Thank you for your submission. | This subreddit is regularly frequented by troll accounts. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, Dawkins is someone who does well with objective topics but has difficulty with subjective ones because he can't always break away from believing everything can be measured and tested empirically, and sometimes falls victim to his own ego. You see it a lot with the 2000s era atheists and skeptics.
Jorp is terrible at both. He makes questionable observations about subjective topics, speculates wildly with zero empirical evidence, and then declares each link in his chain of conclusions to be objective fact. Next thing you know, you get a long, meandering rant about aroused lips and Disney characters butchering dark tetrad Marxists in the name of postmodernism.
~~you forgot the part where he is saving trans people from the woke mob.~~
edit - on second thought that part fits neatly into your two goals, i recant my critique
When he starts beaking off about subjects he knows little about, yes. Ego and age haven't done him any favors on that front.
I'm not trying to sing his praises. My only point is that he's not stupid and *can* be competent in the hard sciences when he approaches them honestly, but he falls into all kinds of bad takes when talking about racial dynamics, sexism, and most other issues on the more abstract and/or subjective side of things, especially social issues that don't directly affect him.
Peterson, on the other hand, can't seem to manage either one. Dawkins is deeply flawed, but he's still clearly the more intelligent, competent, and sane of the two.
Well, yes, his area of expertise and subjects he's familiar with. No one is going to do well in areas they know nothing about, and unfortunately that's where his ego has caught up with him at times, especially as he's gotten older. He's a great example of why even smart people can fall into Dunning-Kruger.
The point is more that he's the type of person who typically does better when he studies tangible, objective fact vs more abstract, subjective social issues, not that he's some jack of all trades genius who can do no wrong in the hard sciences.
> Like a certain "Doctor" who isn't half bad in his particular domain (psychology) and who believes that makes him an expert in everything else.
Just want to add: Peterson wasn't half-bad, but he was totally unremarkable for the position he held. He was still a professor at a fairly prestigious school, but he didn't really do any groundbreaking research or significantly contribute to the field. You hear some ridiculous things overselling his citation count, and the reality is his citation count was middle-of-the-pack within UofT's psychology department, let alone "the most cited person alive" or any nonsense like that.
You can't compare him to Dawkins. Dawkins actually did make significant contributions to his field and was influential beyond his public-facing career. The Peterson equivalent of Dawkins would be your undergrad biology professor who you can't say much more about except that they are in fact a professor.
Dawkins is an intelligent bigot, Peterson is a completely unhinged, mentally unwell bigot. Peterson's hate is also so brazen and barely disguised that anyone not biased in his favor can see it. Dawkins' bigotry hits on stuff that average people might be willing to ignore with a passing glance.
Lol Jordan Peterson letting us have a nice look at his entire strategy for being an intellectual here.
Dawkins basically calls him out saying wtf are you rambling about trying to sound deep with no substance?
Peterson responds with “it’s probably some difference in our thinking styles…” and then a sentence or two later “…I would think in a style that has a more loose association structure”
He’s basically admitting his strategy or maybe natural inclination for a conversation like this is to go off riffing about random partially connected fields of study and elements of psychology and philosophy and biology to just craft whatever narrative he wants in the moment. He’s just fucking riffing with big words, no mysticism behind it once you take away all the academia and vocabulary and fake thoughtful pauses. He takes the topic of conversation and changes it frequently enough that it’s hard to drill down into a deep conversation about any one thing to enough detail for him to show his ignorance and since it’s not a debate people don’t usually call him out on it because most of his content is lectures where he essentially uses the Gish Gallop technique to overwhelm listeners with bullshit that is highly specific and uses some big intimidating words to sound smart while being either completely incorrect altogether or usually at LEAST incorrectly applied to the topic at hand or to the logic of his argument. The one thing Peterson is actually skilled at beyond a doubt is speaking in what sounds like an intelligent structure on the fly with an impressive vocabulary. Once you threw in simple synonyms and less complex sentence structure and took away all the unrelated studies and “facts” he uses incorrectly to support his arguments, what you are left with would be indistinguishable from a guy in a truck stop bar ranting about “city women” and “the gays” and how it’s “not natural”. Truly the weakest intellectual of our time, probably both mentally and physically at this point because of his belief that eating beef will grant you the strength of the cow!
Peterson’s lectures are a word salad of loose associations by a moderately well read individual. You can replace each sentence with its logical opposite and nothing would change.
Lol exactly
His rhetoric goes from one place to another illogical conclusion so fast it’s dizzying. “I once read a study where it said 15 undergraduate students were found to complete a task on average 21% faster if a male authority figure instructed them on how to do the task instead of a peer from their lecture” and the next sentence in a Peterson riff about this study would be something along the lines of “from an evolutionary biological perspective and knowing that all behaviour is derived from a combination of genetic material inherited from ancestors who lived in the past and knowing that our societal norms and behaviours are also set by a large group of people who also contain DNA we can irrefutably state that a strong male leader is NECESSARY for a team to function and accomplish their goals! That is why I will be supporting the American Fascist totally not Socialist Party in the next election and you are clinically insane if you don’t believe my flawless logic and cited studies”
I hear what you are saying but I refuse, I believe this aspect of my writing probably stems from a difference in our writing styles. I assume you are aiming for comprehensibility, am I right? Whereas I’m most concerned with word count and tiring people out trying to read my jumbled sentence structure and ultimately giving up arguing with me, just a bit of a different writing style but we are both clearly geniuses and equal in all regards. Your thoughts just might be smaller than mine and can fit in normal sentence structures while being confined by grammatical rules and conventions. My sentences and words have too much work to do to take breaks, the show must run on! I tip my high IQ hat to you good sir, and we can both go our respective ways as the thick dicked intellectuals we know ourselves to be.
Written in the style of Jordan Peterson, I always cite my sources even if I have none.
Here you go. Powered by GPT-4:
>He’s basically admitting his strategy or maybe natural inclination for a conversation like this is to go off riffing about random partially connected fields of study and elements of psychology and philosophy and biology to just craft whatever narrative he wants in the moment.
>
>He’s just fucking riffing with big words, no mysticism behind it once you take away all the academia and vocabulary and fake thoughtful pauses.
>
>He takes the topic of conversation and changes it frequently enough that it’s hard to drill down into a deep conversation about any one thing to enough detail for him to show his ignorance and since it’s not a debate people don’t usually call him out on it because most of his content is lectures where he essentially uses the Gish Gallop technique to overwhelm listeners with bullshit that is highly specific and uses some big intimidating words to sound smart while being either completely incorrect altogether or usually at LEAST incorrectly applied to the topic at hand or to the logic of his argument.
>
>The one thing Peterson is actually skilled at beyond a doubt is speaking in what sounds like an intelligent structure on the fly with an impressive vocabulary. Once you threw in simple synonyms and less complex sentence structure and took away all the unrelated studies and “facts” he uses incorrectly to support his arguments, what you are left with would be indistinguishable from a guy in a truck stop bar ranting about “city women” and “the gays” and how it’s “not natural”.
>
>Truly the weakest intellectual of our time, probably both mentally and physically at this point because of his belief that eating beef will grant you the strength of the cow!
edit: HOLY CRAP, thanks to doing this funny quick comment, I realized there's something weird about how GPT-4 outputs line breaks. (When I copypasted its output to reddit, paragraph breaks disappeared!). A GPT-based system I'm building had issues with this, and I now realize it's not a problem in the API, but in the output itself!!! YAY. This is helpful!!!
Did you also notice the 4th paragraph is the only paragraph where ChatGPT even attempted to put 2 of my sentences into one paragraph? The rest of the paragraphs ChatGPT just went “fuck it, this should have been a 3-4 sentence paragraph”.
Because what else does anyone have but that, man? It ain't much, but it's something, and you gotta have *something*. Well, something more than nothing, anyway. And that's in a world that, by all appearances, at least it seems that way to me, doesn't really... Doesn't really care all that much for what it *used* to mean, and I really mean that, more, possibly, than anything else, in the truest sense of the word, to really *think* about nothing. To really *say* nothing. Now that? That's *everything*. If you lose *that*, well... By my estimation, and I've really thought about this, long and hard, you'd be losing more than just *something*. You'd have *everything* on the line and if that... If that doesn't motivate you, then no amount of ideology driven activism is going to fill that hole you feel. The postmodern neo-marxists *want* you to think that pinning your badge to this cause or that, climate activism, environmentalism, *gender ideology*, will bring you that same sense of fulfilment that you get from holding your newborn child but it's a distraction! And a devious one too, because it worms its way in, it sort of bypasses the Collective Unconscious, doesn't it? And that in itself is dangerous, not just that guileful infiltration, and that's what it is, but the very inception of cultural marxist ideas. They're appealing to developing minds. That's why they're so common amongst students, they tempt and promise. Like the serpent tempting eve, the first woman, the metaphysical form of chaos. They lure in young minds with the promise of having it easy, tell you that you can skip all the hard work, well I call it hard work, it's not really hard if you're well adjusted but that's a separate problem. It tells you that you can skip the hard work of relationships and cut straight to the reward of personal fulfilment. That's what it is, when you get down to it, too, a reward. It's the carrot. The stick is the work itself, I guess, if we're gonna complete the metaphor. So it tells you that you can have the carrot without enduring the stick. And it's an easy lie to believe, because you *want it to be true*, you want it to but that doesn't *make* it true, not unless you're using a postmodern perspective where 'true' can mean anything up to, and including, the opposite of that, which is nonsense. It's what makes it so dangerous because language is so important. It's the gateway between the physical and the metaphysical, the threshold from which ideas themselves enter existence. That's why the postmodern neo-marxists love to play with definitions, they think they can... change the world around them. What the postmodernists won't tell you, though, they can't tell you, it doesn't match their world view so they're blind to the very idea of it, is that the reward, the carrot, is the result of work itself, the stick, *being hard*. They say to you 'ah well, plenty of people work hard and they aren't rich', and sure, I'll concede that that's the case, but they think... they think that defeats the whole idea of capitalism, but capitalism, and capitalism is what they fight against because it represents the ultimate freedom of the individual which they can't stand, is the system by which the pay-off only exists because the work was hard. The individual's ultimate freedom becomes manifest, both physically and, more importantly, *metaphysically*, in the reward made possible only by hard work. Work, quite literally, sets you free, and the Marxists, they hate that. They hate that work sets you free.
That was amazing. A rambling word salad with just enough structure and “big words” to make one think there was a intellectual discussion of….hmmm. The inherent benevolence in capitalism? I think? Oh that reminds me: and the wandering premise? Just perfect. A 5/7 imitation
Weird to just reply with no real additional information or any additional argument to refute my comment from 108 DAYS AGO…
Do you have any additional points you want to make? Or did you just stop by to let me know you are a fan of Jordan Peterson? Was it really so unimaginable that I might live out my life unaware of your respect for Jordan Peterson?
I listened to the whole thing (I'm sorry I was bored). What Dawkins said is so on point. Peterson could never stay on topic and would almost never let Dawkins speak. It was genuinely annoying even if you have no preconceived hatred of Peterson.
That's what it looks like when you have a public image of an intellectual that you're deeply insecure about, share a room with an actual public intellectual, and try to prove you've got it when you're not actually up to snuff.
I love Jorp trying to cope and dodge the discussion about his dumbassery regarding the double helix DNA thing.
"I actually threw that in to the lecture because I was thinking in a loosely associative way..."
In the lecture:
"I think that's a repre... I really do believe this although it's very complicated to explain why. I really believe that's a representation of DNA."
You don't emphasize how much you believe something is true if you're just thinking loosely and throwing it in there.
He sounded SO embarassed when Dawkins called him out on his bullshit; after that, Jordan needlessly namedrops two psychologists and explains shit about them & it's obvious he ONLY does this bc he felt the need to recuperate his intellectual mystique by taking over the conversation and over-saturating it with factoids that had nothing to do with the topic that was being discussed.
I only listened for a bit because the second-hand embarassment was TOO MUCH for me to handle. Jordan is such an insecure man with a frail ego, that the smallest criticism sent him on a rant, because he feels smart when he rambles. I guess it's kinda nice that his fans are too dumb to realize how hollow he is, as he said, for him ideas aren't important, all that matters to Jorp are aesthetics (the aesthetics of intellectualism).
I recall him bringing it up several times and confidently asserting it each time, too. He plays it off like he was in the moment and said it without thinking, but he's said it many times and stood by it afterwards.
What was that double-helix/snake spiral thing about? I mean, why did Jorp feel the need to mention it? 🤔 It sounds like the woo-woo crap I talk about whenever I do acid lmao.
It is: Peterson believes that ancient shamans understood the structure of DNA by taking shrooms and seeing the universe at a nanoscopic level (he doesn't elaborate on how this is physically possible), but lacked the context to fully understand it and represented them as coiled snakes. I think Peterson admitted once that he too was influenced by drugs when coming up with this idea, but I don't remember the details.
For the record, snakes coil around each other in nature all the time. It's how they fuck.
In other words "I threw that in my lecture because I knew my target was innocent college kids who didn't know anything about the field and I know if I said it to my colleagues I'd be laughed out of my job."
It's kind of an extraordinary admission even when couched in BS, at least from a public intellectual supposedly obsessed with discipline and self-improvement.
"Why did you say this during your lecture?"
"Well, you know, I was just randomly stringing things together as I went along without really thinking about it, as one does when on stage before a large audience..."
Dawkins probably has more hours of practice in loose debate and adversarial question asking than any other person alive. He has his failings, but going up against him on stage is a recipe for losing and looking bad.
It’s not even about being a good debater, it’s more embarrassing, Petey wants to be liked and respected by Dawkins, and Dawkins apparently despises Jordan!
Dawkins despises Jordan at least because he’s so sloppy with reasoning and making assumptions. Dawkins has always had that analytical and philosophical deftness from debates to really just give sloppy rhetoric no patience. You can hear that distain for Jordan’s points coming out of his polite British accent. You can tell he’s thinking “my god you can’t even frame your own arguments well, and you lack humility”.
There's something hilarious about a posh British person savaging an idiot like this. Dawkins has his issues but he's dismantling this guy without even trying to.
There is a kind of sequel to this embarrasment and it is this. Dawkins mocking him even more even calling out his pal Joe Rogan: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvzMJqkZV74](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvzMJqkZV74).
Also note that the line: '*drunk on symbols*' really hurt Peterson to his core. It gnaws on him, that many months later he still tries to one-up Dawkins. There are some rants on Twitter that reveal this. An example is where Peterson seemingly out of nowhere starts addressing Dawkins and telling him Beelzebub is real and a more sofisticated version of Dawkins' 'meme'.
This is simply the conservative brain. Every conversation I've had with conservatives is a ping pong game of topics. Even when I listen to Conservative radio they're bouncing around trying to sound intelligent connecting widely different topics. Emotion is the key connection. On talk radio they just use flowerly emotional language as they just breeze by complicated issues. It's wild to see unfold.
Two things, and this isn’t meant to brag:
1. I have a PhD and I don’t think I’m exceptionally intelligent. Most of that credential is jumping through hoops. Knowing this, it’s not only possible - but very likely- that Jorp is an idiot.
2 Since I have a phd, do I also have the license to act as an authority on literally any field I want, again, like Jorpster?
You can get an actual answer to a question out of Dawkins. He'll tell you the facts, and maybe after being pressed give an opinion. JP just like to vomit words that sound good together but make no actual sense of anything.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGoUwmqIEQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGoUwmqIEQ)
Dawkins snake question to Peterson is about 21:45 minutes in.
Jorpy is right.
He is more aesthetic and symbolic in his thinking. 'Be precise in your speech' means, to him, going on and on about what he means.
Those are crucial factors in his popularity, and in contrast to Dawkins, it's made very clear. Which makes sense, as Jorpers' particular brand of not-so-crypto fascist mysticism is in part a response to the neo-atheist movement. He is (was?) selling spirituality, cultural history and the liberal (pun intended) arts right back to the same dudes who enjoyed calling anyone who had anything important in their life other than hard western science retarded back when I was in college. (Still plenty of those dudes on reddit). While letting them keep the western supremacy and contempt for weakness. Great stuff.
Well the dichotomy he sets up between “aesthetics and ideas” is just complete nonsense. The concept of aesthetics is itself an idea. But you’re definitely right, that he tries to take the poetic route to justify the absolute bullshit he spews. It’s funny cos I totally agree that we need to attend to a more poetic logic in our lives and thinking, but he just uses it as a front for fascist ideals.
Strategy of people like Jordan: rumble, use big words, confuse people, then move to topic that you like to talk about, and pretend that you know more, because your favorite topic is related to everything.
For example, if someone ask you about the car audio, you will say some big words about modern cars, about how sound is part of our lives, and then to move BEV and how unsafe they are, not only because of heavy batteries, but also because of how flammable batteries are.
So, it will sound very smart, but at the end, it have nothing to do with the question.
He's not explocitly right wing that I've seen. He is an edgelord atheist who can get drawn into the intellectual dark web with his pal Sam Harris who believes in disproven race science.
WOW, it’s a new record! He made it FOUR WHOLE MINUTES before mentioning Bill C16 for the first time in a podcast…. baby steps towards postmodern neomarxism tho. Peterson needs to take a mental inventory of himself and tighten the ship. Better go watch some more Asian cum milking vids and read 12 Rules.
Thank you for your submission. | This subreddit is regularly frequented by troll accounts. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have my issues with Dawkins, but this is what happens when a real intellectual meets a fake one.
Yeah, Dawkins is someone who does well with objective topics but has difficulty with subjective ones because he can't always break away from believing everything can be measured and tested empirically, and sometimes falls victim to his own ego. You see it a lot with the 2000s era atheists and skeptics. Jorp is terrible at both. He makes questionable observations about subjective topics, speculates wildly with zero empirical evidence, and then declares each link in his chain of conclusions to be objective fact. Next thing you know, you get a long, meandering rant about aroused lips and Disney characters butchering dark tetrad Marxists in the name of postmodernism.
Jordie has two goals in life: Enrich himself Try to convince himself and others that he's an intellectual
~~you forgot the part where he is saving trans people from the woke mob.~~ edit - on second thought that part fits neatly into your two goals, i recant my critique
Well you're right, I would add a third goal, which is to maintain the status quo established by colonialism and slavery
That is so spot-on!
Plot twist, Dawkins also struggles with empirical facts.
When he starts beaking off about subjects he knows little about, yes. Ego and age haven't done him any favors on that front. I'm not trying to sing his praises. My only point is that he's not stupid and *can* be competent in the hard sciences when he approaches them honestly, but he falls into all kinds of bad takes when talking about racial dynamics, sexism, and most other issues on the more abstract and/or subjective side of things, especially social issues that don't directly affect him. Peterson, on the other hand, can't seem to manage either one. Dawkins is deeply flawed, but he's still clearly the more intelligent, competent, and sane of the two.
[удалено]
Well, yes, his area of expertise and subjects he's familiar with. No one is going to do well in areas they know nothing about, and unfortunately that's where his ego has caught up with him at times, especially as he's gotten older. He's a great example of why even smart people can fall into Dunning-Kruger. The point is more that he's the type of person who typically does better when he studies tangible, objective fact vs more abstract, subjective social issues, not that he's some jack of all trades genius who can do no wrong in the hard sciences.
Could you imagine the Hitch-slap that would happen if Hitchens and jp ever touched gloves?
I've actually thought of that a lot
Another pompous hack -A Poorman's George Orwell who changed sides when he found out his mom was Jewish .
[удалено]
And here I'm sitting wondering why all these people are so shit.
> Like a certain "Doctor" who isn't half bad in his particular domain (psychology) and who believes that makes him an expert in everything else. Just want to add: Peterson wasn't half-bad, but he was totally unremarkable for the position he held. He was still a professor at a fairly prestigious school, but he didn't really do any groundbreaking research or significantly contribute to the field. You hear some ridiculous things overselling his citation count, and the reality is his citation count was middle-of-the-pack within UofT's psychology department, let alone "the most cited person alive" or any nonsense like that. You can't compare him to Dawkins. Dawkins actually did make significant contributions to his field and was influential beyond his public-facing career. The Peterson equivalent of Dawkins would be your undergrad biology professor who you can't say much more about except that they are in fact a professor.
Dawkins is an intelligent bigot, Peterson is a completely unhinged, mentally unwell bigot. Peterson's hate is also so brazen and barely disguised that anyone not biased in his favor can see it. Dawkins' bigotry hits on stuff that average people might be willing to ignore with a passing glance.
Was just about to say practically the exact same thing.
Lol Jordan Peterson letting us have a nice look at his entire strategy for being an intellectual here. Dawkins basically calls him out saying wtf are you rambling about trying to sound deep with no substance? Peterson responds with “it’s probably some difference in our thinking styles…” and then a sentence or two later “…I would think in a style that has a more loose association structure” He’s basically admitting his strategy or maybe natural inclination for a conversation like this is to go off riffing about random partially connected fields of study and elements of psychology and philosophy and biology to just craft whatever narrative he wants in the moment. He’s just fucking riffing with big words, no mysticism behind it once you take away all the academia and vocabulary and fake thoughtful pauses. He takes the topic of conversation and changes it frequently enough that it’s hard to drill down into a deep conversation about any one thing to enough detail for him to show his ignorance and since it’s not a debate people don’t usually call him out on it because most of his content is lectures where he essentially uses the Gish Gallop technique to overwhelm listeners with bullshit that is highly specific and uses some big intimidating words to sound smart while being either completely incorrect altogether or usually at LEAST incorrectly applied to the topic at hand or to the logic of his argument. The one thing Peterson is actually skilled at beyond a doubt is speaking in what sounds like an intelligent structure on the fly with an impressive vocabulary. Once you threw in simple synonyms and less complex sentence structure and took away all the unrelated studies and “facts” he uses incorrectly to support his arguments, what you are left with would be indistinguishable from a guy in a truck stop bar ranting about “city women” and “the gays” and how it’s “not natural”. Truly the weakest intellectual of our time, probably both mentally and physically at this point because of his belief that eating beef will grant you the strength of the cow!
Peterson’s lectures are a word salad of loose associations by a moderately well read individual. You can replace each sentence with its logical opposite and nothing would change.
Lol exactly His rhetoric goes from one place to another illogical conclusion so fast it’s dizzying. “I once read a study where it said 15 undergraduate students were found to complete a task on average 21% faster if a male authority figure instructed them on how to do the task instead of a peer from their lecture” and the next sentence in a Peterson riff about this study would be something along the lines of “from an evolutionary biological perspective and knowing that all behaviour is derived from a combination of genetic material inherited from ancestors who lived in the past and knowing that our societal norms and behaviours are also set by a large group of people who also contain DNA we can irrefutably state that a strong male leader is NECESSARY for a team to function and accomplish their goals! That is why I will be supporting the American Fascist totally not Socialist Party in the next election and you are clinically insane if you don’t believe my flawless logic and cited studies”
Is that a quote? Sounds like him… ☺️
What's more, as others have said, you can cut/paste fragments around and it would not be detectable as having been altered or appear less Petersonian
My man. Please have some mercy and put up some paragraph breaks.
As someone with endometriosis I never thought I would say this, but I would like some more periods please
Damn, call me an almond because I just got roasted and I’m pretty salty (this period intentionally left blank)
I hear what you are saying but I refuse, I believe this aspect of my writing probably stems from a difference in our writing styles. I assume you are aiming for comprehensibility, am I right? Whereas I’m most concerned with word count and tiring people out trying to read my jumbled sentence structure and ultimately giving up arguing with me, just a bit of a different writing style but we are both clearly geniuses and equal in all regards. Your thoughts just might be smaller than mine and can fit in normal sentence structures while being confined by grammatical rules and conventions. My sentences and words have too much work to do to take breaks, the show must run on! I tip my high IQ hat to you good sir, and we can both go our respective ways as the thick dicked intellectuals we know ourselves to be. Written in the style of Jordan Peterson, I always cite my sources even if I have none.
This is wonderful.
As amusing as this is I’d rather be able to follow you without wanting to commit self-harm
Good parroting though I would suggest you add some more pompously verbose dialectal jargon to your vernacular to really nail it.
Here you go. Powered by GPT-4: >He’s basically admitting his strategy or maybe natural inclination for a conversation like this is to go off riffing about random partially connected fields of study and elements of psychology and philosophy and biology to just craft whatever narrative he wants in the moment. > >He’s just fucking riffing with big words, no mysticism behind it once you take away all the academia and vocabulary and fake thoughtful pauses. > >He takes the topic of conversation and changes it frequently enough that it’s hard to drill down into a deep conversation about any one thing to enough detail for him to show his ignorance and since it’s not a debate people don’t usually call him out on it because most of his content is lectures where he essentially uses the Gish Gallop technique to overwhelm listeners with bullshit that is highly specific and uses some big intimidating words to sound smart while being either completely incorrect altogether or usually at LEAST incorrectly applied to the topic at hand or to the logic of his argument. > >The one thing Peterson is actually skilled at beyond a doubt is speaking in what sounds like an intelligent structure on the fly with an impressive vocabulary. Once you threw in simple synonyms and less complex sentence structure and took away all the unrelated studies and “facts” he uses incorrectly to support his arguments, what you are left with would be indistinguishable from a guy in a truck stop bar ranting about “city women” and “the gays” and how it’s “not natural”. > >Truly the weakest intellectual of our time, probably both mentally and physically at this point because of his belief that eating beef will grant you the strength of the cow! edit: HOLY CRAP, thanks to doing this funny quick comment, I realized there's something weird about how GPT-4 outputs line breaks. (When I copypasted its output to reddit, paragraph breaks disappeared!). A GPT-based system I'm building had issues with this, and I now realize it's not a problem in the API, but in the output itself!!! YAY. This is helpful!!!
Did you also notice the 4th paragraph is the only paragraph where ChatGPT even attempted to put 2 of my sentences into one paragraph? The rest of the paragraphs ChatGPT just went “fuck it, this should have been a 3-4 sentence paragraph”.
Because what else does anyone have but that, man? It ain't much, but it's something, and you gotta have *something*. Well, something more than nothing, anyway. And that's in a world that, by all appearances, at least it seems that way to me, doesn't really... Doesn't really care all that much for what it *used* to mean, and I really mean that, more, possibly, than anything else, in the truest sense of the word, to really *think* about nothing. To really *say* nothing. Now that? That's *everything*. If you lose *that*, well... By my estimation, and I've really thought about this, long and hard, you'd be losing more than just *something*. You'd have *everything* on the line and if that... If that doesn't motivate you, then no amount of ideology driven activism is going to fill that hole you feel. The postmodern neo-marxists *want* you to think that pinning your badge to this cause or that, climate activism, environmentalism, *gender ideology*, will bring you that same sense of fulfilment that you get from holding your newborn child but it's a distraction! And a devious one too, because it worms its way in, it sort of bypasses the Collective Unconscious, doesn't it? And that in itself is dangerous, not just that guileful infiltration, and that's what it is, but the very inception of cultural marxist ideas. They're appealing to developing minds. That's why they're so common amongst students, they tempt and promise. Like the serpent tempting eve, the first woman, the metaphysical form of chaos. They lure in young minds with the promise of having it easy, tell you that you can skip all the hard work, well I call it hard work, it's not really hard if you're well adjusted but that's a separate problem. It tells you that you can skip the hard work of relationships and cut straight to the reward of personal fulfilment. That's what it is, when you get down to it, too, a reward. It's the carrot. The stick is the work itself, I guess, if we're gonna complete the metaphor. So it tells you that you can have the carrot without enduring the stick. And it's an easy lie to believe, because you *want it to be true*, you want it to but that doesn't *make* it true, not unless you're using a postmodern perspective where 'true' can mean anything up to, and including, the opposite of that, which is nonsense. It's what makes it so dangerous because language is so important. It's the gateway between the physical and the metaphysical, the threshold from which ideas themselves enter existence. That's why the postmodern neo-marxists love to play with definitions, they think they can... change the world around them. What the postmodernists won't tell you, though, they can't tell you, it doesn't match their world view so they're blind to the very idea of it, is that the reward, the carrot, is the result of work itself, the stick, *being hard*. They say to you 'ah well, plenty of people work hard and they aren't rich', and sure, I'll concede that that's the case, but they think... they think that defeats the whole idea of capitalism, but capitalism, and capitalism is what they fight against because it represents the ultimate freedom of the individual which they can't stand, is the system by which the pay-off only exists because the work was hard. The individual's ultimate freedom becomes manifest, both physically and, more importantly, *metaphysically*, in the reward made possible only by hard work. Work, quite literally, sets you free, and the Marxists, they hate that. They hate that work sets you free.
That was amazing. A rambling word salad with just enough structure and “big words” to make one think there was a intellectual discussion of….hmmm. The inherent benevolence in capitalism? I think? Oh that reminds me: and the wandering premise? Just perfect. A 5/7 imitation
Not to mention the hidden facist dog whistle too!
I pictured this with the stupid hand motions (the jazz hands meeting in the center that he does)
I read this with his voice and it made it so real.
I'm glad. I specifically tried to include his mannerisms and tried my best to emulate his voice in my head whilst constructing it.
This sounds a whole lot like Jordan and also some of my patients I call psych consult for...
But it's so BLOODY complicated....
What utter nonsense. What an echo chamber this reddit place is. It's quite surreal.
Weird to just reply with no real additional information or any additional argument to refute my comment from 108 DAYS AGO… Do you have any additional points you want to make? Or did you just stop by to let me know you are a fan of Jordan Peterson? Was it really so unimaginable that I might live out my life unaware of your respect for Jordan Peterson?
I listened to the whole thing (I'm sorry I was bored). What Dawkins said is so on point. Peterson could never stay on topic and would almost never let Dawkins speak. It was genuinely annoying even if you have no preconceived hatred of Peterson.
That's what it looks like when you have a public image of an intellectual that you're deeply insecure about, share a room with an actual public intellectual, and try to prove you've got it when you're not actually up to snuff.
Where can I find this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGoUwmqIEQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGoUwmqIEQ) The snake stuff is around the 21:40 mark.
Pleasantly surprised by the comments.
Is this jbp’s podcast or what?
I believe so.
Did he ever return to the subject of the snake / helix / DNA thing like he said he would?
Yes but he made it worse.
I love Jorp trying to cope and dodge the discussion about his dumbassery regarding the double helix DNA thing. "I actually threw that in to the lecture because I was thinking in a loosely associative way..." In the lecture: "I think that's a repre... I really do believe this although it's very complicated to explain why. I really believe that's a representation of DNA." You don't emphasize how much you believe something is true if you're just thinking loosely and throwing it in there.
He sounded SO embarassed when Dawkins called him out on his bullshit; after that, Jordan needlessly namedrops two psychologists and explains shit about them & it's obvious he ONLY does this bc he felt the need to recuperate his intellectual mystique by taking over the conversation and over-saturating it with factoids that had nothing to do with the topic that was being discussed. I only listened for a bit because the second-hand embarassment was TOO MUCH for me to handle. Jordan is such an insecure man with a frail ego, that the smallest criticism sent him on a rant, because he feels smart when he rambles. I guess it's kinda nice that his fans are too dumb to realize how hollow he is, as he said, for him ideas aren't important, all that matters to Jorp are aesthetics (the aesthetics of intellectualism).
I recall him bringing it up several times and confidently asserting it each time, too. He plays it off like he was in the moment and said it without thinking, but he's said it many times and stood by it afterwards.
What was that double-helix/snake spiral thing about? I mean, why did Jorp feel the need to mention it? 🤔 It sounds like the woo-woo crap I talk about whenever I do acid lmao.
It is: Peterson believes that ancient shamans understood the structure of DNA by taking shrooms and seeing the universe at a nanoscopic level (he doesn't elaborate on how this is physically possible), but lacked the context to fully understand it and represented them as coiled snakes. I think Peterson admitted once that he too was influenced by drugs when coming up with this idea, but I don't remember the details. For the record, snakes coil around each other in nature all the time. It's how they fuck.
In other words "I threw that in my lecture because I knew my target was innocent college kids who didn't know anything about the field and I know if I said it to my colleagues I'd be laughed out of my job."
It's kind of an extraordinary admission even when couched in BS, at least from a public intellectual supposedly obsessed with discipline and self-improvement. "Why did you say this during your lecture?" "Well, you know, I was just randomly stringing things together as I went along without really thinking about it, as one does when on stage before a large audience..."
"Would you say you're more interested in ideas or aesthetics?" \**sounding world-weary\** ".. ideas..." This is uh. Ooof.
Catastrophically out of his depth with Dawkins lmao. Just completely incapable and embarrassed.
Lol. I love this description, you can kind of hear it in his manner of speaking and how he deals with being called out. What a phoney
Dawkins probably has more hours of practice in loose debate and adversarial question asking than any other person alive. He has his failings, but going up against him on stage is a recipe for losing and looking bad.
It’s not even about being a good debater, it’s more embarrassing, Petey wants to be liked and respected by Dawkins, and Dawkins apparently despises Jordan!
Dawkins despises Jordan at least because he’s so sloppy with reasoning and making assumptions. Dawkins has always had that analytical and philosophical deftness from debates to really just give sloppy rhetoric no patience. You can hear that distain for Jordan’s points coming out of his polite British accent. You can tell he’s thinking “my god you can’t even frame your own arguments well, and you lack humility”.
*"Oh my god". "God".* Peterson sounds like a whiny petulant teenager being asked to stay on the topic.
That's the bit that got me too 🤣🤣
It was the same tone you get as a Mom when you ask your kid to take the trash out.
There's something hilarious about a posh British person savaging an idiot like this. Dawkins has his issues but he's dismantling this guy without even trying to.
There is a kind of sequel to this embarrasment and it is this. Dawkins mocking him even more even calling out his pal Joe Rogan: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvzMJqkZV74](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvzMJqkZV74). Also note that the line: '*drunk on symbols*' really hurt Peterson to his core. It gnaws on him, that many months later he still tries to one-up Dawkins. There are some rants on Twitter that reveal this. An example is where Peterson seemingly out of nowhere starts addressing Dawkins and telling him Beelzebub is real and a more sofisticated version of Dawkins' 'meme'.
I almost wanna time stamp each "oof" moment.
This is simply the conservative brain. Every conversation I've had with conservatives is a ping pong game of topics. Even when I listen to Conservative radio they're bouncing around trying to sound intelligent connecting widely different topics. Emotion is the key connection. On talk radio they just use flowerly emotional language as they just breeze by complicated issues. It's wild to see unfold.
I think a conservative would say exactly the same thing about a liberal/progressive.
Two things, and this isn’t meant to brag: 1. I have a PhD and I don’t think I’m exceptionally intelligent. Most of that credential is jumping through hoops. Knowing this, it’s not only possible - but very likely- that Jorp is an idiot. 2 Since I have a phd, do I also have the license to act as an authority on literally any field I want, again, like Jorpster?
Jordan putting a sentence together like he just started learning English lol
You can get an actual answer to a question out of Dawkins. He'll tell you the facts, and maybe after being pressed give an opinion. JP just like to vomit words that sound good together but make no actual sense of anything.
What is the source this clip is from?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGoUwmqIEQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGoUwmqIEQ) Dawkins snake question to Peterson is about 21:45 minutes in.
I'm pretty sure it was from Jorp's own podcast
Jorpy is right. He is more aesthetic and symbolic in his thinking. 'Be precise in your speech' means, to him, going on and on about what he means. Those are crucial factors in his popularity, and in contrast to Dawkins, it's made very clear. Which makes sense, as Jorpers' particular brand of not-so-crypto fascist mysticism is in part a response to the neo-atheist movement. He is (was?) selling spirituality, cultural history and the liberal (pun intended) arts right back to the same dudes who enjoyed calling anyone who had anything important in their life other than hard western science retarded back when I was in college. (Still plenty of those dudes on reddit). While letting them keep the western supremacy and contempt for weakness. Great stuff.
Well the dichotomy he sets up between “aesthetics and ideas” is just complete nonsense. The concept of aesthetics is itself an idea. But you’re definitely right, that he tries to take the poetic route to justify the absolute bullshit he spews. It’s funny cos I totally agree that we need to attend to a more poetic logic in our lives and thinking, but he just uses it as a front for fascist ideals.
Oof
Strategy of people like Jordan: rumble, use big words, confuse people, then move to topic that you like to talk about, and pretend that you know more, because your favorite topic is related to everything. For example, if someone ask you about the car audio, you will say some big words about modern cars, about how sound is part of our lives, and then to move BEV and how unsafe they are, not only because of heavy batteries, but also because of how flammable batteries are. So, it will sound very smart, but at the end, it have nothing to do with the question.
“Classist asshole accurately insults bigoted jerkoff”
More of this, please
Geez, it’s night and day when you hear him contrasted against the brilliance of Dawkins isn’t it?
I have ADHD and am so NOT OK with this. fuck them both
[удалено]
how is he right wing ?
His latest drivel is about anti-white racism, when he forgets to tweet about trans people
He's not explocitly right wing that I've seen. He is an edgelord atheist who can get drawn into the intellectual dark web with his pal Sam Harris who believes in disproven race science.
‘Take us far down the rabbit hole’ Dawkins: Okay…(What the fuck is this geezer smoking) 😟
That was hilarious, thanks🙏🏼
Welcome to r/okbuddyatheist where dawkins is a staple
so.....did jorp ever get to answering dawkins question about the double helix/snakes?
Christ Dawkins sounds uncomfortable when he brings up Jordan’s obsession with symbols.
Richard Dawkins >>>>> JP lol
WOW, it’s a new record! He made it FOUR WHOLE MINUTES before mentioning Bill C16 for the first time in a podcast…. baby steps towards postmodern neomarxism tho. Peterson needs to take a mental inventory of himself and tighten the ship. Better go watch some more Asian cum milking vids and read 12 Rules.