Dianne would run rings around him in a one-on-one.
Jordan Peterson Thread.
- Thread starter mezzrow
- Start date
- Status
Dianne would run rings around him in a one-on-one.
carlos21
KING OF REP
I have got to start red dead redemption 2 off again mate.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
I know we are meant to all be credulous @dholliday-types these days, ornery in our performed magnanimity, acknowledging purely for form's sake the value in the other side's stupid or appalling perspectives, setting aside tribal/partisan differences and nobly pretending we can rise above the fray by seeing the good in everyone - but I don't care, and hope this is literally true, because if he gets actual scurvy, I will be incapacitated for hours if not days by laughter
Yarrgh
Player Valuation: £80m
Apparently if you eat enough cow or bull and nothing else, you can actually start emitting bullsh*t from every orifice.
If only I had mastery of MS Paint, then a picture of Jordan spewing brown matter from his head orifices would be forthcoming.
A mate of mine went to see him in Manchester. He had a ticket bought for him by someone he knew. £65 a ticket! I don't care if he's a genius or a crazed loon, if you can get £65 from a load of people who want to hang out with other people like them decrying snowflakes and how the trains used to run on time in the 50's like some kind of bad Harry Enfield sketch about the olden days, then I do have an appreciation of your money making gumption.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Beyond the Emperor's New Clothes ten-dollar-word slury/plagiarised-from-fortune-cookie platitudes that are his books (depending on which one you choose), this is far and away the most galling thing about him - the shamelessness of the grift, and the contempt for the basic values of his profession.
Peterson is paid a fortune in base salary by the tax-payers of Ontario - he is in the top 3% of Canadian income-earners.
Beyond his salary, he has also been lavished by tax-payers with nearly $800,000 in additional research funding, though he nonetheless whines about being insufficiently supported, as a form of persecution for his politics (in my field, the SSHRC success rate was under 8% in 2017-18).
Accepting funding from SSHRC (and in turn, the Canadian tax-payer) comes with an understanding (not to mention a signed contract) that the honour of accepting such generous public support carries a responsibility to share one's research findings whenever called upon. The work belongs in the public realm, as the terms of the award make explicit. When a journalist, or a scholar, or most of all, a member of the public contacts you, for any reason, to enquire about the work their taxes have enabled, then there's a moral obligation to respond, as they've quite literally paid to make it possible. Charging $60/month or whatever to people who've already lavished him with literally millions in public funds over the past 20 years just so he'll deign to acknowledge them is disgraceful.
If he truly feels compelled, as a result of his research, to proclaim the link between lobster and man, then so be it - but as long as he collects so much as a dime from the citizens of Canada, he has an obligation to engage with them free of charge. And if he had any sense of professionalism or basic decency, he'd have resigned from U of T on day one of his Patreon clown college scheme, and refunded every last cent of his research grants - which are clearly no longer contributing to anything remotely resembling the pledges for which they were awarded.
And that is not even the sleaziest bit of his act; worse still, by far, is the betrayal of his students' trust in pursuit of easy money and passing notoriety.
Contrary to what Fox News or the Washington Times or whatever conjure up in order to swindle credulous old men into clicking on overpriced gold scams, today's students are not some frothing mob of Red Guards. They are - thanks again primarily to the politics of angry, lonesome old men - facing a future less certain than at any time since at least the 1930s, and impelled to take on tens of thousands in debt just to be able to have a shot at playing the game (all to save men of Fox News age the trouble of paying taxes for the many services they consume). Today's students, by and large, are far more disciplined, committed, and serious than were their parents, and far more anxious for their futures - rightly so. They are also, as every other generation of teenagers has been before them, young and impressionable, and quick to seize upon the moral clarity that radical ideas appear to offer. And like their parents before them, when the bell rings, and the lecture hall closes, they deserve to be able to express themselves among their peers, to explore dubious theories, to declare stupid opinions, and to make embarassing mistakes, without their instructor turning around and publicly mocking them in order to drive his book sales (!!!)
Protecting students' interests and upholding their trust is perhaps the most fundamental and important responsibility that any professor ever bears. That stunt alone merits a lifetime ban from the classroom (though this would obviously only further inflame the most comfortable generation in history's martydom fantasies, and to prompt men like @mezzrow to pump even more money into Peterson's shameless rackets).
To so crassly monetise his classroom grandstanding, after it accidentally made him internet-famous, is truly disugsting. And it's this, the greed, and the sleaze, and the disdain for the integrity of the classroom, that have rendered him universally reviled in Canadian academia - not, as he so righteously bleats, his (self-proclaimed) "dangerous" old man's whinging.
The sooner he's out of the profession and selling fake Botox and Panamanian timeshares to seniors on Fox News, where he belongs, the better. And anyone I've ever met who takes classroom instruction remotely seriously feels the same way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yarrgh
Player Valuation: £80m
I admire your loathing of the snake oil and its seller. I hope you don't mind that I snipped some segments of your post - or as I call it, a Jordanisation edit.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Excerpt from Psychology Today:
A major reason for being pleased with the misfortune of another person is that this person's misfortune may somehow benefit us; it may, for example, emphasize our superiority.
Do you enjoy feeling superior (in your own mind and within your small echo chamber) to someone who is objectively successful and inspirational?
Both these concepts are very very open and can also and have been in Peterson's case very cynically employed, of course you are only using this as a desperate personal attack on @abelard in a very trite way
dholliday
deconstructed rep
I'm asking in all my performed magnanimity if Abe enjoys feeling superior to Jordan Peterson, or if he maybe gets something else out of feeling joy at his pain. I'm interested in the response. It's a psychology thread after all.
I agree with this part, it is most definitely a performance on your part
dholliday
deconstructed rep
What's also interesting from the perspective of psychology is believing your debate-opponent is making things up...'performing'...as what else could explain the difference of opinion?
Psychologically, the tribally-defined mind cannot fathom the thinking of people outside of his own tribe. It's an old defence-mechanism from back in our hunter-gatherer days, as other tribes often meant conflict.
We do evolve out of this, but it's a slow process. A long game, if you like.
It's a lie designed to provoke, just like your last post, and quite easy to see through I'm afraid
dholliday
deconstructed rep
which bit is the lie? JP is objectively successful and inspirational. That's not a lie. He's not inspirational to everyone, i didn't say he was. But he's inspirational to enough people to be able to objectively call him an inspirational figure.
So where's the lie?
You used abelards clear jest at Peterson's obsession with being seen to be eating a 'manly' diet, as an accusation of him seriously wishing to see others suffer. You backed this up with the trite accusation that any critique of a public figure is no more than jealously. There are plenty of legimate critiques to make of a man espousing opinion to the easily influenced on subjects he isn't qualified to and clearly has little understanding in. He backs this up by sharing a stage with some truly awful people, and by proxy promotes them.
You have been called out on your cheap nonsense, and have tried to sidestep and pretend your post was a much more cerebral argument than first appeared. Your usual modus operandi, but I grow bored of your predictability now and look forward to your next hiatus, good day sir
- Status