Explain why he's a joke

1: Sounds like Kermit
2: Spends his time on bullshit identity politics despite not only being a real, bona fide +25 adult, but also a supposed intellectual
3: Publicly admits to having affiliations to Veeky Forums
4: Pushes glorified self-help for internet nazis

>Sounds like Kermit
finally

>3: Publicly admits to having affiliations to Veeky Forums
Source?

how do I make my mom stop being so merciful with me

>anyone i dont like is a nazi

I do enjoy his lectures, and i think he has a quite sophisticated interpretation of Nietzsche and existentialism.

BUT, i think hes a complete sophist when it comes mythology. He uses convient interpretations and largely rips off Joseph Campbell

>taking jung seriously

He isn't.

He's retarded.

Who has written a book and talks of literature a bunch? You fuck off.

dear god

This has got to be fake.

see for yourself

twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554

YIKES

Damn...

Shoot her.

>(as Godel proved)

Thats the idea behind education. You cant just tell people a fact and expect them to automatically believe and understand why its true. 50% of education is communication.

1. This literally makes him a joke
2. All he did was say C-16 restrains freedom of speech, and the SJW crowd went apeshit.
3. Citation needed
4. All philosophy is glorified self-help.

Get your yourself together,bucko.

>1: Sounds like Kermit

Honestly, what is the significance of frogs? Shit is uncanny.

OWBVIously

please give me a sincere answer

Now that you know your mother's unconditional love is toxic don't take it so seriously. Go out into the world and try living faggot.

>sincerity

You must be new here

Wait till he hears about Gödel's ontological argument.

can't be bothered to listen to him even casually, he constantly sounds like he's fraying at the seams

didn't he start crying while reading a speech in front of the camera

You'd be a joke to just disregard him. When he talks about existential psychology, clinical practice, personality, or the psychological underpinnings of politics he's very insightful.

The archetypal stuff is somewhat inaccessible, like any psychological framework. If he made some videos on the justification for the reality of that stuff, he'd do himself a huge service in being taken seriously. It's easy to brush off the archetypes and see him as pulling stuff out of his ass. That said, when he makes the same statements using psychoanalytic or neurological language, he seems pretty spot on. It's a matter of taste, I guess.

He's also an important voice for young adults who have been told by teachers, professors, and pop culture that having responsibility is a bad thing. He opposes happiness(in the sense of sustained pleasure) as the end goal in life, which is the part of him that is likely to get people worked up. If you want to mature and adapt into adulthood, he's a valuable source of information. I think that's one of the reasons for his popularity. Nobody else is telling anybody how to be a grown up. They're being told how to be a degenerate child, which will ruin your life in the long run.

NO JOKE
you should read the gulag archipelago

People like are completely fucking clueless to Peterson's research in helping disadvantaged persons and minorities when they accuse him of being alt-right or some bullshit.

You don't. I'm 26 and my mom still tries being overprotective.
Move out of the house, sustain yourself, don't rely on her, try to limit communication with her, if she calls you 20 times a day asking if you've eaten. Just say "Mom I'm busy right now, talk to you later" or something.
You can also try telling her straight that she's being overprotective and you don't like it.

This desu.
I'll my two cents saying that he's actually quite interesting, it won't do you any harm listening to some of his lectures and no one forces you to agree with him 100%, of course.

mate, I agree with pretty much everything you covered there, but how can you take him seriously when he does this ?

I thought this too, after hearing that rather painful 2+ hour long 'discussion'

Made Peterson seem like a bit of a goof desu. Here's a good excerpt:

youtu.be/dOOQ1ZCeMY4

He repeats himself a bit too often for my tastes. I've heard him talk about sacks of wet salt in several different videos. Also,read the the gulag arch.

youtube.com/watch?v=h4ftiL4c_CA

>He's also an important voice for young adults who have been told by teachers, professors, and pop culture that having responsibility is a bad thing.

wat.

Could you name a few examples of young people being told responsibility is bad?

It's like a Chinese fingertrap, if you want a relationship with her but not an overbearing one, you have to be willing to take the lead and schedule time to catch up. Then the rest of the time you can be busy without any guilt.

More like they get an ideology pushed on them that encourages playing the victim over taking responsibility.

>it's another "society in its entirety is like those dumb feminists I've seen on tumblr" episode

this is true

you faggots are so fucking wrong it's hilarious nice bait
i didn't even know it was a book just thought it was a youtube video

Every person who has ever existed says dumb shit, it's just worse now because Twitter and normiebook exist to document it

when that dumb shit is a foundation for a whole dumb belief system he tries to peddle it's worth bringing up

>Religious truth is separate from scientific truth

>Truth I choose because it makes me feel good is different from truth I arrive at through time-testing it's falsifiability.

Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning, but I understand JP to be saying that what we conceive of as true is ultimately only sufficiently true in order to get to the next level of truth. It is only on a Darwinian timeline that final truth can be arrived at, rather than pure sensory chaos.

If you're implying religious truth is the truth that makes you feel good for the moment, I take it that JP would try and say it is the reverse of that.

Empiricists BTFO
How will reality ever recover?

Have you listen to/read his shit? He doesn't believe in God as in a supernatural sky-daddy being, he "believes" in it as in an archetype, a "something" in the collective subconcious of the humanity.

But we weren't talking about society in its entirety... Many young adults are indoctrinated with this bullshit at many universities, and even some high schools. It's not a bad thing for them to hear something else. What is strange is that some of the university administrations dr Peterson has dealt with acts very defensive and threatened, but he's not threatening at all. He simply disagrees with them. Clearly these kids aren't normally allowed to hear dissenting voices.

He doesn't believe in God in that sense.

God for Peterson means either God the Father as the archetype of The Wise King or the the highest value in a value system (which for him is truth).

>He doesn't believe in God as in a supernatural sky-daddy being

He keeps dodging this question.

Okay, how bout this: is love, anger, pain, boredom, bravery, honor etc etc real? In a sense they are, and in a sense they aren't. They are real to those who believe in them. Makes sense?

Not really. If you say you are angry, in pain, happy, etc.. I instantly know what you mean. I don't know what you mean when you say you think god is real.

I mean censorship has been pretty relevant in literature for quite a while

I think his response to his funding proposal being rejected was a joke. He throws a fit and tosses the toy out of the pram, amazed that fir the first time in 20 years he's been rejected. The Rebel gets involved and claims that muh guvermint is shutting him down and muh free speech. Then the fucking public funds him.

I've dealt with the same grant-giving organization and written proposals that have been both accepted and rejected (as a grad student). There is no government involvement in the approving or rejecting of the proposal. The government supplies the money and sets research aims. It's university professors that do the deciding. And no fucking wonder Jesus Peterson got rejected this time around... you grab the spotlight and spend six months calling your colleagues assholes and generally make yourself a gadfly, and yeah... the funding proposals are going to get rejected.

I've listened to Peterson's lectures for five or six years and I like a lot of his ideas, but he's gone from slightly eccentric to tinfoil-hat mad in the past year, to a disappointing disingenuousness over the SSHRCC funding.

Everyone else in the Canadian university gets rejected more often than accepted. And each of them has to come to the same point of acceptance: "Fuck 'em. I'll do it again next year."

Why can't we talk about John Milbank anymore?

not same user, however he moved on from feelings to concepts. Bravery honor. Belief in god is sort of like the ultimate concept.

Fair point. I feel the same as an atheist(insert le tip fedora meme), every person seems to be have his own image of god in his head, so when I hear someone saying he feels god's love or something it's hard for me to related. Doesn't change the fact that for the person speaking that is real.

What a spooked little pussy he is. No one can take this seriously.

Disagree. We all know(maybe except women) what it means when you say somebody is brave or honorable. Not the same with gods.

>you grab the spotlight and spend six months calling your colleagues assholes and generally make yourself a gadfly, and yeah... the funding proposals are going to get rejected.
So it was rejected for personal reasons, it wasn't a equististand decision? And those personal reasons come from political differences Peterson has with his colleagues? How is that not a political issue?

From what I've heard him say he seems at most agnostic. He regards the problem of evil as being a pretty good refutation of God.

Although all of this is rather absurd to speculate about when it's obvious he doesn't believe in God.

If he does believe in God, why did he write a book that explains religion in a secular way? Why does he think there's a hidden "real meaning" to religion that replaces our understanding of It?

He also says in that same thread, I think, that he doesn't go to mass because the priests don't understand scripture.

Well if someone told you they're a trigender demisexual wolfkin trapped inside a human body, you couldn't relate to that either, but to them it would be real.

Doesn't he see religious texts as symbolic interpretations of personal meaning like Spinoza, Nietzsche, or Jung?

Knowing how the committee works and having worked with people that served on it previously, I expect that it was far more personal than political. Peterson must write a solid proposal that is either free of political bias or still fits within SSHRCC's parameters for acceptable research. Academics are often petty people that easily hold grudges and harbour resentments. Some may disagree with Peterson's ideas or politics or tubthumping, but I expect that his popularity is resented. He's also said nasty things about the people around him (damn neomarxists!). Act like an asshole for your principles and that will breed resentment.

Giving him credit (and taking him at his word on this), he did stress that the lack of funding will mean that his RAs will be out of work and that he takes nothing from it personally.

Where I object and think he's sold his soul is in his being complicit and endorsing the bullshit story that Ezra fucking Levant spun about hte government silencing free speech. Peterson knows that that's bullshit but went along with it anyway. That's why, to my reading, he's a joke.

I would say the more complex the idea the more error prone it inherently is going to be.

Pain is simple. Lust is simple. Honor is slightly more complex. Gods slightly more so. God exponentially more so. etc.

What is viewed as honor or bravery does change and is reasonably open to interpretation, when compared to pain.

It's because he's sincere and is coincidentally right about everything

but you would understand if i said a book/music/etc. gave me a religious experience

Because I'm a Marxist tranny from leftypol and he doesn't indulge my degenerate fantasies.

Source?

A lot of these threads on Veeky Forums can have huge potential or go tits up and suddenly you're in the snake pit. One dominant force takes over and now no matter what you post you're an idiot apparently and this closely relates to what would happen on youtube and you'd try to get in there just to find a nest of snakes. You lose either way They hiss hiss hisssssss hisssssss HISSSSS big fangs hissssHISSS one million snake eggs hatching in your brain. Try to imagine that, or a snake eating its own tail. It's obviously more abstract, there is no snake, but you have two kids playing around and someone's bound to get bitten and that's what happens here. Snakes from planes, snakes out of barrels, snakes in your hair. There's a Simpsons episode titled whacking day where Bart HITS the snake over the head and he's very confused and the Simpsons with their three fingers because they're cartoons go on into this shadowy lark without even having to go by their own volition and your eyes are filled with snakes because you're watching the damn show.

only pundits dabble with cultural marxism, pro or contra

no intellectual worth his salt will ever deal with those topics or lead a debate over twitter or depend on a meathead's podcast for views

youtube.com/watch?v=rUdxCj7IKCY

Those are not mutually exclusive. I'm an atheist but I explain faith to my fellow atheists all the time.

Monotheism is a weird Jewish invention, no wonder people have a hard time justifying it. The secular explanation of religion fits polytheism like a glove in my opinion.

FIRE WILL CLEANSE EVERYTHING.

> no wonder people have a hard time justifying it
And that's why the also pray to the saints and to the mother of god and the son of god and the dog of god.

why am I reading every post in this thread in Jordan Peterson's voice and why do I like it

kek

But that's just a consequence of standing on a foundation of European Paganism. Jews and Muslims don't seem to have a problem with pure monotheism.
There's this meme that Christianity was a rigid religion that didn't adapt to Europe but rather adapted Europe to itself, well, bullshit. Christianity fused with preexisting European religions, just like any other religion in history fused with the preexisting beliefs of the populations that adopted it.

how the fuck did this /pol/-tier right-wing religious nutjob even become a professor?
thespec.com/opinion-story/7207346-opinion-jordan-peterson-a-little-shy-on-proof/
>In a series of YouTube videos and interviews, Peterson has tied his objections to a conspiracy of Marxists taking residence in the Ontario premier's office. In an interview with the website C2C Journal, he suggests these Marxists will imprison anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of a rampant culture war. His statements echo the hysteria of McCarthyism, when homosexuals were vilified as communist threats to the American way of life. Peterson never presents evidence of these claims, except legislation such as Bill C-16 and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The claims don't bear much credibility under even the most cursory scrutiny, from either academics or anyone with a passing familiarity with Canadian government.

he's a fucking fraud, and deserves to have his academic credentials revoked for the bullshit he spews constantly

That's a strawman. I can tell from some of the words and from seeing quite a few strawmen in my time.

Christianity is the most "pagan" of the three but Islam and Judaism are pathological to the core and they aren't very monotheistic either, they have many supernatural characters and phenomena but they mostly worship one god. In Islam Muhammed is let's say highly regarded as a warrior demigod and they pray towards a literal monolith, only the Jews seem to be half committed to this monotheism business but even then it's basically organized crime: the religion.

Nigger, his answer to immigrants replacing a country's native population is "just find a wife and pump out 5 kids plus if you're conservative those immigrants are actually your allies!". He's an actual centrist but that means he's going to piss off both sides.

>Patrick G. Watson is a lecturer in the sociology department and social psychology program

Into the trash it goes

Another sour-grapes criticism.

I checked on Peterson's salary (ontariosunshinelist.com/people/bsfytg)... he's already making a pile. Add $21000/month from patreon and I guess you're laughing.

If he is making that much from Patreon, I'm even more disgusted by his begging for his research to be funded. Fucking pay your fucking students yourself if you're making that. An RA at Toronto scarcely makes enough to get by and this guy's sleeping on a pile of money.

>problem of evil
So he has a middle schooler's understanding of God?

>and this guy's sleeping on a pile of money
Well I guess now you gotta go to the Archetypical Drogan's Lair and take its gold, just like Frodo.

Well shit... I just might.

Damn... I never thought he'd become the dragon he was warning us against.

>fourth wave feminism and being anti-politically correct

For a long time I would've tended to agree that these things are indeed inane. But his opposition here is not so much the existence of things like non-binary pronouns but the codification of such things into legislation. I think, when an issue escapes the realm of the irritating think piece and actually becomes law, that is an appropriate time to step in, I think that is the point where it stops being inane.

U of T asked him to stop talking about the issue because they were worried they would face legal repercussions just for DISCUSSING the matter.

he's a Nazi

wtf I love Peterson now

I think it's quite telling that on any one of his Youtube videos you'll find heaps and heaps of comments along the lines of "Dr Peterson has changed my life" etc. and each of these comments will itself have hundreds of likes. Clearly the dictum of "get yourself together for chrissake!" has been lacking from the lives of many many young people across the Western world.

I feel like this is a message we are taught as little kids but we stop hearing as we grow up - at least in my experience. I think it is similar to the pushback we see against the cultural appropriation argument. From the 60s onwards we are taught as kids to see past skin colour. That tolerance means viewing everyone as equal and essentially, the same. Now the public sphere is dominated by rhetoric suggesting that in fact you ARE racist for seeing the world this way, that in fact we are irreconcilably different and should therefore we treated differently. I don't know if this former message is still taught to young kids, it's been a long time since I was in primary school.

I hate this fucking picture. He looks like an L.A. Noire character.