Given the money he is still probably making, not so much of a down anything. Just a disappointment for me, I guess. Guy is doing fine. A testament to the ability of having lots of fans with next to 0 brain function; like Trump.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
I’m not talking about his income. The American right will give money to any idiot that parrots what they wanna hear.
It's not just politics. Lots o people despise everything to do with "standard" politics and are willing to get in bed with something new. The one big horror of politics is to think that Trump, Brexit, La Pen, etc are there because of the power of the right; no; they are there because the status que failed the common man and they have become desperate. These idiots presented themselves as the alternative, that is all.
They exist because zilions of people have been left behind in our effort of more and more profit, and less and less for the normal people. It's a long disscusion this but it's always the same: the standard does a shite on people and the extremist take advantage.
Whenever one of these "intellectuals" stops bothering put a veneer of verbose plausible deniability on their bullshit, you get this portion of their fanbase who act as if the pile of bullshit wasn't there all along.
Jordan Peterson has solved climate change with an absolutely meaningless word salad of bollocks.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
his answer is to let the free market solve climate change. the "free market" is the reason there's a problem to solve in the first place. the transition needs proper management. sri lanka is a good example of a bad method of implementation. as are the examples of the farmers worldwide and other working class movements which were needlessly put down. i agree with him on that in a very limited sense because if you fully electrify the transport, industrial, and basic heating and housing sectors, including industrial freight by train, you cut out >70% of all current global emissions. that should be the primary target. going after farmers and fishermen, except in terms of quotas to let stock replenish, is a stupid move, unless it's the last move. would be worthwhile to subsidize the fishing sector so they don't fish btw for a period of a few years to let it rebound.
also
green new deal logic is bad because it doesn't address the necessities of the most impoverished. that's his thesis. his answer is to turn to free market neoliberalism which over forty years has been the cause of all this poverty and inequality. the man does not give a feck about poor people, he just doesn't like the idea of doing something necessary for the environment. also, new deal type plans will benefit the poorest if done correctly because they will include massive jobs programs centred around re-industrialization and construction as well as engineering.
all a green new deal implies is that the energy which drives the economy is sourced from solar, hydro, geothermal, hydrogen, or other types of renewable. it isn't even an ideological distinction. it's a technological distinction. what freedoms do you lose by having an economy in which the productive mode is not reliant upon fossil fuels? the freedom to pollute? if you fully electrify industrial capacity, transport, and buildings, residential and commercial, and do it through hyrbid forms of renewable energy, which will include a mass manufacturing operation centred around the technologies required to generate said electric capacity, then you've solved the problem. people making a culture war out of this are driven by self interest. it isn't an ideological problem. it's no more ideological than the transition from horse and cart to combustion engine. it's the next step and it's entirely logical. even if there wasn't a climate crisis, it would still make sense in technological and economic terms.
he's not an economist. he's not a climate scientist. he's a contrarian, multi millionaire, who now apparently gets paid to talk down to "elites". he is, in short, a cnut.
Last edited:
You can accuse him of verbosity, and fair enough that's a matter of opinion - I personally love his linguistic style, I think it's a stylistic choice, it's an art form, nobody criticizes a painter for using too many strokes, but our primary interest is football where as in all practical things, economy of movement is paramount.
But the essence of what he's saying is hard to argue against. Make our society more democratic, and the will of the people will drive the push toward environmental responsibility. Or perhaps he's giving his readers a platform to arrive at their own conclusions. Using the above you can either conclude that our society isn't democratic enough, or, it is reasonably democratic, people just don't care enough about climate change. The latter is not hard to believe, how many people were and still are Covid responsible? Hard to make the assumption a person cares about the life of a person on the other side of the world in some 3rd world country when they don't seem to care about the health of the person sat across from them on the bus.
When you're writing a work of fiction or similar, sure. But the problem here is that he says a lot of words without really saying anything of meaning. He's a gobshite who fools people with his overly complicated (and nonsensical) way of speaking. Which is funny, since one of his principles is "be precise in your speech".
Can you give me an example of this?
And what's the difference between fiction and non-fiction?
Jordan Pererson is so enlightened that he has graduated to communicating exclusively in meaningless word salad. He'll probably have to go back and redact his own rule about precise speech, but that's a consequence he's willing to face. After all, his fans will think he's a genius no matter what he says, or how he says it.
The article linked above. When he was talking to Joe Rogan about the environment and how the environment means everything. I'm sure I could find more.
I'm sure you're aware of the definition I'm using, so why not just tell me why I'm mis-defining them?
I was hoping for an article. I think it's fairer to accuse a person of communicating incoherently in text rather than speech because it's not the easiest thing in the world to get to the precise meaning of what it is you want to get across, especially if you're also thinking in real time and not just reusing cliched ideas. That's how you have an earnest conversation with someone and develop your position rather than just argue your point to the death. You wouldn't accuse someone with a learning difficulty of 'word salad' would you?
Also that's genuinely not what I'm doing. I'm trying to gauge how you see the distinction between the two. I myself increasingly can't be sure what the difference is between art and reality.
He just did
Using the strict definition of “word salad” as used in psychiatric assessments, Peterson’s musings wouldn’t qualify.
They are, however, ridiculously pompous and unnecessarily verbose. The exact opposite of “being precise in your speech”. When your guru consistently does the exact opposite to what he’s telling you to do, that’s not good, is it?
They are, however, ridiculously pompous and unnecessarily verbose. The exact opposite of “being precise in your speech”. When your guru consistently does the exact opposite to what he’s telling you to do, that’s not good, is it?
How else could you learn to think for yourself?
Not sure if this is a serious question?
There are, obviously, many many ways to learn to think for yourself without listening to nonsensical ramblings from a guru who doesn’t practice what he preaches.
I bet his room is filthy as well.
List one way you would teach someone to think for themself.
Are we being masterfully trolled?
How about I kick things off by listing ways I wouldn’t teach someone to think for themself?
1. Being a hypocrite.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, the point was the hypocritical nature of JP. How is that some sort of pathway to independent thinking?
I think his logic is that Peterson is playing 3D chess. Giving conflicting, nonsensical advice that he doesn’t follow himself, in order to force his acolytes to think for themselves. I mean, it’s obviously bollox but you have to admire his creativity.
I actually really love that
Why is he now having a crack at Environmental Economics in a far-right comic? He should stick to his own field of study, i.e. Pinocchio and lobsters as mapable models for human diagnostics. Get back in the rock pools with Ariel and them old timer. Stupid fecking cnut.
- Creating and testing hypotheses
- Analyzing arguments for bias
- Creating arguments based on deductive reasoning
- Pulling relevant info for a prompt from reading passages
Etc.
None of that requires being a Kermit the Frog voiced hypocrite.
I think you should be more appreciative of what's going on here. By telling you that Peterson is a hypocritical cnut, you're taught to independently think for yourself that he's great, actually.
That's photoshopped right?
iirc it’s real but he was in the middle of moving. Still hilarious
An image out of context? And don't pictures equal a thousand words?I guess Peterson's not the only one guilty of verbosity. At the very least he usually has a point at the end of it. You just won't admit you don't know the answer to the question. And the reason I believe that to be true, is because I don't actually think you can teach a person to think for themself. The power of consciousness is a product of divinity. God is greater than a man.
You won't even ask me what I mean by 'think'. There's no absolute truth on what that means as far as I know. You just tried to answer a question you could not have understood. Not thinking were we?
I literally do. I gave you an exact the answer to the question. It’s like.. my actual fecking job to teach critical thinking.
Highly doubtful, considering man invented god.
I think he was telling the truth this time about the picture (he said it was undergoing renovations), but it's important to note the bloke's a real grifter and lies for fun, so you never know
He used bullet points and was blatantly concise in his post, how could that be described as verbose?
I'm not going to get into the god stuff, if that's your view then cool. But earlier in the thread you said listening to JP was a way to learn to think for yourself
Okay, teach it to me.
Man was inspiring to create the term 'God'. If you name my painting did you draw it?
He could have just said "I don't know" which would have been the truth. Since we started philosophising we've been trying to 'define' consciousness, he just claimed to know exactly what it is and how to give it to a person. That doesn't seem strange to you?
When he gets technical, he's verbose. When he uses basic language you mock him. How does a person win?
You asked how he would teach someone to think for themselves, and he answered by giving a few systems that provide the framework to come to a conclusion. I think maybe you were thinking about consciousness and Carolina was understandably thinking of critical thinking, but if that's the case how would listening to Jordan Peterson give someone 'consciousness', which was what initiated the conversation