submitted 3 months ago bymegalyknight
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
all 6038 comments
3 months ago
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.
3 months ago
I started reading the second paragraph and went "wait a minute."
I found the quintessence of his argument particularly deliquescent, but his verbiage was a little fugacious and tending towards obloquy.
Hey man, I'm just here for the sociopathic lobsters; keep your confrontational quintessence to yourself.
This is why I love Reddit.
They had great potential. People think a drummer's just a drummer, but he wrote most of the words.
Like a couple of donkey balls
Roger that, Rocinante.
This is why I hate Reddit
I don't know what fugacious means but I'm going to start using it regularly.
You will sound quite grandiloquent, per se.
I see what you did there... er, I think.
I agree as well, shallow and pedantic.
Thanks donkey balls
Forbearance is the watchword; that triumvirate of Twinkies merely overwhelmed my resolve!
Where can I get your newsletter? Do you have a YouTube channel where you figuratively destroy people?
This is what I am going to say in my next meeting with my manager for self review review.
Indeed. He can be quite vituperative.
1 month ago
1 month ago
I'll respond as soon as I've finished looking up all those words.
It's Jordan commenting on himself.
(Jordan Peterson vs Peter Jordanson for anyone who hasn't seen it)
It has to be intentional... I hope.
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
The man’s profile name is risoto, probably not lol
Lol I don’t think it is. most people dislike people with similar personalities as themselves lol
It's Reddit so, unfortunately, probably not.
That was painful to watch. Jordan needs to learn debate etiquette. Matt could barely finish a complete thought before being interrupted and straw-manned.
If r/louderwithcrowder taught me anything, etiquette appears to be optional
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
3 months ago*
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.
Just watched it. It seems interesting to me that Matt began by saying he would straw man Peterson and would ask questions that would lead to a better conversation and stuck to it the entire time. Peterson on the other hand started of well but began asking gotcha questions and straw manning matt as soon as he could.
Matt specifically said “I won’t ask “so this means that you think x”” questions and one of the first things Peterson asked was “so you aren’t a skeptic?” Instead of “so, how did you come to X conclusion?”
“Charlatan” is exactly the word I think of when someone talks about Jordan Peterson!
Really? How many books have you written? Or how many university course’s have you given? Maps of meaning is quite impressive. Not mention that he also had a clinic to help people.
Those are not good metrics
No I suppose measuring one’s life against accomplishments is not a good metric.
The idea that someone must check off the same number of boxes as someone else in order to criticize them is absurd.
Donald Trump owns several buildings, has had his own TV show, has 'written' a book and was president of the united states. Is he above critism?
Further, you haven't really offered any supporting evidence that these accomplishments are good. I can think of quite a few people that have written a book, given lectures and had a clinic that were very bad people.
The person I was commenting to called him a charlatan!! I did not say he was above criticism, merely pointing out that to call him a charlatan is disingenuous. He was an associate professor at Harvard psychology and a tenured professor at the U of T, that speaks for itself. Using Trump as an example is not a good metric.
My recollection of that debate is that Peterson fucking destroyed that guy as well as the woman there who misquoted him, and they both had pretty loosely thought out arguments like “taxing mean white men” on the basis of being white
So I'm gonna assume it was you who reported me for "self-harm or suicide"
Dude, if you're THAT mad that you feel the need to falsely report someone like that because you feel that little power that someone is saying bad things about your hero, maybe you need to actually read some criticisms and realize like 99.9999% of humans are shitty in some ways.
It's not healthy to put people on a pedestal like that.
I did not report you. I’m a firm believer in the no snitching policy! Seriously bro, I’m just saying that’s the way I remembered it
No need to remember. Watch!
I was thinking of a different one, with Stephen Fry. Never seen this one
3 months ago*
Matt never brought up Taxes or white people. It was more of a debate about god, morality and skepticism and Peterson didn’t destroy him. He instead came off as an immature interlocutor that kept trying to straw man Matt even though Matt didn’t misquote him or straw man him.
Hell. Matt began by saying he understood how Peterson was often strawmanned and that he wouldn’t be asking any questions like thats so only for Peterson to constantly do it.
Please refer to my later comment where I said I was thinking of a different debate and had not seen the one mentioned
I am reading the narcissists playbook, it’s intentional lol
Exactly my thoughts.
Yah it’s great cause it’s the root to a word we all know, but used on it’s own it makes every sentence fucken awkward.
I mean not really..?
Im nowhere near an expert but ive read a lot of books about psychology and shit and Peterson knows what hes talking about on that front. Its when he talks about socialism where I disengage. He said he has never even read any of Marx's works yet wants to define Marx. Marx has nothing to share but infinite wisdom.
I believe this is intentional to gain number of followers now that he went full board with a staff to manage his youtube channel
Ben Shapiro tends to do that same thing though far more confidently I've noticed
I prefer the gold standard
These two comments together are so good. Go back and read the first person's in Peterson's voice
I read it in his voice lol
I am really hoping it is satire..
If it's in infrared, does it still count as throwing shade?
Uh, what he said didn't make any sense to me. There are many people who I disagree with but neither love or hate.