If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

and if it was, JP is responsible for his words in which he communicated poorly in a public space.

To some degree that's obviously true, but I also think the public have a responsibility to consider context and not jump to wild conclusions.

Of course since the Tweet is so old, this is obviously just a case of manufactured outrage.

he allowed her to mischaracterize his entire thinking and didn't do anything. 'slaughter' and 'annihilate', are you 12? come on

He corrected every single mischaracterization while remaining calm, jovial and avoiding looking like a male tyrant picking on the woman presenter. It was basically a blueprint for how to handle an adversarial interview.

Also if I'm 12, you're 5, since you don't seem to be able to handle basic shit like posting a comment that is formulated correctly.

 

[rms]

It was basically a blueprint for how to handle an adversarial interview.

if you're a bitch, yeah

but I also think the public have a responsibility to consider context and not jump to wild conclusions.

he's an adult, he's a communicator, he uses twitter to bolster his success. he is responsible, not 'to some degree.'

 

[CiG]

if you're a bitch, yeah

I think you've been tackled too many times by sweaty men that you can't think straight.

he's an adult, he's a communicator, he uses twitter to bolster his success. he is responsible, not 'to some degree.'

Fuck that dichotomy, it's not 0% responsible or 100% responsible, he has some responsibility to be very careful with his words and everybody else has some responsibility to consider context, they're also adults.

Also I could be wrong but I believe the Tweet in question is before his video on Bill C16 that rocketed him into fame, or at least they both occured around the same time.

Edit: yep, that Tweet is from March 2016 and he didn't become famous (or whatever) until around September 2016. So this has zero to do with using Twitter to further his fame, as Ein also insinuated when he claimed this was just about being a provocateur.

lol.

 

[Einherjar86]

I admittedly didn't know the context of the comment, which makes the entire scenario seem less douchey.

I do, however, stand by my comment about Peterson being a provocateur. He knows what pushes buttons and acts accordingly. I don't think he's particularly intelligent, based on what I've seen from him.

 

[CiG]

I admittedly didn't know the context of the comment, which makes the entire scenario seem less douchey.

Nobody did, that was the point.

I do, however, stand by my comment about Peterson being a provocateur

Add 'provocateur' to the list of words being rendered basically meaningless these days tbh. Along with fascist, populist, liberal, marxist, racist, journalist, radical etc.

I don't think he's particularly intelligent, based on what I've seen from him.

lmao. This is like when a right-winger calls Noam Chomsky a dumb ass. Blinded by bias.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, it really isn't, and I'm not. He's nowhere near Chomsky's level. He's a good speaker and has absorbed a certain amount of sociological analysis, but he basically regurgitates the data that work for him. He's not a critical thinker.

I don't want to get into a spitting match, but the lengths you go to defend him are absurd.

 

[CiG]

The lengths you go to dismiss him are more absurd.

I'm not arguing that he's on Chomsky's level, I'm arguing that often is the case someone belittles the intelligence of blatantly intelligent people due to ideological biases, like you with JP.

I also disagree that he's not a critical thinker, he may have his blindspots much like anybody else (ie Chomsky and his 'all roads lead to it being America's fault' tautological thinking) but I think you're being unreasonable.

I think you have a feeling about JP that you go with, which is why your criticisms of him are usually either quite vague, a mischaracterization or an accusation with little specificity.

 

[CiG]

Btw, just to spread some charity, after that argument about JP's use of and conflation of postmodernism and marxism when you explicitly stated that they are too at-odds with each other to be conflated I physically cringe now every time I see or hear it being done.

Same with cultural marxism though that cringe goes back a bit further.

I just know it's going to be like 'liberal' for me all over again, constantly trying to correct people who misuse it.

Anyway my point is, that's a large area where JP is and should be wide open to criticism. Somebody should take him to task over it imo.

 

[Dak]

With JP being a psychoanalyst, I'm not sure the degree to which his practicing of psychology utilizes "mechanisms of behavior" in his formulations and therapy. If he does, his conflation makes functional sense.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Not gonna defend the specific tweet as it is fairly offensive but it is rather telling that that's the worst thing I've seen anyone dig up on him and the guy has been on social media for ages + has hundreds of hours of media on his youtube account, much of it from before he got famous.

 

[Einherjar86]

The lengths you go to dismiss him are more absurd.

I'm not arguing that he's on Chomsky's level, I'm arguing that often is the case someone belittles the intelligence of blatantly intelligent people due to ideological biases, like you with JP.

I also disagree that he's not a critical thinker, he may have his blindspots much like anybody else (ie Chomsky and his 'all roads lead to it being America's fault' tautological thinking) but I think you're being unreasonable.

I think you have a feeling about JP that you go with, which is why your criticisms of him are usually either quite vague, a mischaracterization or an accusation with little specificity.

I appreciate the pomo/marxism comment. I can't honestly say that I don't have an opinion on Peterson, and it's certainly not high; but at this point I just feel like I've seen enough of his work to defuse any potential interest I may have in reading further.

In all fairness, I feel like I've attended to the specifics of what he's said/written, at least when they've been provided. Those pages from his book are one example. I've also carefully read positive assessments of his work online (which I have no reason to assume are mischaracterizations) and used those as sources. As I've said before, it's difficult when the only options are to read his book(s) or watch his videos. Videos really aren't my preferred mode of communication, and I find it very difficult to digest them.

 

[CiG]

Not gonna defend the specific tweet as it is fairly offensive

No it isn't. What are you offended by, the word Indian? lmao.

As I've said before, it's difficult when the only options are to read his book(s) or watch his videos. Videos really aren't my preferred mode of communication, and I find it very difficult to digest them.

That's fair enough, I'm sure there's a lot of reading material out there you could use to measure the man, if this is anything to go by: http://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ

 

[Dak]

Those are social science papers though. That's outside of Ein's area. Frankly personality research is even out of my area if we want to get specific. I imagine the papers on fiction reading and psychological constructs might at least be interesting to him.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I was joking.

Mentioning something, again, is not the same as addressing something. A throw-away joke comment can mention something while not addressing that same something, this is pretty basic stuff.

That's exactly the point you fucktard. He made a racist joke and in the following paragraph you start talking about Native alcoholism as a sociological phenomenon, yet you pretend you weren't conflating the two and that it wasn't initially obvious that it was a joke.

Still waiting for all those white males attacked for mentioning Native alcoholism, btw, you slimy fuck.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, it really isn't, and I'm not. He's nowhere near Chomsky's level. He's a good speaker and has absorbed a certain amount of sociological analysis, but he basically regurgitates the data that work for him. He's not a critical thinker.

I don't want to get into a spitting match, but the lengths you go to defend him are absurd.

Also, lmao @ the scientific process being "basically regurgitat[ing] the data". You probably sat through an undergraduate 100-level lecture once and assumed that's all it was, a bunch of guys sitting around memorizing and regurgitating "the data", which fall from some magical place in the sky, or perhaps purely from the subjective interpretations of some silly scientist that doesn't realize he knows nothing. Unless you specifically believe/know that Peterson is an unethical researcher that throws away data he doesn't like or something, but I kinda doubt a dataphobic pomoman like yourself has bothered.

 

[CiG]

The Twitterati are trying to smear Jordan Peterson as a racist because he has in some vague context brought up the link between indigenous people and alcoholism.

I love how these advocacy groups and orgs spend thousands of dollars doing outreach programs to try and fix indigenous community problems of domestic violence, alcoholism and drug abuse and then when someone (especially if they're white) mentions the problem they become racists.

Not that I don't love racist jokes, but I don't see how that addresses issues of alcoholism any more than replying to a photo of a white guy shooting a gun at the range with "Better you than some black guy shooting it at his wife" addresses black gun violence.

Well I didn't say he addressed alcoholism.

You clearly drew an equivalence between advocacy groups on the issue of Native American alcoholism and Peterson's likely-joke tweet. He's not being criticized for mentioning statistics on the link of alcoholism and being a Native, he's being criticized for making what appears to be an unprompted racist joke.

Addressing something and mentioning something are not the same thing.

Mentioning something, again, is not the same as addressing something. A throw-away joke comment can mention something while not addressing that same something, this is pretty basic stuff.

That's exactly the point you fucktard. He made a racist joke and in the following paragraph you start talking about Native alcoholism as a sociological phenomenon, yet you pretend you weren't conflating the two and that it wasn't initially obvious that it was a joke.

No I didn't pretend that, I said that Peterson brought up the link between indigenous people and alcoholism in some vague context, which we now know wasn't even there anyway.

Initially it seemed as if he was mentioning the link, as in briefly and without detail, which is the direct definition of the word 'mention' which is why I used it. It was vague and imo the outraged reaction really acted as a window into the racism of the outraged, which is what I riffed on when I talked about the hypocrisy of advocacy groups.

You brought up whether he addressed the issue or not. A short throwaway joke Tweet pre-popularity isn't the kind of thing I would personally characterise as an addressing of something, just based on what that word means. That's why I said I didn't say he addressed the issue, but rather vaguely mentioned it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

And Chomsky stopped being relevant in the 70s, if I'm being generous (more realistically the 50s and 60s when all of his work on linguistics was wrapping up prior to a career of being a political provacateur).

"Dude, like, Pol Pot was a good guy, man"
"Dude, like, capitalist death squads killed millions of Indonesians, man"
"Dude, like, international trade isn't international if an international company trades parts from one division in a country to another country, man"
"Dude, like, free trade agreements are actually all simply protectionism, just look at how high tariffs are right now, man"

He's a brilliant guy with an encyclopedic mind willing to take on issues many aren't, but he's still a political hack at the essence of it all, and frequently makes up or exaggerates data to make a point.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No I didn't pretend that, I said that Peterson brought up the link between indigenous people and alcoholism in some vague context, which we now know wasn't even there anyway.

Initially it seemed as if he was mentioning the link, as in briefly and without detail, which is the direct definition of the word 'mention' which is why I used it. It was vague and imo the outraged reaction really acted as a window into the racism of the outraged, which is what I riffed on when I talked about the hypocrisy of advocacy groups.

You brought up whether he addressed the issue or not. I short throwaway joke Tweet pre-popularity isn't the kind of thing I would personally characterise as an addressing of something, just based on what that word means. That's why I said I didn't say he addressed the issue, but rather vaguely mentioned it.

But to mention the link without direct context in the conversation, and with the added context of theft is clearly drawing on racial stereotypes to the end of making a racist joke. It wasn't remotely vague, anyone that isn't a Peterson fellator could see that the generous interpretation was a joke. The explanation after adds some context, but "some Indian" obviously makes reference to a group of people, not a specific Indian bartender, and unnecessarily.

And you're dodging again. You mentioned IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH your problem with white men being unfairly attacked for simply mentioning the problem. Maybe I did read too far into your initial post and you equated all forms of "mentioning" as the same, because there are cases where people are attacked for mentioning a problem. Trump was called racist for simply mentioning the obvious fact that inner-city black neighborhoods have high levels of gun violence. Maybe what you really meant to say was

I love how these advocacy groups and orgs spend thousands of dollars doing outreach programs to try and fix indigenous community problems of domestic violence, alcoholism and drug abuse and then when someone (especially if they're white) makes a racist joke about the problem they become racists.

So name these white males then if that's all you were talking about.

 

[CiG]

Still waiting for all those white males attacked for mentioning Native alcoholism, btw, you slimy fuck.

So name these white males then if that's all you were talking about.

And you're dodging again. You mentioned IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH your problem with white men being unfairly attacked for simply mentioning the problem.

I didn't say "white males" lol.

I really don't know how to word such a search but right off the top of my head a politician over here Mark Latham got reamed for talking about alcoholism and domestic violence in indigenous Australian communities. You see it on TV here so much, especially on programs like Q&A.

The explanation after adds some context, but "some Indian" obviously makes reference to a group of people, not a specific Indian bartender, and unnecessarily.

No "some Indian" refers to the bartender whom they didn't personally know. She was just some Indian bartender.

 

[CiG]

This isn't exactly a good example because the poster remained anonymous but it's a pretty funny example: http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-new...s-fashion-label-after-racist-instagram-tirade