…indeed.
Why have you chosen to jump back into the discussion now? It is pretty fucking obvious to me that I’m not the one who is butthurt.
If you don’t want to be called a fucking liar then don’t fucking lie.
We are in the fucking pit. If the level of discourse here upsets you then fuck off somewhere else where your precious feelings won’t get fucking hurt.
…for fucks sakes: another fanboy claiming to not be a fanboy Just Asking Questions?
Lobsters. Fucking lobsters.
Peterson’s claim:
Is Peterson an expert on Lobsters?
No he isn’t. So his qualification as an “expert in psychology” doesn’t necessarily relate to everything he says. And claiming that it does is a fallacy.
But is he right here?
P. Z. Myers, an evolutionary biologist, thinks not. If you care too (and I don’t blame you if you don’t, I hate youtube links) watch his debunking here.
And the follow up.
I'm not actually a fan of P. Z. Myers. So you want a different source?Then here’s Dr Leonor Goncalves Research Associate in Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, UCL.
Do you need more? I can cite them if you want. Or you can look it up for yourself. It isn’t that hard.
This has nothing to do with his statistical work or proper methodology or math. Because Peterson speaks outside of his profession so often and that’s why his statements are problematic. (by all accounts he is a fairly reputable scientist when he remains in his own lane) The lobster example is simply one example. There are plenty of others. But this thread isn’t about Peterson.
For the sake of keeping this thread on track I will no longer respond to any more people Just Asking Questions about Peterson.
And there we have it.
That is all you had to say at the beginning.
Wasn’t so hard was it?
Now I see what you mean, and I agree.
As other people with a background in history have already pointed out, Peterson has also made assertions about the Holocaust and World War II (here, for example) that are - at best - misinformed or, as Myers points out in the video that you linked (thanks for that, btw) “[…] distorting the evidence to fit an agenda.”
He doesn’t understand the key motivation that led the Nazis to plan and conduct the war - though I do hope that he changed his mind since holding this lecture because historians must have told him by now how wrong he is.
There is so much wrong there that I could not summarize it without leaving out serious misconceptions.
But the key here is his attempt to use Jungian theory to explain Nazi motivation which leads him to ignore an abundance of historical research that contradicts his narrative.
The nazis weren’t interested in “mayhem” but in the annihilation of the Jews and everyone else not worthy of existence. Race and its purity defined worth, and history was a struggle among races for survival.
The war was not just the embodiment of this belief but also its justification and implementation.
If you understand the motivation to start the war, you can easily see that Peterson’s entire argumentation in this lecture is skewed since his basic assumptions are erroneous.
And in case you have not yet realized it: No, not a fanboy.
…in response to what?
To this?
Or to this?
Or to this?
That single sentence you cherry picked doesn’t address any of the fucking questions you threw my way.
How the fuck was I supposed to know that a sentence unrelated to anything you asked of me was what the fuck you were looking for?
…fair enough: and my apologies.
All good, just a misunderstanding.
It’s less obvious to me, but you do have the advantage of a close-up view.
If you take ten seconds to consider it you’ll see that it is relevant to all of it.
You dismissed all that he’s written and done and say that you’ll not read anything of his and yet at the same time accept that he’s a reputable scientist in his own field.
Which makes your original comparison to Hitler silly hyperbole and your blanket rejection of all his work ignorant.
Had you come forward after my first response to you and said something along the lines of “Actually that’s hyperbole, he is a reputable scientist but I have disagreements with some of his views” Then we’d have been in exact agreement.
You linked to a PZ Myers criticism of Peterson. I hadn’t seen that before but after listening to it I see many excellent points. Myers is someone I have a massive amount of time for and read his work often. I’d trust him for a breakdown on evolutionary biology but not necessarily on human Psychology.
At the end of the day it never weakens your argument when you accept that those you dislike *can *say things you agree with. Absolutely the contrary. A concession is not necessarily a backward step.
I don’t care much either way about Peterson but I think your (or anyone’s) blanket, premeditated, refusal to even consider anything he says as potentially worthwhile as indicative of a poor approach to critical reasoning and it does you and the wider discussion no good in the long run.
I’ll leave you to carry on and my apologies to the OP for the Hijack.
I am dubious about commentary that doesn’t attempt to put the tweets in the context of the original conversation. Most tweets aren’t essays (though they can be). Some are more like telephone conversations than interviews. And the 140 character limit severely limited qualified remarks. It’s not like a NYT column and it’s really unlike posting on this message board, even in the Pit.
Same goes for French’s and Sullivan’s remarks. Unimpressive. (No worries about bringing their links into this thread though- that’s fighting ignorance.)
On fighting ignorance - I wish Italia had expanded more on the comparative situation in the Indian subcontinent that she remarked on briefly. She says that the alt/far-right are a serious problem there too; but that the context is one where there’s not so much a single dominant historically guilty culture that has abused others, rather numerous groups have held power to varying degrees in various times and places and all committed appalling atrocities. My knowledge of Indian history is limited to imperialism and Gandhi, something I should rectify.
I won’t quibble about the details of French’s presentation of the tweets, but I think his statements of principle are straightforward liberal humanism, not something I’d regard as remotely right wing. I find the fact that these values are now controversial in the civilized part of society almost as disturbing as the recent rise to power of uncivilized society.
But just to make sure I don’t get cooties on me: I agree with all of French and most of Italia, but I think Sullivan is often foolish and that this his article on this was dishonest - I didn’t link to Sullivan, and I don’t think he’s a clear thinker at all.
The power structure of the cast system is similar in some ways but I think it lacks the watershed move in policy which intended to fictionalize the under classes based on a single event like in US history.
These days most of these acts of hate are attempts to distract oneself from feelings such as helplessness, powerlessness, injustice, inadequacy and shame.
Bias and attribution errors are unfortunately a human trait but the eugenic white stance is pretty shameful.
I have nothing to be ashamed about for being white, just as someone who is black shouldn’t have to be ashamed of that. But I am very much ashamed of people who will perpetuate evil and subjugation because they are cowards who happen to be white.
That said the propaganda that leverages the unfortunate human implicate bias is pretty effective if they can keep people in ignorance. Have the reason for the vitriol is to ensure that ignorance is maintained.
fictionalize should be factionalize.
…when did I dismiss all that he had written? That’s an assumption that you made. Just like the assumption that I didn’t think he was a reputable scientist in his own lane.
It wasn’t a comparison.
It was a list.
A list that also included two other things that you continue to pretend that I didn’t list.
A list that you decided was a comparison when it obviously wasn’t.
I’m not ignorant for saying I won’t watch Adam Sandler movies.
And I’m not ignorant for saying I don’t want to read Jordan Peterson.
There is no silly hyperbole in my statement “I wouldn’t read anything written by Jordan Peterson.” It was just a statement.
“I wouldn’t read anything written by Jordan Peterson” is not hyperbole.
My stance has not changed.
It was a mere statement of fact. I still won’t read Peterson.
A strawman. (at least in regards to anything I have said.) All I said was I wouldn’t read anything written by Jordan Peterson. Its not even about “liking” or “not liking” Peterson.
Peterson has chosen to inject himself into a debate that he has little-to-no expertise on. From lobsters to the movie Frozen Peterson is literally a purveyor of “fake science” and conspiracy. His fanbase is largely toxic. None of that is hyperbole. No I didn’t compare Peterson to Hitler. But I would compare him (as does the Guardian article) to Mike Cernovich, Gavin McInnes and Paul Joseph Watson.
Its much more than a mere quibble about the science.
Just a reminder that all I said was “I wouldn’t read anything written by Jordan Peterson.”
You extrapolated from that that this was a blanket, premeditated refusal to even consider anything he says as potentially worthwhile and conclude that this is a poor approach to critical reasoning.
The reality is I simply don’t have that much time in my day. I have a fucking life. I won’t read Jordan Peterson because why the fuck should I?
This little diversion from the thread topic was not my fucking fault. All I said was I wouldn’t read anything written by Jordan Peterson. You took that statement and turned it into something it wasn’t.
Hijacked and augured in. You definitely like talking about the guy.
…and you obviously have nothing else to say.
What can I say- I read far more than I post. I was enjoying the back and forth regarding the OP and was learning about different viewpoints, but then you completely killed the discussion. I thought it was a shame.
…fuck off.
Don’t fucking blame me for this shit.
If you are going to call me out you need to be calling Novelty Bobble out as well.
This all started because I made a fucking list. I wrote a sentence and Bobble read too much into that sentence. Bobble practically invited me to respond point-by-point so I did.
This is a messageboard, and sometimes topics drift and sometimes topics die. If you want to get back to the original topic I’m not fucking stopping you. If you don’t want to read what I have to say then use the ignore button. But if you are going to accuse me of killing the discussion then I’m gonna tell you fuck right off.
Oddly enough, my impulse is to actually defend Jeong to a degree.
Some background: I started a thread in the Elections board a few months ago, which ultimately was closed, that was essentially a lament about the increasing ubiquity of this kind of “white people suck” (and especially straight white men) smack talk on social media. My concern being that it alienates and ironically “others” young white guys who might otherwise have been open to being progressives or at least Democrats, and just serves up a huge freebie to the alt-right.
My assertion that this kind of talk has become rampant in online progressive spaces was pooh-poohed. But it really is. It’s thrown around without much thought at all. And that is why I want to defend Jeong: in those spaces, it’s a routine bit of rhetoric, and among your Millennial progressive peers it is not only not stigmatized, it will get you praise (in the form of likes and retweets). I can’t blame her for not having more awareness that outside of that in-group, it will be received poorly.
All electoral political considerations aside, I wish more people would understand that a Rawlsian “original position” ethic goes both ways: no one should be dragged for characteristics they are born with and cannot change. That goes for being a straight white man just as much as for being a black lesbian. Focus on criticizing the things that people can choose to be a part of, or not to be, which includes their social, political, and religious affiliations.