Yeah, Fox wasn't a good venue to discuss how 50 students could derail a school and cause so much strife. I go to and work at a predominately Hispanic university. My peers student and faculty were like WTF when we saw this. I honestly believe Bret should of gone the whole route and did the 3.8 million lawsuit. The college that did him wrong was no longer the college that originally hired them....should of burn them to the ground.

People walking around with baseball bats really isn’t fostering the kind of opinion exchange and focus on discourse that acedemics is suppose to encourage. It really reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment)

The experiment took place at Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, California, during the first week of April 1967.[1]

The article did shut job of explaining the initial offense or whatever.

I must have missed the brief, if any, explanation for why exactly he was against the flip flop or role reversal of the original Day of Absence.

The hive mind insanity is standard self defeating liberal bullshit. But I couldn't find the impetus for his decision and got exhaustive, seemingly endless details of the collective freakout.

“There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles,” he wrote to the e-mail list, “and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away.”

Curious, why do you cast hive mind insanity as "liberal"?

I. Am. Also. Curious. Why. He. Thinks. That.

I. Am. Also. Curious. Why. He. Thinks. That.

I had to scroll a lot to see if anyone actually answered the question asked.

The question now is if SkierTrash will answer mine.

Hive mind insanity isn't specific to either side of the spectrum.

Hurr durr lock her up!! BUT HER EMAILS?!?!?!

It's the same as liberals trying to froth about using them/they pronouns and shit like that.

As far as I can tell, he was objecting to the shift from one group voluntarily withdrawing (I think in part to demonstrate their significance by way of absence) to one group demanding that another group be involuntarily ejected. I agree that could and should have been made clearer. He doesn't explain his reasoning for that position - the involuntary nature might be enough - and it's not clear if he ever did so in the email discussions. There are corners of the American left where it's believed the appropriate way to respond to centuries of oppression is to make white men into second-class citizens (e.g., by making them wait until everyone else has spoken, or by not allowing them to speak at all, in group discussions). I'm constantly reminded of the People's Front of Judea.

People hate the shit out of Jordan Peterson because he treats as axiomatic things that aren't even remotely true. Like his "men are order, women are chaos" stuff, or the fact that he assumes that atheism must end in authoritarianism or vicious nihilism.

"Jordan Peterson treats as axiomatic that atheism must end in authoritarianism."

Could you provide a reference for where Peterson makes this claim?

His logic there is pure horseshit, starting with a false dichotomy fallacy and going downhill rapidly.

To summarize, "horseshit".

I can see why numbers likes him so much.

Yeah, i don't want to get into the debate on if he said something or not, but from what is written plainly above, i have to say this person makes some astounding leaps of logic and ignores the benefits of social conditioning. Sure, if a child is abandoned and raised by wolves, one may question that childs ability to "make values voluntarily", otherwise there is an expectation that morals and values are passed down from one generation to the next. This is also how we overcome the duration of our life spans, along with, you know, books and stuff. Clay tablets with cuneform. Cave paintings. We've kind of been doing this for a long time, and it s ems to work, even if it is not passed inherently like a bird knows how to build a nest, or salmon return to their spawning grounds to lay eggs.

Fear and Reward only have limited ability to control our actions, but repetition and reinforcement are what is used to mold our engagements with each other. A child is raised in a theist household, they are taught that divine beings will pass judgement on their actions. A child is raised in an athiest household, they can be taught the exact same values and ethics from a simple standpoint of "the golden rule". Eg: consider your actions in the mindset of how you would want to be treated, and adjust.

There is some good done in the world in the name of Religion, but IMO an overwhelming amount of bad is done as well, in the same name. Death of Religion does not mean death of the rule of law, or of ethics, or of peer review. Arguing that "anything is possible" ignores that there are structures in place that function independent of Religious dogma today. Certainly i think we could make more scientific progress if you were to eliminate the whingeing and hand wringing about "playing God". We would also, as a civilization, be further advanced had we not succumbed to the Dark Ages (which were, of course, a byproduct of religious wars).

Arguing that religion also somehow "helps" the global population (or to be pedantic, that absence of Utopian ideas through maintenance of religious belief would have somehow impacted the population during early 20th century) apparently misses the boat when considering, i don't know, ISIS or Boko Haram or the Crusades or etc. Belief that God Is On Your Side against The Enemy is a tactic employed by every military on the globe (except maybe China).


TL;DR i've read a limited amount of Dr. Petersons work, I've read many of the great works that he references from, but it isn't my field of study. i would like to think he's just poor at articulating in plain english what he "really means", or that he's quoted out of context, but that "Defense of the Patriarchy" article really makes clear to me that what he's really doing is playing with fire for his personal gain, and not much else. He's been launched into celebrity for basically being a dick, and now elevates that by teaching other men to be dicks, and to convince them that the best way the world could be is as it was fifty-odd years ago. In that respect, he's a perfect example of the Zeitgeist of the Trump Presidency, even though he's a Canadian.

I don’t believe this says what you claim it says.

The relevant sentence appears to be, “To stem this unraveling with false certainty: that is totalitarianism” (emphasis mine).He is not claiming that the “unraveling” itself is the cause of totalitarianism. He is explicit that it is the stemming of it with “false certainty” that is totalitarianism.

He makes the distinction crystal clear. How is it unclear to you?

It says what he claims it says, it just doesn't claim what you claim he claims it says.

So this is literally in his Patreon overview...

I’m not sure quite what we’re doing at this point. I am beginning to suspect you are simply throwing up stuff you find online as chaff. The tweet you posted doesn’t support your contention. This Patreon stuff is weaker still.

I have some familiarity with Peterson’s lectures on Dostoevsky and on Nietzsche. in fact I watched some of them again before I queried you about your claims about Peterson’s views. I suspected this was where you were going to go. But once again, I am baffled as to how you feel this supports your initial claim.

Peterson lectures on Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. He gives his views on what they said and believed. This passage is overwhelmingly about them, not Peterson himself. And nowhere in those lectures, nor in this blurb, does Peterson say he believes “atheism must axiomatically end in authoritarianism or vicious nihilism”. This is blindingly evident here, even with the most casual reading.

The crux of the piece is here “It’s not clear that we can create values” (in the absence of God).

Well, then, if it’s not clear, then it’s not clear. Maybe we can, maybe we can't. And if it’s not clear, it sure as hell isn’t “axiomatic”.

It's more than a little ironic that this conversation grew out of the contention that Peterson's views are frequently misrepresented. If this conversation is of any value at all, it's in providing a case study in exactly that kind of misrepresentation.

"It's not clear that we can create values" is a ludicrous statement. Humans created the fictional concept of god along with every system of ethical or moral values that has ever existed, it couldn't possibly be more clear that we can create values - until we find proof of extra-terrestrial intelligence, we are as far as we know the only creators of value in the entire universe. That is what humans do.

If the only thing that keeps someone from committing rape and murder is their fear of retribution from an imaginary sky fairy, that person is dangerous as well as stupid.

I am not here to argue in support of Peterson’s contention in this regard. Only that the quote in no way supports the claim Mr. Dork seems to think it does.

That said, you may be dismissing this a bit too easily. Man may have created God, or not. In either case, he clearly believed in God, in many cases fervently and absolutely, and along with that belief came the certainty of divine and eternal punishment for proscribed acts. The man who genuinely believes in eternal torment for certain behaviors may indeed comport himself differently than one that does not. This includes highly intelligent men along with stupid men. This is central to what Dostoevsky was talking and what Peterson is referencing in the quotation.

Once again, I am not here to argue the proposition, other than to suggest the issue may not be as simple to dismiss as you make it out to be.

I'm pretty sure I know what you're doing at this point, numbers, and it's the same thing as always: being a fucking herpetic sore on the dick of this site. Get fucked.

It's refreshing to see you write about something you know something about. It was painful watching you try to cut and paste your way through a conversation so clearly beyond your ken.

Copy. Surely you meant copy and paste. Unless you think he was assembling his comments out words snipped from magazines, ransom note style.

Pssst...
lt spoiler gt close tag
alternatively
img src "stuff" height="way smaller" width="way smaller"

"...authoritarianism or vicious nihilism."

Leaving that part out of the sentence you quoted drastically changes its meaning. I believe you did it in purpose to reframe the argument into one you could more easily respond to, rather than dealing with the one that was actually presented. That's the same kind of intellectual dishonesty you employ when you engage in antisocial behavior and then claim people are unable to engage with your arguments when they refuse to roll around in the mud with you. It's a perfect example of why no one here takes you seriously.

I can't quite tell if you're pretending to be bad at reading comprehension or pretending to be bad at logic, but either way you're playing dumb, proving once again that you have no real interest in serious discussion and are just trying to score points in a game that you can't seem to understand you're playing alone.

He likes it when people watch.

Can you explain in a way we mere simpletons will understand how you interpret Peterson to mean something which you are amenable to and box away under "good person you like for agreeing with your world view"?

It's beside the point you, yourself made? hmm

So to you all the kids all across the land
There's no need to argue...

I don't think he's a "bad person", I just think he's someone who has a desired end point and constructs the arguments to that end in a shoddy and intellectually dishonest manner. I don't think there is an evil intent, I just think he's a shitty philosopher.

You engaged in a discussion starting with a condescending and derisive "most people lack either the intelligence to understand [opinions] or the attention span or patience" and then proceeded to evince a lack of attention span or patience by responding "I'm not terribly inclined to" and "actually, nevermind. I don't even want to have a discussion here."*

And to add injury to your insult, 4321 found you to be an ally. Now, that's gotta hurt. Nobody wants to catch that fish.

So, you're right. It's not a good idea to pigeon-hole people. Not even the ones you presuppose disagree with you. But rather treat them as people (and not a bunch of Numbers).

*(ironically in a post in which the subject asks others to detail their grievances about something well-documented)

The trend I see, sadly, is that people with complex opinions like this generally end up pigeon-holed, either to the left or right

In this particular case, you can't ignore the fact that he went running to Fox News. You can't on the one hand claim not to be a white supremacist and on the other try to rile them up and otherwise associate with them.

That’s fair. It’s like being called “not-serious” and going onto The Daily Show to defend yourself.

For anyone interested in the bigger picture of the politics of what was going on here, there's a great discussion with Weinstein, Heying, Christina Sommers, and Peter Boghossian at Portland State University.

Victims, Victims Everywhere: Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces, and Academic Freedoms

Ha! This event is so masturbatory I'm pretty sure juiceboxxx posted it first.

Honestly, it's pretty much how I expected a liberal arts college would've turned out.