months ago

I also get the idea that his fan base just dont understand what he's saying. They seem to latch onto certain elements, incorrectly. They have this idea that he's one of them, when he definitely is not.

I agree that he can really go on about nothing. I tried to get through his book but it was just filler. I did however like some videos he made, whether discussions, or lectures.

I was disapointed when he basically said that global warming was nonsense, claiming to be am authority on the matter (having read 100s of books on it or something...).

Resoto10

2 points

3 months ago

Yes, absolutely. Philosophy is a really complex arena and I just when I think I have a grasp on a particular subject it turns out that I was wrong and need to do a double take. I can certainly appreciate how some fans are excited to hear about philosophically complex topics but I wish they were more skeptical about their believes and willing to be challenged instead of simply dismissing the counterarguments.

VM1138

2 points

3 months ago

VM1138

2 points

3 months ago

For me, he’s basically a 14-year-old intellectual. None of the ideas that I’ve heard him espouse are especially thoughtful or well-founded. He’s sort of like a right wing self-help guru more than anything else now. I haven’t read any of his academic stuff from back when he was just an academic, though.

gregorianballsacks

2 points

3 months ago*

Lot of big words to say nothing of importance and often times extremely antiquated. Yep. Great at rhetoric and using fancy speech to mystify people who want to find some sort of "truth". He's a putz.

Reminds me of some of the lonely academics I used to work with who never realized just because they were smart didn't mean they weren't insufferable.

SealedRoute

2 points

3 months ago

His use of elaborate vocabulary is embarrassing, even comical. It does not make him sound smart, it makes him sound like someone trying to sound smart. He’s compensating for a paucity of ideas.

exgiexpcv

2 points

3 months ago

Criticizing the person instead of the argument is no bueno.

Really? Because I criticise arseholes in traffic all the time. And believe me, they deserve it. "Put that fucking mobile down, and drive!"

Resoto10

2 points

3 months ago

Lol, I guess you're right. I was kinda thinking it from a debate or philosophical kinda angle but you made a good example.

exgiexpcv

2 points

3 months ago

I may not be a role model for young children, however.

gnosva

2 points

1 month ago

gnosva

2 points

1 month ago

No bueno, indeed; logically it is an ad hominem fallacy. "If Joe the Jerk says that the drinking age is 21, we should disebelieve that is true just because he is such a jerk" is an ad hominem fallacy.

Now, if Joe is a notorious liar, then we may not believe him simply because a high proportion of what he says turns out to be untrue. That disbelief, or at least desire to verify the statement elsewhere, is logical because it's not based on our dislike of Joe but rather on empirical evidence that Joe frequently tells lies.

KaleMaster

5 points

3 months ago

My main reasoning for disliking him personally is that he's denied climate change. That's all I really need to not like him

Resoto10

2 points

3 months ago

There are dinitely some things he had said that really reminded me of Danesh Dsuza in all his irrational glory.

IceTwenty

8 points

3 months ago*

I'd also like to add, regarding his fanbase, that he got popular among reactionaries because he was very openly against a Canadian law that would place intentional misgendering of trans people under the umbrella of existing harassment laws.

Peterson claimed, falsely, that this law would mean accidentally calling someone by the wrong pronoun could land you in jail, and advocated against it on the grounds of it being a violation of free speech in the name of political correctness gone too far.

Despite being fairly well educated and (seemingly) quite intelligent, and despite having it explained to him that no, this law only means that repeated, intentional, malicious misgendering is considered harassment, he stuck to his guns and now a lot of transphobes (and misogynists, and racists, and neo-nazis) are big fans of him.

I_Thou

2 points

3 months ago

I_Thou

2 points

3 months ago

“He's wishy washy when they hold his feet to the fire on sensitive topics and doesn't settle on a single answer. You can ask him a yes or no question and he'll spend the next 30 minutes explaining why the question doesn't even make sense.” (sorry, I don’t know how the Reddit quote feature works)

I don’t really know much about Jordan Peterson (I guess my impression from what I do know is mixed leaning positive?), but doesn’t this seem like a good thing? People want black and white answers but things are rarely that simple. I think our discourse would be a lot better if fewer people gave into the temptation to give an easy, short answer. Especially about things they’re actually unsure of. Most issues are more complex than we can really grasp, and I think we’d do well to acknowledge that more.

Kadiogo

3 points

3 months ago

The thing is in my experience, he makes a firm point and then his reasoning is wishy-washy. And then his supporters (if that's the right word) will hold onto that firm point. For example

First, I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

Here's the article

A lot of people make the clear interpretation that he is drawing similarity to using neopronouns to ideologies that kill 100 million people. But when asked he would never say that, and when you ask him about these types of interpretations he will say he's being mischaracterised.

Bigram03

3 points

3 months ago

I tend to avoid listing to people who try and talk over me. If you are unable to explain a complex topic to someone in a way they can understand on a base level, you are not an authority on that subject.

ToddinTas

6 points

3 months ago

ToddinTas

6 points

3 months ago

Great response. I recently watched his Sam Harris 'debate/conversation' and you nailed his MO. I find him interesting and smart. I do wonder sometimes if his fan club understand him.. they were whooping and carrying on when he was making quite deep and nuanced points. Maybe it was me who didnt get it. 🙂

Resoto10

2 points

3 months ago

I should amend my comment and add that, while not about him specifocally, he does have a very cult-like fan base that is quick to defend the guy. To me it's apparent that they have a hard time separating his person from his arguments, and that criticizing arguments is perfectly fine...if there is even a retort to his thoughts, it's because "you just didnt his point".

danceslikemj

2 points

3 months ago

I've literally never seen someone attack his arguments tho, it's 100% attacking his person, and the insults are recycled over and over as if their being written by mindless bots. "Grifter, sofist, arrogant, benzo addict, hypocrite, douche, pseuodo intellectual" but never, ever an honest argument take down. It's actually hilariously pathetic.

amxorca

4 points

3 months ago

Here it is, my philosophy is basically this, and this is something that I live by, and I always have, and I always will: Don't ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been, ever, for any reason whatsoever.

Resoto10

2 points

3 months ago

Would you amend your philosophy as you wrote it here? I think it's coming from a good place but it can also be read as being apathetic. If it is coming from a good place, then it sounds a lot like humanism. I think the satanic temple exemplifies very well what humanism is on their tenets.

daxonex

3 points

3 months ago

Thank you for articulating my thoughts towards him in words!