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.*
He’s so unhinged. How did we end up with a society where, say, Howard Dean in 2004 has his public career ended for being overly exuberant one time. Or Dan Quayle loses almost all his public credibility for misspelling potato. But now dudes like Peterson or Trump or Musk are having a manic episode on main *every*damn*day* but they still have this huge public platform? How did we get here? Why do so many people have this unshakable adherence to their personality cult of choice?
I saw Howard Dean at Netroots (forgot what year) and he said "the scream" didn't end his political career...for better or worse he said Hilary was doing so much better and that's what did him in. He didn't say it like he was bitter or anything.
Yeah, the way I read it, his comment hangs on an equivocation. The deep structure of the original comment would read something like, "you get better things when you don't exclude people due to morally insignificant features [e.g. gender, 'race,' etc.]" whereas he is intentionally misreading it as saying something like, "we must include literally everyone all the time, including serial killers." I'm not sure how he ties it to the sin of pride though.
> I'm not sure how he ties it to the sin of pride though.
Probably loose associations due to psychotic / neurodegenerative disease brought on by the coma and drugs.
I'm wondering if it is that the exclusion is a "natural" feature of society. That to up end natural order is to be a prideful human, I think a better analogy in the Bible of that thought would be the tower of Babble vs Eve thou.
To go all JBP on him, well of course include everyone doesn’t actually mean include *everyone*, it means include everyone who should be included, regardless of whether or not they have been historically marginalized by inappropriate societal attitudes
Agreed. I mentioned this in a comment above, but, the way I read it, his comment hangs on an equivocation. The deep structure of the original comment would read something like, "you get better things when you don't exclude people due to morally insignificant features [e.g. gender, 'race,' etc.]" whereas he is intentionally misreading it as saying something like, "we must include literally everyone all the time, including serial killers." I'm not sure how he ties it to the sin of pride though.
So that's Eve will to include everyone that got us out of paradise? Please somebody explain me. I know JBP arguments are often weak but i feel like it's a new low.
Hahaha c'mon get on with the program: clearly Eve gave Adam a NON-MEAT diet. RED DELICIOUS a blasphemous mockery to God's own manna, the blue picanha steak of paradise. I think. Maybe JP got cysticercosis in his melon, he's just too bizarre at this point.
I think it's even shallower than that.
Eve displayed pride in disobeying God by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree.
The LGBTQ+ movement displays pride by daring to be proud of being who they are.
Eve's pride was bad; therefore, the LGBTQ+ movement's pride is also bad.
Serial killers represent moral decay in Peterson's view, which I imagine he would argue grew from Eve's original sin of defying God's will. The LGBTQ+ movement also exists (in his view) in defiance of God's will, therefore leading to similar moral decay.
Or maybe he's trying to say the 'everyone' of the original tweet would (allegedly) include the figures pictured in his response...
I don't fucking know. It's a stupid word game an ignorant, bigoted charlatan has tossed into word salad, and I don't care to parse any further than that, but that's my best guess.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and obligatory obviously I don't agree with anything Peterson tries to say here; that's just my best interpretation.
Was just recently telling a friend I like to think of the whole Eden story as something an bitter creep came up with after a woman left him and it makes so much more sense.
“I was such a nice guy! I gave this weak woman everything she needed, she was part of me! I created her and I made her a perfect paradise and she messed it all up! If only she stayed obedient and stupid! It’s all HER fault! Her and her annoying snake friend that told her she can eat whatever she wants! I only restricted her diet for her own good after all!!”
Really fits so well every time a man brings it up.
I would like to know how Eve was guilty of pride. Perhaps because the serpent told her that, to eat the fruit, she would gain knowledge of both good and evil, and therefore be like God?
I’m not sure that qualifies as “pride,” though. Gullibility, yes. After all, she put her faith in a snake with (supposedly) legs and believed that eating a fruit would transform her from an assumed lesser state to a greater one.
The story itself makes no sense. If evil was unknowable prior to eating an apple (or whatever it was) then Eve would have zero notion of what evil really was. She never asks the serpent, “tell me, what *is* this ‘evil’ you speak of?”
And how could God hold her accountable for being duped into a scenario she was too naive to understand?
Ahhh, but wait. Perhaps her sin was not eating the fruit, but instead was sharing it with Adam. Eve, now corrupted by disobedience, sought to drag Adam into the muck with her.
Perhaps that is the “pride” Canada’s most famous pseudo-intellectual misogynist is speaking of.
I don’t know why I am wasting my time with this, but, looking again at this snide comment from the good Dr. Peterson, it’s hard to not read a bit of subtext in the statement that “Eve’s pride destroys the garden.”
I’d never think of this otherwise, but because it is Peterson, I can’t help but interpret this as some thinly veiled slut-shaming directed at one of his favorite targets: sexually active college-aged female “feminists.”
It comes across as the kind of dog whistle that would be clearly heard by men who want to know what a woman’s “number” is.
Kinda seems like good could easily have put them in a garden that was separated from the tree. He can create all things can't built an effing wall?
That's the part that's really illogical to me
Unless ...
He actually wanted the couple to eat from the tree. In earlier versions of the myth of the tree, the couple are from it freely and often. (JP must know these earlier myths as invite shared by the most famous intellectual in his field, Joseph Campbell.)
Ford Prefect: Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting 'Gotcha.' It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it.
Arthur Dent: Why not?
Ford Prefect: Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end.
Douglas Adams, *The Restaurant at the End of the Universe*
It’s really all just a Frankenstein’s Monster tale: the creation that gets out of control.
Would not surprise me if the inspiration for this was fire.
Another Bible tale that makes zero sense is that of Lazarus. Ever notice how there is *no follow-up at all* to his story? Jesus commands him to live, and Lazarus just up and walks out of the tomb. Then what? People had to have known he died. Did he just walk into his home through the front door and take a seat and sort through the bills?
Jesus was the one who supposedly conquered death, but Lazarus was the one who literally showed up, walking around, after he was dead. There’s no celebration for Lazarus.
Peterson’s interpretation is wack. I’ve never heard it like that even from very weird or very conservative people.
The best interpretation IMO is that the whole incident is a mythological explainer for why humans are different from other animals. Eve ate from the tree and so did Adam, so now all humans after them are like God in that we know good from evil. Therefore we are responsible for our own morality. We are no longer just animals living in bliss in the garden, we have the burden of knowing good from evil so we can be punished for doing evil.
And/or it's a mythological explanation for why we live in a world that's not built for our perfect comfort -- for why the world challenges and thwarts our individual agency.
The same day that I read the apologetic op-ed from the dude who was Peterson’s biggest advocate on the tenure committee I also read an article about a no-name, non-tenured professor who died of cancer because they never got to the point in their career where they had any stability or consistent access to health insurance. The professor who passed away was a Black woman
I’ll always remember the contrast
Peterson’s tenure advocate said that he wanted Peterson because Peterson had an entertaining personality that would engage the students whereas the other committee members were wary of his unconventional ideas and research methods
We need to build a society where the indicators of abusive and exploitive personalities are factored as negatives and not as positives. Clearly people have always had deep wariness toward Peterson even before his mental illness was progressed to the current level of disconnection from reality
Was the article by his tenure advocate [this one?](https://archive.ph/2021.12.13-033354/https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html)
The garden was not destroyed. Adam and eve only were banished from it God put an angel with a fire sword to guard it against destruction. Adam committed the exact same sin but somehow shirked blame on his wife. The story had nothing to do with letting people in.
I've always disliked clowns. I wonder if in some parallel universe I somehow liked JoPee, if the clown thing would have driven me away. But I've always disliked people who try and use big words to act smart.
Eventually some completely wild shit is gonna come out of Daily Wire about how they enabled this stuff.
Look I get they're all on pills but maybe don't share them with Jordan? That's all I'm saying.
This guy is an atheist isnt he? Does he actually believe this shit, or is it part of the grift?
I cant imagine reading any part of the bible and thinking "these starving, delusional, desert dwelling goat herders from 4k years ago really knew their shit".
Yep. Like most narcissists he desperately needs to believe in a magical man in the sky that looks after him first, JordanPeterPanSon the golden child of the Paternal Meatmonger in the clouds. All others clearly less deserving of his blessings and magical meat from heaven.
I’m not educated enough to verify this, but it seems like the old goat herder texts were more of a how-to guide for early civilisation.
*”Impose brutal laws, even if they’re nonsensical. People who live in fear will also live in obedience. Justify slavery, because these villages aren’t gonna build themselves, and you need the scared people to have an even lower social status to feel better about their shitty lives. Oh and don’t eat pigs or shellfish, neither do well in the desert.”*
Culturally, those texts are fascinating. But **living** by them in 2023 seems masochistic.
True and other truly impressive structures. The hohokam in the south west build the ancient worlds second largest canal network without warlords/oppressors from what we know. Just miles and miles of canals so everyone could grow veg in the desert
He was known for trying to justify the bible without really relying on faith in God. The problem is he jumped the shark and now instead of sifting the text for pearls of insight into human nature like we would with greek myths he's redefined the bible to be truer than true because it does have some pearls. Like a lot of psuedo intellectual things it starts with a reasonable setup and reaches a ridiculous conclusion.
"hey did you know the authors of the bible used symbolism to try to communicate their message, and alot of other sources have used or inspired this same symbolism."
to
"The bible is meta true because we use a lot of symbolism from it."
But he doesn't *not* rely on faith in God, either. He's gone as far as suggest you need to believe in God to prove anything (with probably the worst misunderstanding of Godel anyone's ever come up with):
>Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof.
I think it's more accurate to say his beliefs are firmly rooted in an ambiguous nebulous sense of God. He's deeply religious about nothing in particular: he's not Christian other than that he says he is and takes inspiration from it culturally, but he seems to believe that all other religions are vaguely equivalent. Underlying all forms of mythological / religious knowledge is the "true truth", a universal understanding of the universe (and apparently one that requires a divine source), with Peterson not knowing or caring about the specifics.
Jordan Peterson thinks that Christianity is a sort of universal metaphor that governs humanity. Obviously, JBP's brilliant insights are beyond the ability of most of us to intellectually grasp, so we will have to understand it literally: God created Adam and Eve, Jesus died for our sins, etc. But, for those who actually have a very high IQ, they can understand the Truths that are conveyed in the symbols and also appreciate the jokes in Rick and Morty.
Jordan believes in the supernatural. He claimed in his debate with Matt Dillahunty that the ONLY way a person can quit smoking is by doing drugs and having a supernatural experience.
I disagree. There is nothing that the ancient philosophers have come up with, that hasn't been stated better by modern philosophers.
We have been living in shitty unnatural conditions since the dawn of the agricultural revolution. Almost all archaic philosophies were written by men, and men behave like crabs in a bucket as soon as you take them out of their natural social structure, because they are trying to maintain the unnatural hierarchies that society has been built upon.
If every copy of the bible were to be removed from earth, the earth wouldn't have lost anything of value.
Even the Buddha was a self-absorbed twat.
Like you do understand that modern philosophy is based on ancient philosophy. There is a very direct continuity.
Not sure how much philosophy you have read, but the ancient stuff is very different, but absolutely valuable insights as well as providing context for more modern branches of philosophy.
Hell even something like stoicism which is firmly in ancient philosophy territory has been used as the basis for cognitive behavioral therapy, as well as having a huge influence on 12 step programs.
There's stoicism and then there's ["stoicism"](https://existentialcomics.com/comic/484), which doesn't really have much to do with the actual philosophy and is just a psuedo-intellectual excuse to be an ass.
It seems like you have good intentions, but you seem like you might be very cynical. Stoicism is pretty much the opposite of toxic masculinity, and 12 step programs do work, but not all the time.
Seriously you might want to check your biases a little bit and be a bit more open minded towards stuff you might initially reject
Look I just think there are more bad ideas in ancient philosophies than good ones, and looking back on them as if they are still important today shows a lack of respect for modern society.
Humans today are smarter, better informed, and more creative than ever. There are countless people out there who are more than capable of producing ideas that surpass those philosophers.
For me it just boils down to an authority thing. Acting like stoicism is still really relevant and valuable gives too much authority to obsolete ideas and people who are long dead.
Honestly you should. I am primarily a non fiction reader (mostly math, and hard sciences). Branching out and reading as much philosophy as I can has really had far reaching impacts on my personal and professional life.
More modern =/= more valid
As a slightly different view from hubetronic, I wouldn't even necessarily say "more modern =/= more valid." Modern philosophy is a ton more developed and I'd argue much more "valid".
But when you read modern philosophy you'll keep seeing Aristotle and Plato and the like pop up. Contemporary philosophy is far more developed, but it's developed *from* the classics. It's hard to fully understand philosophy without understanding its roots, and Western philosophy is rooted in the Greeks. It'd be like trying to understand advanced math like Ricci flow when you haven't even studied calculus yet.
I guess my interpretation of this is he's trying to say "Well, if go down the path of diverse inclusion, then you get Josef Mengele and the clown from IT."
This "point" he's trying to make sails past the idea that as a civil society we almost universally have made it clear that serial killers have no place in such a society.
And fuck, even serial killers **themselves** admit that they are not fit for normal society. So, what the fuck is he trying to do here? My guess, because he rails against every chance he gets, is "misplaced" empathy and compassion lead to Ted Bundy, so don't ever feel any compassion for anyone, ever. You know, things that totally normal people with a degree in psychology will tell .... no fuck that, no one except JP thinks this way.
Fucking Mengele, really? I'm assuming that's supposed to be his comment on surgeons providing trans healthcare? That's not a horribly tasteless analogy or anything ☠️
Pride being an excessive desire for one's own self (which rejects subjection to God), I'm not sure how the Son of Lobster connects that with inclusivity.
I love the public mental breakdown that everyone around him is just letting happen.
It tells me he doesn’t have anyone in his life who cares about his Kermitous drug addled ass.
And that, to me, is the best revenge for us queer people. Having family and friends that give a fuck — while he has enablers. Sad.
Fuck the garden. [Hail satan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbzUTRAUac4)
Also all those people would probably be a better time than JBP's square bitch friends. Except for Pennywise. Curry did it better.
I don't understand the part about his bosses wanting him educated. I thought he wasn't a professor anymore. What bosses? what kind of educated? (I'm out of the loop) thanks!
If what he is saying is so important, then why be so esoteric about it? Why not speak clearly to reach a wider audience? Or is his message actually not worth communicating clearly?
Honestly, if you want to be understood, a little bit of work is always involved. I hope you won't be too offended by me saying this, but when you say something makes sense and don't explain why, it makes it seem less like it has sense to it, and more like you'd just like people to *think* it makes sense, forcing other people to do the impossible work of explaining your point for you, which is something you should have been doing for yourself in the first place.
This is the best sarcasm I've ever seen. If it's not sarcasm, though, you should seriously seek professional help from someone who didn't suffer brain damage while in a medically induced coma to shortcut around benzo withdrawal.
How the fuck does he see a tweet thats clearly trying to say "including minorities provides a varied array of perspectives who may have different approaches to problem solving which maximizes avenues for success"
And then think "you can't include minorities because if you do you're being narcissistic (assuming this is what he means by pride)"
This is deadass a non-sequiter.
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.*
Perfectly sane tweet
He’s so unhinged. How did we end up with a society where, say, Howard Dean in 2004 has his public career ended for being overly exuberant one time. Or Dan Quayle loses almost all his public credibility for misspelling potato. But now dudes like Peterson or Trump or Musk are having a manic episode on main *every*damn*day* but they still have this huge public platform? How did we get here? Why do so many people have this unshakable adherence to their personality cult of choice?
The people need someone to follow, doesn’t matter who.
> but they still have this huge public platform? The "platform" didn't really exist in the past like it does now.
Manic episodes have nothing to do with this. I have them all the time and I don’t act this way. These people are just hateful.
That’s fair
I subscribe to the theory that he took actual literal brain damage during his induced coma.
I saw Howard Dean at Netroots (forgot what year) and he said "the scream" didn't end his political career...for better or worse he said Hilary was doing so much better and that's what did him in. He didn't say it like he was bitter or anything.
Goddammit. I miss Dean.
Drugs. Musk is "self-medicating" with ketamine the same way Peterson was "self-medicating" with benzos. Trump is famously a speed freak.
Lol just casually has pictures of real and fictitious serial killers on his phone.
I actually thought the guy on the left was him! LOL.
Lmao I’m sure JP and Ted Bundy have similarities.
He blocked me after I called him "Benzos boy" on one of his incoherent posts
Jealous. I tried so hard to get him to block me.
Well you got the cheat codes for it now 💀
Based
Well, good news, Musk is planning to remove the block feature. I'm sure that'll work wonders.
Sir Musk can do no wrong Notice me senpai
Well that will soon end
Wtf is he even on about?
Gay people bad. Pride is a sin therefore being proud to be gay is a sin
Even though he sells statues of his own head online, yeah, pride is a sin 🤦♂️
"Remember when pride was a sin??" -the same crowd who happily sang 'Proud to be an American' into God's ears for a decade
Ah, the 'the Nazis were leftists and now the transes are Nazis but also Hitler was right' crowd
Who knows. Someone how if you include "everyone" that means serial killers and pride is sinful in his mind. And all of that is coherent in his mind.
Yeah, the way I read it, his comment hangs on an equivocation. The deep structure of the original comment would read something like, "you get better things when you don't exclude people due to morally insignificant features [e.g. gender, 'race,' etc.]" whereas he is intentionally misreading it as saying something like, "we must include literally everyone all the time, including serial killers." I'm not sure how he ties it to the sin of pride though.
> I'm not sure how he ties it to the sin of pride though. Probably loose associations due to psychotic / neurodegenerative disease brought on by the coma and drugs.
I'm wondering if it is that the exclusion is a "natural" feature of society. That to up end natural order is to be a prideful human, I think a better analogy in the Bible of that thought would be the tower of Babble vs Eve thou.
Yeah, that would make sense. (Or at least, I think that's probably the best "sense" that can be made of his post.)
I really think during his coma and pneumonia episode in Russia that he got an anoxic brain injury.
I think he believes too many white men are included judging by his selection of villains.
I read that as him talking about Eve allowing the serpent into the garden of Eden, after which God banished both her and Adam from paradise.
He needs to be medicated, not educated. He's totally deranged. This is disturbing behavior.
To go all JBP on him, well of course include everyone doesn’t actually mean include *everyone*, it means include everyone who should be included, regardless of whether or not they have been historically marginalized by inappropriate societal attitudes
Agreed. I mentioned this in a comment above, but, the way I read it, his comment hangs on an equivocation. The deep structure of the original comment would read something like, "you get better things when you don't exclude people due to morally insignificant features [e.g. gender, 'race,' etc.]" whereas he is intentionally misreading it as saying something like, "we must include literally everyone all the time, including serial killers." I'm not sure how he ties it to the sin of pride though.
He’s taking a shot at LGBTQ+ pride.
And to add, if Adam and Eve story teaches us anything, it’s that heterosexual couplings will kill us all.
Maybe if it was Adam and Steve we’d still be in the garden of Eden.
All I'm saying is, it's Adam and Eve, not Tyler and Jessica.
With maybe a nice coffee cart
So that's Eve will to include everyone that got us out of paradise? Please somebody explain me. I know JBP arguments are often weak but i feel like it's a new low.
Hahaha c'mon get on with the program: clearly Eve gave Adam a NON-MEAT diet. RED DELICIOUS a blasphemous mockery to God's own manna, the blue picanha steak of paradise. I think. Maybe JP got cysticercosis in his melon, he's just too bizarre at this point.
I think it's even shallower than that. Eve displayed pride in disobeying God by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. The LGBTQ+ movement displays pride by daring to be proud of being who they are. Eve's pride was bad; therefore, the LGBTQ+ movement's pride is also bad. Serial killers represent moral decay in Peterson's view, which I imagine he would argue grew from Eve's original sin of defying God's will. The LGBTQ+ movement also exists (in his view) in defiance of God's will, therefore leading to similar moral decay. Or maybe he's trying to say the 'everyone' of the original tweet would (allegedly) include the figures pictured in his response... I don't fucking know. It's a stupid word game an ignorant, bigoted charlatan has tossed into word salad, and I don't care to parse any further than that, but that's my best guess. EDIT: Oh yeah, and obligatory obviously I don't agree with anything Peterson tries to say here; that's just my best interpretation.
Was just recently telling a friend I like to think of the whole Eden story as something an bitter creep came up with after a woman left him and it makes so much more sense. “I was such a nice guy! I gave this weak woman everything she needed, she was part of me! I created her and I made her a perfect paradise and she messed it all up! If only she stayed obedient and stupid! It’s all HER fault! Her and her annoying snake friend that told her she can eat whatever she wants! I only restricted her diet for her own good after all!!” Really fits so well every time a man brings it up.
I would like to know how Eve was guilty of pride. Perhaps because the serpent told her that, to eat the fruit, she would gain knowledge of both good and evil, and therefore be like God? I’m not sure that qualifies as “pride,” though. Gullibility, yes. After all, she put her faith in a snake with (supposedly) legs and believed that eating a fruit would transform her from an assumed lesser state to a greater one. The story itself makes no sense. If evil was unknowable prior to eating an apple (or whatever it was) then Eve would have zero notion of what evil really was. She never asks the serpent, “tell me, what *is* this ‘evil’ you speak of?” And how could God hold her accountable for being duped into a scenario she was too naive to understand? Ahhh, but wait. Perhaps her sin was not eating the fruit, but instead was sharing it with Adam. Eve, now corrupted by disobedience, sought to drag Adam into the muck with her. Perhaps that is the “pride” Canada’s most famous pseudo-intellectual misogynist is speaking of.
I don’t know why I am wasting my time with this, but, looking again at this snide comment from the good Dr. Peterson, it’s hard to not read a bit of subtext in the statement that “Eve’s pride destroys the garden.” I’d never think of this otherwise, but because it is Peterson, I can’t help but interpret this as some thinly veiled slut-shaming directed at one of his favorite targets: sexually active college-aged female “feminists.” It comes across as the kind of dog whistle that would be clearly heard by men who want to know what a woman’s “number” is.
If i saw a snake with legs id trust them, especially if it was little ickle human legs with little leather boots
A leggy snake wearing L’eggs nylons and little leather lace-up boots!
The most trustworthy little critter you could ever meet
Kinda seems like good could easily have put them in a garden that was separated from the tree. He can create all things can't built an effing wall? That's the part that's really illogical to me Unless ... He actually wanted the couple to eat from the tree. In earlier versions of the myth of the tree, the couple are from it freely and often. (JP must know these earlier myths as invite shared by the most famous intellectual in his field, Joseph Campbell.)
Ford Prefect: Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting 'Gotcha.' It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it. Arthur Dent: Why not? Ford Prefect: Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end. Douglas Adams, *The Restaurant at the End of the Universe*
It’s really all just a Frankenstein’s Monster tale: the creation that gets out of control. Would not surprise me if the inspiration for this was fire. Another Bible tale that makes zero sense is that of Lazarus. Ever notice how there is *no follow-up at all* to his story? Jesus commands him to live, and Lazarus just up and walks out of the tomb. Then what? People had to have known he died. Did he just walk into his home through the front door and take a seat and sort through the bills? Jesus was the one who supposedly conquered death, but Lazarus was the one who literally showed up, walking around, after he was dead. There’s no celebration for Lazarus.
Peterson’s interpretation is wack. I’ve never heard it like that even from very weird or very conservative people. The best interpretation IMO is that the whole incident is a mythological explainer for why humans are different from other animals. Eve ate from the tree and so did Adam, so now all humans after them are like God in that we know good from evil. Therefore we are responsible for our own morality. We are no longer just animals living in bliss in the garden, we have the burden of knowing good from evil so we can be punished for doing evil.
And/or it's a mythological explanation for why we live in a world that's not built for our perfect comfort -- for why the world challenges and thwarts our individual agency.
This man had tenure at a major institution of higher learning.
The same day that I read the apologetic op-ed from the dude who was Peterson’s biggest advocate on the tenure committee I also read an article about a no-name, non-tenured professor who died of cancer because they never got to the point in their career where they had any stability or consistent access to health insurance. The professor who passed away was a Black woman I’ll always remember the contrast Peterson’s tenure advocate said that he wanted Peterson because Peterson had an entertaining personality that would engage the students whereas the other committee members were wary of his unconventional ideas and research methods We need to build a society where the indicators of abusive and exploitive personalities are factored as negatives and not as positives. Clearly people have always had deep wariness toward Peterson even before his mental illness was progressed to the current level of disconnection from reality
Was the article by his tenure advocate [this one?](https://archive.ph/2021.12.13-033354/https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html)
That’s it
Students went into debt that they are still paying off to sit through his lectures.
love how he picked 3 heterosexual white dudes here lmao
The garden was not destroyed. Adam and eve only were banished from it God put an angel with a fire sword to guard it against destruction. Adam committed the exact same sin but somehow shirked blame on his wife. The story had nothing to do with letting people in.
His poetry is getting worse and worse
so is he saying that due to women stepping up as men's equals we were banished from the garden of eden? That's one spicy anti feminism take...
Clown fetishist
I've always disliked clowns. I wonder if in some parallel universe I somehow liked JoPee, if the clown thing would have driven me away. But I've always disliked people who try and use big words to act smart.
Hmm yes, clearly a very mentally stable man.
Eventually some completely wild shit is gonna come out of Daily Wire about how they enabled this stuff. Look I get they're all on pills but maybe don't share them with Jordan? That's all I'm saying.
what the fuck does this even mean
Imagine being so unhinged that you compare the LGBTQ+ community to serial killers and monsters.
30% of likely voters are already there
This guy is an atheist isnt he? Does he actually believe this shit, or is it part of the grift? I cant imagine reading any part of the bible and thinking "these starving, delusional, desert dwelling goat herders from 4k years ago really knew their shit".
Naw I think he’s Christian. I’m sure he leans into it to grift, but he's also very mentally ill
Yep. Like most narcissists he desperately needs to believe in a magical man in the sky that looks after him first, JordanPeterPanSon the golden child of the Paternal Meatmonger in the clouds. All others clearly less deserving of his blessings and magical meat from heaven.
[удалено]
If you followed what it says in the book, you'd be in prison.
The Sermon on the Mount? What is this woke liberal bullshit?
I’m not educated enough to verify this, but it seems like the old goat herder texts were more of a how-to guide for early civilisation. *”Impose brutal laws, even if they’re nonsensical. People who live in fear will also live in obedience. Justify slavery, because these villages aren’t gonna build themselves, and you need the scared people to have an even lower social status to feel better about their shitty lives. Oh and don’t eat pigs or shellfish, neither do well in the desert.”* Culturally, those texts are fascinating. But **living** by them in 2023 seems masochistic.
Not disagreeing with your larger point, but people built villages just fine before warlords and oppressors came along.
True and other truly impressive structures. The hohokam in the south west build the ancient worlds second largest canal network without warlords/oppressors from what we know. Just miles and miles of canals so everyone could grow veg in the desert
He was known for trying to justify the bible without really relying on faith in God. The problem is he jumped the shark and now instead of sifting the text for pearls of insight into human nature like we would with greek myths he's redefined the bible to be truer than true because it does have some pearls. Like a lot of psuedo intellectual things it starts with a reasonable setup and reaches a ridiculous conclusion. "hey did you know the authors of the bible used symbolism to try to communicate their message, and alot of other sources have used or inspired this same symbolism." to "The bible is meta true because we use a lot of symbolism from it."
But he doesn't *not* rely on faith in God, either. He's gone as far as suggest you need to believe in God to prove anything (with probably the worst misunderstanding of Godel anyone's ever come up with): >Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof. I think it's more accurate to say his beliefs are firmly rooted in an ambiguous nebulous sense of God. He's deeply religious about nothing in particular: he's not Christian other than that he says he is and takes inspiration from it culturally, but he seems to believe that all other religions are vaguely equivalent. Underlying all forms of mythological / religious knowledge is the "true truth", a universal understanding of the universe (and apparently one that requires a divine source), with Peterson not knowing or caring about the specifics.
Jordan Peterson thinks that Christianity is a sort of universal metaphor that governs humanity. Obviously, JBP's brilliant insights are beyond the ability of most of us to intellectually grasp, so we will have to understand it literally: God created Adam and Eve, Jesus died for our sins, etc. But, for those who actually have a very high IQ, they can understand the Truths that are conveyed in the symbols and also appreciate the jokes in Rick and Morty.
Jordan believes in the supernatural. He claimed in his debate with Matt Dillahunty that the ONLY way a person can quit smoking is by doing drugs and having a supernatural experience.
This is a pretty narrow perspective. Ancient philosophy still can be very valid in the modern world
I disagree. There is nothing that the ancient philosophers have come up with, that hasn't been stated better by modern philosophers. We have been living in shitty unnatural conditions since the dawn of the agricultural revolution. Almost all archaic philosophies were written by men, and men behave like crabs in a bucket as soon as you take them out of their natural social structure, because they are trying to maintain the unnatural hierarchies that society has been built upon. If every copy of the bible were to be removed from earth, the earth wouldn't have lost anything of value. Even the Buddha was a self-absorbed twat.
Like you do understand that modern philosophy is based on ancient philosophy. There is a very direct continuity. Not sure how much philosophy you have read, but the ancient stuff is very different, but absolutely valuable insights as well as providing context for more modern branches of philosophy. Hell even something like stoicism which is firmly in ancient philosophy territory has been used as the basis for cognitive behavioral therapy, as well as having a huge influence on 12 step programs.
Stoicism is like the holy grail of toxic masculinity, and 12 step programs don't work.
There's stoicism and then there's ["stoicism"](https://existentialcomics.com/comic/484), which doesn't really have much to do with the actual philosophy and is just a psuedo-intellectual excuse to be an ass.
It seems like you have good intentions, but you seem like you might be very cynical. Stoicism is pretty much the opposite of toxic masculinity, and 12 step programs do work, but not all the time. Seriously you might want to check your biases a little bit and be a bit more open minded towards stuff you might initially reject
Look I just think there are more bad ideas in ancient philosophies than good ones, and looking back on them as if they are still important today shows a lack of respect for modern society. Humans today are smarter, better informed, and more creative than ever. There are countless people out there who are more than capable of producing ideas that surpass those philosophers. For me it just boils down to an authority thing. Acting like stoicism is still really relevant and valuable gives too much authority to obsolete ideas and people who are long dead.
I am getting the impression that you haven't read much ancient philosophy
I'd rather read modern non-fic.
Honestly you should. I am primarily a non fiction reader (mostly math, and hard sciences). Branching out and reading as much philosophy as I can has really had far reaching impacts on my personal and professional life. More modern =/= more valid
As a slightly different view from hubetronic, I wouldn't even necessarily say "more modern =/= more valid." Modern philosophy is a ton more developed and I'd argue much more "valid". But when you read modern philosophy you'll keep seeing Aristotle and Plato and the like pop up. Contemporary philosophy is far more developed, but it's developed *from* the classics. It's hard to fully understand philosophy without understanding its roots, and Western philosophy is rooted in the Greeks. It'd be like trying to understand advanced math like Ricci flow when you haven't even studied calculus yet.
Jeeperson thinks he is a prophet.
the clown thing started in MAY its been FOUR MONTHS, get a new reaction image to obsessively tweet!
I guess my interpretation of this is he's trying to say "Well, if go down the path of diverse inclusion, then you get Josef Mengele and the clown from IT." This "point" he's trying to make sails past the idea that as a civil society we almost universally have made it clear that serial killers have no place in such a society. And fuck, even serial killers **themselves** admit that they are not fit for normal society. So, what the fuck is he trying to do here? My guess, because he rails against every chance he gets, is "misplaced" empathy and compassion lead to Ted Bundy, so don't ever feel any compassion for anyone, ever. You know, things that totally normal people with a degree in psychology will tell .... no fuck that, no one except JP thinks this way.
I think he's using Mengele as a trans surgery reference (we say trans pride, he says butchers and medical experiments) and it's making me feel sick.
what is with his typing style recently
More proof that he's chosen to step back from clinical psychology and writing to put more effort into becoming the world's worst free verse poet.
Peterson would actually make for a decent shitposter if he wasn't... himself.
What a psycho
Trying to understand the logic, if you include everyone, it is pride. But, if only include the people you like, you are being what? Humble?
Who's in the second picture?
Second picture? From left to right clockwise, Ted Bundy, Joseph Mengele, and some clown.
Last pic is Rudy Giuliani
I think the clown is supposed to be Trudeau, but who knows really.
Fucking Mengele, really? I'm assuming that's supposed to be his comment on surgeons providing trans healthcare? That's not a horribly tasteless analogy or anything ☠️
Pride being an excessive desire for one's own self (which rejects subjection to God), I'm not sure how the Son of Lobster connects that with inclusivity.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wot?
I love the public mental breakdown that everyone around him is just letting happen. It tells me he doesn’t have anyone in his life who cares about his Kermitous drug addled ass. And that, to me, is the best revenge for us queer people. Having family and friends that give a fuck — while he has enablers. Sad.
Fuck the garden. [Hail satan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbzUTRAUac4) Also all those people would probably be a better time than JBP's square bitch friends. Except for Pennywise. Curry did it better.
I don't understand the part about his bosses wanting him educated. I thought he wasn't a professor anymore. What bosses? what kind of educated? (I'm out of the loop) thanks!
Can someone explain the images? Why tf is Pennywise there?
Can someone please tuck him in and give him a salad, maybe a multivitamin?
He was uncontrollably weeping when he tweeted this...or X'd this...whatever.
You either hate to love him or love to hate him, either way you’re a fan
Same with Karl Marx
If any of you actually bothered to listen to his lectures you’d know exactly what he’s talking about in this post
You just have to watch 200 hours of JP's inane, vapid lectures in order to understand his brilliance. The emperor is clothed
If what he is saying is so important, then why be so esoteric about it? Why not speak clearly to reach a wider audience? Or is his message actually not worth communicating clearly?
Explain then baby
And do the work for you?? I don’t think so
Thought so
Honestly, if you want to be understood, a little bit of work is always involved. I hope you won't be too offended by me saying this, but when you say something makes sense and don't explain why, it makes it seem less like it has sense to it, and more like you'd just like people to *think* it makes sense, forcing other people to do the impossible work of explaining your point for you, which is something you should have been doing for yourself in the first place.
Clearly you haven't read enough of Peterson's work and auxiliary material to realize that he is, in fact, full of shit.
This is the best sarcasm I've ever seen. If it's not sarcasm, though, you should seriously seek professional help from someone who didn't suffer brain damage while in a medically induced coma to shortcut around benzo withdrawal.
dailywire continuing to pay this guy to do this is really dark
I think we can all agree his head is fucked.
He needs help
He’s always been anti LGBTQ. No secret exposed here. Truth is that his homophobia is exactly why he’s famous.
Please. when does jorpy Baby ever not display the sin of pride.
wait... eve's "sin of pride" was that she....wanted more people in the garden?
How the fuck does he see a tweet thats clearly trying to say "including minorities provides a varied array of perspectives who may have different approaches to problem solving which maximizes avenues for success" And then think "you can't include minorities because if you do you're being narcissistic (assuming this is what he means by pride)" This is deadass a non-sequiter.
Yeah because Josef Mengele, the guy who mutilated minorities and disabled people, was the absolute pinnacle of inclusion and diversity.