United States Corrupt Twattery

[caLLous]

Trump fires Rex Tillerson as secretary of state

 

[Gwadien]

Tillerson seemed a bit more... moderate (?) than Trump on many issues.

Removing that influence?

 

[Ormorof]

He was also anti-russia...

 

[Wij]

He was also anti-russia...

He was awarded a medal of friendship thing by Putin and negotiated oil deals with Russia for Exxon so I think you may be exaggerating a touch. However he did absolutely back the UK on the Russia assassination and got sacked immediately. Pure coincidence?

 

[Hawkwind]

Trump given a bloody nose in Pennsylvania special congressional election:

 

[Wij]

I get it, but the point is that it is entirely duplicitous to point fingers and complain when you do exactly the same thing.

This whole polarisation of America and Western societies in general is the cause of what is going on. Good documentary on the whole Dr Peterson and the intellectual dark web sensation. Raises some very good points.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQCTeGKHsVc

I felt good reading this and being glad that I'm not the only one who thinks Jordan Peterson talks utter bollocks.

The Intellectual We Deserve | Current Affairs

 

[Hawkwind]

I felt good reading this and being glad that I'm not the only one who thinks Jordan Peterson talks utter bollocks.

The Intellectual We Deserve | Current Affairs

A good read and he's right to a point. People are drawn to Peterson and others like him because they make more sense than the insanity of movements like antifa and the far left activists. The groups determined to stop free speech that they deem hurtful. Even when his ideas are convoluted or not fully explained. But, then the issues are extremely complex something Peterson states all the time. Reasons are varied and he often gets the Cathie Newman type retort, @so your saying..." and then pick one thing out of a multitude of options. Robinson has somewhat dumb'd down and misinterpreted some of Peterson's live interviews, like the below:

Now one could interpret this disturbing passage to mean that Peterson is upset that there’s a social taboo against him beating up the Toronto woman who calls him a Nazi. In fact, I don’t really see how to interpret it differently: he says that he’s “defenseless” against her “insanity” because the techniques he “would” use on a man are “forbidden.” (Why he has no other “defenses,” such as “ignoring her,” is unclear.)

I think it was very clear what he was saying and it is true. He just used a poor example in the live interview.

Good read though and agree that any such work should always be questioned. Peterson is just filling a vacuum against a sea of unreasonable opposition.

 

[Scouse]

I felt good reading this and being glad that I'm not the only one who thinks Jordan Peterson talks utter bollocks.

The Intellectual We Deserve | Current Affairs

I don't buy into everything Jordan Peterson says, of course, but I think he's well meaning and relatively on-track. I've watched a bit recently (mainly in response to that idiotic channel 4 interview, before which I'd never heard of him) and I think he's an academic doing what he can. What I do think is happening, as the article you posted points out, is that his opinions are attracting a lot of idiots who are cherry picking what he's saying and using that to justify their own idiocy.

Bear in mind that most people are idiots, then you'll recognise why so many idiots flock to him.

However, I don't find the overall argument in your article persuasive. Some of it is fair but for much of it it's plain that the author is clearly unhappy with grey areas and complexity and prefers a "which is it then?!" approach.

The author seems unable to hold multiple competing and conflicting viewpoints at the same time in a sort of "melting pot of pressures". And I think JP does that quite well - and is getting taken for it (because most people hear one sentence, latch onto it and then apply that to a whole thinking - hence the channel 4 interview and the idiots).

I don't think his ideas are perfect. There's definitely waffle and non-science in there (he's a psychologist at the end of the day). I get that you're uncomfortable with a lot of it because you've studied that area too. But on the whole his arguments tend to be more balanced, tend to involve more grey area and don't offer definite solutions - and I think that's largely a good thing. He seems able to grasp the idea that things aren't simple. That each situation is multi-faceted and the result of a lot of competeing things - and he's comfortable with that, and comfortable putting that idea out. - which is why he doesn't work in absolutes, which the author of your article takes square aim at and gives both barrels.

IMO JP has the benefit of at least having a cogent world view. As an imperfect human some of it is based on waffle, sure. But the author of your article's arguments don't stack up coherently, are fragmented and tend to display an innate uncomfortableness in dealing with grey areas. Yep, grey areas can disguise someone who's bullshitting, but I don't think JP is. And regardless if he's scientifically accurate with everything he's talking about - he is talking relative sense and offering helpful advice which can be disregarded if you so choose, nothing more.

 

[Exioce]

I felt good reading this and being glad that I'm not the only one who thinks Jordan Peterson talks utter bollocks.

The Intellectual We Deserve | Current Affairs

Brilliant skewering. JP prides himself on being impossible to beat in argument, and this article thoroughly explains why that is not a virtue.

 

[Scouse]

Brilliant skewering. JP prides himself on being impossible to beat in argument, and this article thoroughly explains why that is not a virtue.

It doesn't beat his argument though. It plays the man, not the ball.

Ad hominem...

 

[Hawkwind]

Brilliant skewering.

That comment sums up the polarization that is happening. Why cant there simply be debate and transfer of ideas. Now it seems it is either right or wrong depending on political and social leanings. Personally I'd rather have the debate and listen to conflicting views, there is usually some merit on both sides.

JP prides himself on being impossible to beat in argument,

Never heard him say that or even seen it written about him. Like @Scouse I only really came across him a couple of times, the gender pronoun farce in Canada where I happen to agree with him and the C4 Cathy Newman segment. Where she deliberately set out to do a hatchet job and failed miserably, making herself a laughing stock in the process. Anyone that sees JP as some sort of alt-right hero is an idiot imho. He's not waving a flag to gather around he is trying to point out the stupidity of some extreme left wing ideas and where they are taking us.

 

[Exioce]

It doesn't beat his argument though. It plays the man, not the ball.

Ad hominem...

I don't believe that is a fair criticism @Scouse. The article linked goes out of its way to highlight Jordan's arguments it agrees with, disagrees with, or is unable to decipher. Precisely the opposite of ad hominem.

 

[Scouse]

I guess without reading his books @Exioce I can't really move on the argument. I read the article, some of it was very good, some of it just seemed a bit silly and fuelled by hate. But I can only say what I think from what I've seen of him: "he is talking relative sense and offering helpful advice which can be disregarded if you so choose, nothing more"...


Edit: I guess part of it is that the nature of his work isn't physics - which is all maths and disprovable by maths. A certain amount of uncertainty is inevitable...

 

[Wij]

I don't believe that is a fair criticism @Scouse. The article linked goes out of its way to highlight Jordan's arguments it agrees with, disagrees with, or is unable to decipher. Precisely the opposite of ad hominem.

Exactly. Who cares who he is? The stuff that comes out of his mouth is meaningless babble. There is no argument in his words to take on. He is the equivalent of post-structuralist bullshit like this:
http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

(keep refreshing the page...)

 

[Wij]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXdYSQ6nu-M


Interesting watch even if you don't think it affected the election. What happens with your Facebook data is fucked up.

 

[Wij]

Senate Judiciary Dem calls on Zuckerberg to testify before committee

Facebook has been trying to cover this up...

 

[Job]

I don't buy into everything Jordan Peterson says, of course, but I think he's well meaning and relatively on-track. I've watched a bit recently (mainly in response to that idiotic channel 4 interview, before which I'd never heard of him) and I think he's an academic doing what he can. What I do think is happening, as the article you posted points out, is that his opinions are attracting a lot of idiots who are cherry picking what he's saying and using that to justify their own idiocy.

Bear in mind that most people are idiots, then you'll recognise why so many idiots flock to him.

However, I don't find the overall argument in your article persuasive. Some of it is fair but for much of it it's plain that the author is clearly unhappy with grey areas and complexity and prefers a "which is it then?!" approach.

The author seems unable to hold multiple competing and conflicting viewpoints at the same time in a sort of "melting pot of pressures". And I think JP does that quite well - and is getting taken for it (because most people hear one sentence, latch onto it and then apply that to a whole thinking - hence the channel 4 interview and the idiots).

I don't think his ideas are perfect. There's definitely waffle and non-science in there (he's a psychologist at the end of the day). I get that you're uncomfortable with a lot of it because you've studied that area too. But on the whole his arguments tend to be more balanced, tend to involve more grey area and don't offer definite solutions - and I think that's largely a good thing. He seems able to grasp the idea that things aren't simple. That each situation is multi-faceted and the result of a lot of competeing things - and he's comfortable with that, and comfortable putting that idea out. - which is why he doesn't work in absolutes, which the author of your article takes square aim at and gives both barrels.

IMO JP has the benefit of at least having a cogent world view. As an imperfect human some of it is based on waffle, sure. But the author of your article's arguments don't stack up coherently, are fragmented and tend to display an innate uncomfortableness in dealing with grey areas. Yep, grey areas can disguise someone who's bullshitting, but I don't think JP is. And regardless if he's scientifically accurate with everything he's talking about - he is talking relative sense and offering helpful advice which can be disregarded if you so choose, nothing more.

Nice reply Scouse, but it could be him talking about himself.
Change a few of the keywords to push forward..defend..and momentum and you could have Gerrard describing a football match.

 

[Hawkwind]

Interesting stuff.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb6-xz-geH4

 

[Scouse]

That's effectively a shit version of @Wij's link @Hawkwind.

 

[Wij]

The thin-skinned dickhead (who advocates that people need to toughen up funnily enough) lost his shit on Twitter about this article about him:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/

 

[Exioce]

Not sure if it's been posted before, but this article is an excellent summary of the maelstrom of bullshit that surrounded the 2016 election, focusing on Facebook's role. Available in podcast form also.

What Facebook Did to American Democracy

 

[Rubber Bullets]

There is so much more to the whole issue of the 2016 election than most can even begin to imagine. I wonder how much of the full story will ever be revealed, and how much actual truth we will ever find out.

There is a new book out about Trumps relationship to Putin, one that apparently goes back a few years, which will no doubt be branded fake, but will no doubt contain a lot of stuff that Mueller is currently looking at. It's reviewed in the Guardian.

Russian Roulette review: as Joe Biden said, 'If this is true, it's treason'

People have been underestimating Trumps ability to survive for his entire presidency, and for his campaign, but it does look like the spiral is beginning to tighten, and most of the grownups in the White House have left or will be leaving shortly. Interesting times ahead.

 

[Job]

Its hilarious watching the democrats trying to blame every concievable thing on the planets on Trumps success while ignoring the fact that they simply put up a candidate who was hated by both sides.
Are they forgetting how it was in the bag right up to voting day.
Hikary was going for a landslide...nothing can stop her...oh shit the real worlds burst the bubble again.

 

[Hawkwind]

The thin-skinned dickhead (who advocates that people need to toughen up funnily enough) lost his shit on Twitter about this article about him:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/

Pity the author could not keep his contempt at bay. Cherry picked ideas to have a go at without actually providing a coherent thorough argument against them. As for the Twitter rant:

You arrogant, racist son of a bitch Pankaj Mishra: How dare you accuse me of "harmlessly romancing the noble savage." That's how you refer to my friend Charles Joseph (http://charlesjoseph.ca/ ), who I've worked with for 15 years?​

He might have misinterpreted the author with regards to Joseph. I certainly hope it was not a racist comment about Joseph, a Native American artist. But, why name him at all in the article. All a bit odd really.

 

[Wij]

Pity the author could not keep his contempt at bay. Cherry picked ideas to have a go at without actually providing a coherent thorough argument against them. As for the Twitter rant:

You arrogant, racist son of a bitch Pankaj Mishra: How dare you accuse me of "harmlessly romancing the noble savage." That's how you refer to my friend Charles Joseph (http://charlesjoseph.ca/ ), who I've worked with for 15 years?​

He might have misinterpreted the author with regards to Joseph. I certainly hope it was not a racist comment about Joseph, a Native American artist. But, why name him at all in the article. All a bit odd really.

find sufficient meaning in individual consciousness and experience” with the help of “the great myths and religious stories of the past.”

a.k.a. what used to be known as the 'noble savage' argument. Perfectly simple.

“consciousness is symbolically masculine and has been since the beginning of time.”
Laughable pretentious bollocks.

“the soul of the individual eternally hungers for the heroism of genuine Being.”
Oh, fuck off.

“Culture,” one of his typical arguments goes, “is symbolically, archetypally, mythically male”—and this is why resistance to male dominance is unnatural.
Bollocks with added creepiness.

What are the ontological statuses of the words he bandies around like 'archetypes'? Sometimes he implies they are cultural things but that would make them contingent facts, not necessary ones. When he wants to imbibe them with an eternal-truth rather than a mere fact which may have been otherwise he treats them like Platonic forms or something etched into the nature of reality. You can't have it both ways. It is bullshit. Bullshit dressed in impressive-sounding language. It has no more value than some bloke trying to put the world to rights in a pub.

 

[Job]

I'd call it poetry.

 

[Hawkwind]

As is most Psychobabble. People putting meaning to humans being generally shit.

 

[Job]

I have no problem with people using obscure language, adding terms together to try and vocalise an unknown.
Its when they try to claim some insight outside of two drunks on a park bench, who have the exact same level of qualification to discuss it.

 

[Wij]

Sorry, Jordan Peterson: rage isn’t a great look for a self-help guru | Nesrine Malik

 

[Scouse]

Sorry, Jordan Peterson: rage isn’t a great look for a self-help guru | Nesrine Malik

His run-in with Cathy Newman?

Don't get me wrong @Wij - I've only watched a little of his stuff online (not read his books) - and I'll be honest, didn't find much wrong with it. In the same way that I didn't think he said a thing out of place in the Cathy Newman interview (which this article seems to think paints him in a bad light).

You seem to hate him though and I don't hate you - so can you post some vids of his where he's just talking utter shite so I can reappraise him? At the moment all there seems to be are a lot of articles from people that are pissed off with him (and I'm sure there's a lot of people who publish articles where it's a bit of a love-in - so they probably cancel each other out.

But if there's a lot of stuff out there where he's pontificating absolute bollocks I'd like to see it - I've watched maybe an hour or so of his stuff across several vids and he comes across as an intelligent, reasonable guy. Maybe I don't agree with some of what he says, do agree with some of what he does say, but I don't get the vitriol.

The Cathy Newman thing is a case in point - she acted like she fucking hated him - but I don't think he said anything particularly inflammatory IMO and weathered the storm well and with dignity. Where's the hatred coming from?