Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Jordan Peterson, Royal Confusion, and the Miracle of the Angel Moth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 тра 2018
- Join Seth Andrews for a lighthearted romp through a few recent headlines and his own (skeptical) observations about Jordan Peterson, the recent Royal Wedding, the miracle of the "angel moth," and more!
Support our sponsor: www.harrys.com/thethinkingatheist
I don't know if you'll ever read this, but I just want to say thank you. As a fellow Tulsan, it is really nice to see someone as articulate and reasonable come out if such a fanatically religious culture. You are truly an inspiration to me.
So happy for William! May his life continue on this positive course! We love you Seth.
I quit smoking because i have will power.
It's almost two months since I quit. I thought to myself "Smoking is like religion, I don't have to be the subject of it - fuck it" I haven't smoken since.
You can't have willpower without God! At least you can't have a base for willpower without God.
Do you really think that - and if so - could you explain as I'm not sure what having a base for willpower even means - cheers!
honeychurchgipsy6 no I'm joking. It's a play on the idea atheists or non believers in god cannot have a base for morals. Several religious people come out with this idea. Most famous right now is probably Dennis Prager Is Murder Wrong. It is an argument that is used to shut down arguments(you not equipped to discuss this but I amabout this) and it also used to divide and devalue the "opponent" and cast suspicion(offcourse atheists can be moral.... But can we really trust them....?)
Michael K. Jensen - I thought you probably were - lol!! Yes, these arguments really piss me off too - and I think you're right - they are a type of non-argument designed to shut down the opposition. I haven't come across the Prager one you mention but it sounds interesting. The answer is, of course, that it depends - actually the question should be 'is killing always wrong?' There's a British analytical philosopher from the early 20th century - George Moore who wrote in his Principia Ethica that there is NO thing that is always and in every instance and context GOOD or EVIL. He goes through all the reasoning step by step but if you think about it, it's obvious. The trouble is too many of us want to think in black and white ways: something must be either good or bad; we must either follow this person and agree with everything they say or we must despise them. I'm afraid we see this type of thinking in Atheists as well as Theists - perhaps it's how we are brought up and taught to think about the world? Humanity need to grow up and begin to use the enormously powerful tool - the human brain/intellect - that we are so fortunate to have - a bit better!!
The fact that Jordan "Word-Salad" Peterson has achieved such notoriety is a testament to human folly.
nothing to see here move along Yeah, his self help and anti SJW wordsalads.
I am so very pleased with the description "word-salad". Yes, ohhhhh yes. I can almost see the entanglement of sentences upon sentences of blabla form faster than I can say "huh, what? No -that's not...-wait? How?"
I am delighted to hear of the community coming together to help William. Thank You, Seth, for sharing his story. 'We' really need to 'Lift each other up' way more than currently happens. It dosent take much to make a difference. That little might get another human on their feet and going. Thank You William. Keep looking ahead.
OMG Seth, thank U for shouting out Wild Wild Country. I watched the entire series, and I LOVED IT! I too was wondering ...How did I miss this! It’s an EXCELLENT WATCH!
About the moth: I found the image rather sinister than angelic.
I tried registering an account on thethinkingatheist.com forum, but it says "recaptcha v1 shutdown".... anyone else have this issue?
Holy friggin awesomeness! listening to you sing Def Leppard was hilarious! And yes, that was a serious moment of music in my youth! Thank you!
Another brilliant show thanks man keep up the good work
What I hate about peterson is that no matter how many times he is asked the same exact question, he pretends to deeply ponder it as if he's never heard it before. He did this with Matt who asked a few questions that Peterson has been asked a lot before.
I think he is laying out his words and thinking about what he is going to say. He does those long pauses even when he is the only person on camera.
If one is being honest, they usually don't need to think all that long.
OTOH if one is not in the habit of thinking but only of spouting of cliches and dogma then no pauses are needed but only "playing" of the required tape.
Of things to anger you about him, that seems rather trivial.
I agree with Beayn, if stopping to think about what you are going to say is pissing people off we all have a problem. I wish more people would do this instead of just saying the first BS line that comes to their head, and this is on all sides of a debate.
You have to do more of these.
I feel so annoyed that Peterson uses Raskolnikov as his exemplar for an atheist. He extrapolates atheism from a fictional character whose outlook had been shaped by extreme personal poverty, social degradation, political oppression, family poverty, alienation, illness, and mental breakdown to make conclusions about atheists. He insults both atheists and Dostoyevsky if he thinks Raskolnikov is proof that god is necessary for morality. Dostoyevsky was deeper than that. I am certain he knew that godly christians could be as bad or worse than Raskolnikov at his worst. And that being good is something independent of religion.
Yep. He should have talked about someone like Pechorin from "A Hero of our Time".
I wish I knew who that was.
‘Mine is an unfortunate disposition; whether it is the result of my upbringing or whether it is innate-I know not."
www.gutenberg.org/files/913/913-h/913-h.htm
Looks like my kind of book. Must read it. Thanks
No problem. The Byronic hero is fascinating. Or in Russian, the superfluous man.
OMG I just remembered, I own a maroon hat that was part of a Rajneeshee guard uniform! I like hats.
JP puts me in mind of a piece of advice l was given, and occasionally pass along.
It isn't nessisary that we have an opinion on every matter. Sometimes "l don't know" needs to be acceptable, and "l don't care to know",as well
Thank you for shouting out Handmaid’s Tale, it’s like pulling teeth and when they finally watch they get mad i wasn’t able to make them watch earlier. It’s soooooooooooooo good, also it’s not just them going off on their own the author of the original helps them write the scripts.
They keep these poor women in line with horrible punishments, I think that’s why they stay quiet for so long.
Ruth Barr ?
I was talking about the story
Does anyone else watch a show called superstore? Does Jordan remind though of anyone?
@20:15 "I am not remotely impressed!" Exactly. Seth nails it!
I watched Peterson's video lectures (a couple hundred hours of them) and I was so excited when he started becoming mainstream famous. Then I realized that most of his ideas can't be reduced to a few minutes of explanation and the debate format really doesn't suit him, especially on the topics of religion. It really does sound like a word salad if you're not aware of the vast context in history, psychology, neuroscience etc.
As a student of psychology, the first time I heard Peterson speaking I was interested. I was almost impressed, he seemed to be a psychological professional who wasn't fully into the recent method of feeding into delusions of children (or childish adults, etc.), instead of trying to help them see the real world around them, showing that sometimes you have to be honest and blunt to help them for the long (and sort) run to learn how to be happy in what they are or with whats actually around them. He didn't come off as "politically correct" all the time, and appeared to put some deeper thought into what was going on around the world and speaking up about it...
I WAS WRONG.
Peterson is little more than a modern snake oil salesman. I took the time to look more into him when I was interested, and doing so (watching, reading, listening to his own podcasts and what not) made me see what he is, in his own words without cuts of video. He is a religious fanatic hiding in sheep's clothing. Everything he pushes is poisoned with Christian tones. He preaches his (wrongly interpreted, misread, typical apologetic) views mixed into what should be scientific, researched, tested, logical support for helping others. The final straw for me in seeing this was listening to him, on his own channel doing a Q&A, tell someone looking for help, admitting that they are a pedophile (not a child molester, but and looking to not do so over their urges) that they should go TALK TO A PREIST... Outside of the obvious social issues that have surrounded priests and their own history with child molesting, Priests aren't trained for dealing with serious mental illnesses (or actually any illnesses, they aren't "healers" like people used to think in midevil times) let alone something as serious as a pedophile and the issue with them possibly hurting/taking advantage of a child. Hell they aren't even required to disclose if they are told that the person has or is intending to do something bad to a child. If you don't think this is religious bias then you need to open your eyes.
Another issue, that I mentioned previously with his religious bias that is being pushed, is his outright misreading of the text. He has some very twisted ideals of what is "good" when it comes to the bible. For example claiming that Abram (Abraham) was the good guy after telling his wife to lie and basically pimping her to the Pharaoh to get in his graces, even when it was the pharaoh who was upset that it was his wife and then give him gifts before telling them to leave the town not wanting the wrath of Abram's god for doing something he wasn't aware of. He is constantly cherry picking just like all apologists the things he wants to see and leaving out everything else, not to mention the fact that much of the "moral rules" he tries to talk about were around long before the Abrahamic religions.
Again, I was wrong about him. And here is the major issue about some of what he says. Some of what he talks about ISN'T WRONG, but it is right for the WRONG reasons. That is a huge issue, because these same reasons are what cause many horrific things to happen also. People use the same excuses/reasons to commit terrible crimes against others, and get away with it because a few other people use them as excuses to act good. And like Dilahunty said, you don't get to choose who is or isn't what they claim, so the nice person who claims they are good because of their religion is JUST AS MUCH a Christian as the ones killing people and claiming to do so for the same religions beliefs.
I love that he closed the show by quoting the hokey pokey
I love Harrys Razors
So I'm a native Oregonian, and I had NEVER heard of the Rajneeshpuram community until I was along with friends on a road trip through Antelope, Oregon. And I'm fascinated by just about any kind of psycho- serial killers, dictators and war generals, cult leaders, you name it! So, to learn that this all started... right over there, somewhat locally... Goes to show, we really can't always be certain about other people.
Holy hell, because of your recommendation, I just started Hand Maiden's Tale. It's horrifying and enthralling all at the same time. I think it's so good because I believe it's a society that some Fundamentalist want in this country. You know, the type the say things like "show me in COTUS where it says "separation of church and state." I ask them what they mean by that? So what if it's not spelled out exactly like that?
This. This is what I think they mean.
The Man in the High Castle is another one to watch!
I highly recommend everyone to read the article titled "I was Jordan Peterson's strongest supporter. Now I think he's dangerous" published in Toronto Star. It was written by the University of Toronto professor who hired Peterson for an assistant professor in his department in the late nineties. He has known him for decades now and is worried he might be descending into madness.
Peterson has a scientific understanding of where religious doctrines, archetypes and narratives are derived from based on psychology and interesting views on their sociological utility. Keep an open mind. The guy has some valid points
To get an idea further into your Cult podcast, I suggest you watch HBOs Leftovers.
Watch Westworld!!! It's so good and it has an excellent commentary about god and what "free will" means!!!
A King or Prince was the person that led armies into battle. He was the toughest bastard around, and the two way street aspect of Royalty that followed afterwards was that the people cared for their leader and the leader cared for the people. Yes, it is a ceremonial position now, but you will NEVER understand anything without the context of history and the 1,000+ years of kings and queens in this land (plus a few years as a Republic)
We just watched the first Wild, Wild Country too, and I'm a child of the 80's and I don't remember this either! Like you, I've GOT to watch this crazy circus unfold ... unbelievable how people allow themselves to get swept up in this lunacy! But if you ask me, it's not too different from people following Christianity or any other religion, and how they fill some sort of need either for the here and now or the afterlife, and easily convince themselves that what they believe is true.
Be sure to buy all the shaving-sets.
You wete talking about antelope oregon arent you?
Apropos Cults - it is SO very fitting to take on Lobster-Daddy (Deepak Chopra 2.0), Jordan B. "Mad and Sad White Kermit" Peterson in the same segment where you've talked about an old cult!
Just look at his followers, it's like watching the followers of a religious figure!
And no doubt the Lobsterians will flood this comment section with comments like, "you're taking him out of context", "you have to watch/read this and that", "he saved my life", and all the usual phrases we hear from theists!
Sadly many of them will be atheists and self proclaimed skeptics.....
But this just goes to show how atheism most definetly isn't a guarantee for actual rational thinking!!!
Can't stand JBP but I do appreciate his advice of "clean your room". It seems trivial, but giving confused people a concrete place to start is a great idea. when I'm feeling down on myself, I think to clean my room, because it's something real easy you can do right now to improve your situation.
When I hear Peterson's voice, I think of...
KERMIT DE FROG 🐸
Glad to see someone finally calling out jordan peterson. I feel like he's gotten away with a lot of ridiculous claims and terrible reasoning simply because he's not a very aggressive debater, so he makes his opponents look bad. I respect his ability to listen to others and have a conversation in a civil manner, which is an ability that most seem to lack these days. However, he should be held accountable for the dumb things he says.
Plenty of skeptics besides Seth and Matt have "called out" Peterson, for better or worse: Sam Harris, Rationality Rules, The Bible Reloaded, TJ Kirk, probably more...
Look for a youtuber called "Rationality Rules". He has made several videos debunking Mr Peterson.
Jordan Petersen has gotten SO much flak, he must by now identify as a WW 2 bomber! With the personal pronoun "brrmmm"
Many people have been calling him out. Especially radical feminists. Check out the channels "MenR TheProblem" and "Inmendham"
I agree about Jordan Peterson. I listen to him and think the same thing...what the *$@! is this guy talking about?
Michael R. Out of context everyone out of context lol
Well, I just read this comment wondering what the $&%$ are you talking about? I don't watch him regularly but what I've seen has made sense.
EDIT: I just watched this vid and yeah maybe he's a bit of a nutter. I guess I haven't seen enough of him.
beayn
What exactly have you heard that makes sense? That what's true is what's useful? That the social dynamics of some species of lobster can apply to humans? That the structure of DNA is found in ancient Chinese images? What?
This guy is a few History channel series away from being the Giorgio Tsoukalos of psychology.
Just say "Axioms of metaphorical substrates" in a sentence a couple of times a minute and you can sound like an intellectual too! In fairness, Peterson is a pretty smart dude and he makes some solid points outside the axioms of metaphorical substrates within his religious dogma, but I don't like what he's become and becoming. Axioms of metaphorical substrates!!!
+Lewa500
What have I heard that made sense? Women tend desire a dominant and even alpha male and denying that, or emasculating men (the goal of feminism) is counter productive to relationships.
If women are going to claim sexual harassment for a man hitting on her, or giving unwanted hugs at work, should she be allowed to wear makeup and heels at work? Makeup is designed to accent a woman's features when sexually aroused, and heels affect the way she walks to help her hips sway more. It's a valid hypothetical question.
Also, Western civilization was built upon the values of Christianity and while the religion is no longer dominant, we should not forget our origins. (I'm an Atheist btw and I can see and appreciate this). Multiculturalism in that context is going to erode and undermine those values.
That if you want to change the world, you should start by cleaning your room. This is pretty good advice that successful people have been giving for years (it's not his invention).
I thought he did pretty well in that interview/interrogation with Cathy Newman, although he missed some key opportunities to tear down her arguments. He didn't go overboard, and drawing on some analogy with lobsters doesn't mean he's crazy or stupid. The response "So what you're saying is, we should model our society after lobsters" is crazy and stupid though.
There are plenty of left wing postmodernists who love to use word salads too. I'm not saying that justifies using word salads, but at least he has a PhD and is more likely to naturally use large words instead of the usual leftists with his PhD in gender studies using a thesaurus.
Like I said before, I haven't seen that much from him, and what I have seen (such as the above mentions) made sense. If he's saying things that don't make sense, it doesn't negate the things that do.
Oh wow I see there is a netflix show called Wild, Wild Country about the Rajneeshi...I was 4 yrs old when he left . it would be interesting to see that. I will want to do that.
my town is about 3.5 hour drive from there but it is in the same state, anyway.:P
one thing I remember my mom saying a lot when I was a kid was that when they suddenly left there were a lot of their followers left homeless who largely went to portland to greatly increase the homeless population there.
I would not have notice this was a thing, Seth. Thank you much.
The histeria album was the first tape i ever purchades for myself
The podcast starts at 10:26.
22:35 - 23:05
Most important moment in the shows history
at 26:01 I made the same analogy in a youtube comment
When I first heard of Petersen and his message, I was enthralled with him. Then I watched more of his videos, followed his posts on Facebook and Twitter, and I realized, maybe not soon enough, that he was a hack. Something about him made me feel uncomfortable. This, mind you, is weeks before I started hearing some of my favorite UA-cam news commentators start talking about him. Then I saw the debate with him and Dillahunty, and I kept pausing Matt's responses to yell at my screen, especially when he started talking atheists and how we secretly believe in God because we're not murderers. I was floored by this, because this "intellectual" seemed to have no clue he wasn't the first person to make that argument.
Petersen, I feel, is a hack. And if you pay attention to him, the man is very, very quick to anger towards people who dismiss his arguments. Definitely don't trust that guy...
3:48 sooo basicly its the rural south ? :P
Best part starts at 22:49
Hugo and Jake are dismantling Peterson's book on their channel. I can't wait.
Handmaid's Tale! That show is like emotional torture but I can't stop watching.
The moth is even funnier than the face of Jebus on a slice of toast!
Game of thrones had been going through the same thing. Its gone beyond George R.R. Martin's books.
People! LOOK at the picture of the "angel"............LOOK at the truck...........Make note of how clear and in focus the truck is. Now..........If an "angel" was just over the truck, at the same level of focus as the truck............WHY the hell is the "angel" NOT in focus?!? Answer......."Angel" is a moth, in flight, much closer to the camera. Simple.
Angels are magic, if they want to appear blurry that is their choice.
So many LOL moments...
Yep, thoughtlesskills, ya got me there........."Angels are magic".
Random Person ;)
photoshoped to fool people any one can do it
Whenever Peterson says certain words, I need to pause and then remember how he is using that word...
He redefines so muchhhh to make everything fit his worldview or how he wants to talk about something..
Words don't have set definitions, they have different usages.. but he doesn't use any of the usages, and just goes with his own shit. WHICH he doesn't disclose, so as he can jump around as he pleases so as to never get stuck when talking about things that he doesn't think are literally true, but doesn't want others to know that. If you disclose your definitions before you use them, then fine.. we're on the same page and can communicate in an honest way.. even if it is needlessly annoying to cater to. But he doesn't do that.
General usages:
Truth means: That which is in accordance with reality.
Peterson's redefinition: That which promotes reproduction.
Real: Having objective existence.
Peterson: Having conceptual (mental) existence.
Religion: A persuit or interest followed with great devotion.
Peterson's butcher job: A thing done; an act.
Like far out.. that's even more vague and useless than the inclusive real usage of the word "religion".. since that would mean following your favourite sports team is a religion too.
But Peterson's redefinition would mean that purposefully taking a dump, is religious. Even if you actively believe that there are no gods, you are still religious.
Or in other words.. it's impossible to not be religious.
So I have to pause to remember this shit.
Edit:
Example: 41:30 - Peterson says that without religion we would lose all art, poetry, drama, narrative, story, etc. Because he views religion to mean what I said above (which is what he said himself). DESPITE! the context obviously being religion in the usual god believing sense. This is dishonest on his part and he needs to disclose his usages.
Also said that the atheist artists only THINK they are atheists. Which is consistent with everyone being religious.
1:05:00 - The first question about if humans disappeared, would god still exist?
He struggles a LOT, seemingly because of the usage he uses with "real". If humans disappeared, then the shit that exists in their head disappears, which includes a god..
So yes god disappears conceptually (mentally).. but then there's obviously the question of outside of the mind, which is obviously what the questioner was implying, since the questioner doesn't know Peterson's stupid usage of "real", and Peterson never discloses that he is answering a strawman.
So when it comes to the actual god outside the mind.. Peterson doesn't want to say, probably because of his fan base and patreon money lol. Then some other wacky beliefs thrown in there. But ultimately no he doesn't believe a god actually exists.
So he can get bogged down in all sorts of stuff.. the god actually existing or not.. conceptual existence, what this god actually is if it was real... then some consciousness bullshit.
And wow Peterson really ate up the question time. Jees lol. So long winded and 90% of the audience probably aren't fully understanding his language anyway. I find myself zoning out a lot.
Wow, I was a child in the 80s, and, perhaps because I am an Oregonian, I was very aware of the Bhagwan Shree Rashneesh, and Rajneeshpuram near Antelope, Oregon. This includes their attempt at germ warfare by contaminating a salad bar. Heck, even Bloom County got in on it when Bill the Cat became Bhagwan Bill. Tangentially, I lived near Sheridan, OR, which is the home of Scientology's Delphian school. It's in an old Catholic Novitiate high on a hill over-looking Sheridan. It's advertised as a private school, a place to send troubled teens, even a summer camp! But it's all about indoctrinating kids into Scientology. Anyway, I'll check out that Netflix the series on the Rajneeshees. I hope at least one person says, "Save an Antelope, Bag a Bhagwan."
Watching the show now, and wow, Sheela is still alive! And not in prison!? That's mind-boggling.
Ding ding ding, episode 2, 50 minute mark: Bag the Bhagwan. This really is fascinating, though. In 1981, I would have been 8, so a lot of it went over my head, but it was all over the news and all the grown-ups were talking about it, it made a huge impression. The only other news stories from around that time that made as big an impression were the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and the assassination attempt on President Reagan. But I am learning a lot. I had know idea Rajneeshpuram was an actual freaking city, I guess I just pictured people dressed in red living in tents in the mud while the Bhagwan had a nice house and his Rolls Royces. And when I think about how it went on into my middle school years, the scope is mind-boggling.
Katheryn Saunders - watch til the end to find out why she's not in prison - she did serve time - some - I don't want to spoil it for you so won't say more. I found myself curiously drawn to Sheela - not sure why - she has such strength and her life now is one of - well you'll see - at the end of the doc. I prefer her to Oshi - he just comes across as empty - a fraud - a man interested in money and fame whereas I think she genuinely believed in the whole thing.
By the way - what a beautiful part of the world you live in - so much open space.
yeah, I started keeping an eye on the Doctor Peterson 2 years ago, and I've got mixed opinions of the different levels of his arguments, and his presentation. Partially agreed with some of the practical surface arguments he'd start out with, like about the obvious stuff like free speech and cleaning your room... just I prefer to be less absolutist than him, and I remained critical of his tact. (e.g. never taking initiative to make clear to his wide audience that they shouldn't take his crusade against language policing as inspiration to disrespect and torment trans students... but it became clear his undermining of non-traditional identities was intentional) But then, the deeper into the roots of his philosophies I investigated, the more skeptical I became. and eventually found the loose threads of his irrationality.
Other UA-camrs like Rationality Rules broke down his arguments well too.
I did find his speeches, lectures and monologues intriguing to consider, and I can understand why he's filled the a vacuum of paternalistic guidance for many young men especially, who may need more Conditional validation from an older wiser man who seems SO confident that he's figured everything out.
But he's so absolutist in his melodramatic archetypes and myths through which he frames EVERYTHING, and his impassioned oration is so powerful to the average UA-cam philosophizer that he easily eliminates the possibility of any other options besides the binary options as he presents them; Marxism VS Freedom; radical Feminism VS natural masculinity; respecting trans people's pronouns VS Free Speech; religious mystical "TRUTH" VS fuckin nihilism=Atheism; Good Vs Evil; Life or Death, plane to see as black 'n white.... O and DON'T get I'm started on the Post Modernists... whoever those actual people are
I wouldn't just ignore or dismiss everything he says. I found that listening to his arguments inspired me to further develop my own more moderate understandings, in juxtaposition to his. and while his intense scare mongering is possibly doing more harm than it's worth, it can be useful to reveal some of the psyche of society at this moment. As long as you can trust yourself to stay grounded and open to other sources and not caught up in Peterson's labyrinthine language spun from his carefully opaque intentions and motives, and catch yourself before you begin spiraling around the inexorable threats of spiritual chaos and doom...
If only mainstream "liberal" pundits weren't so fearful of challenging people's religiosity and could take a cue from the Atheist community and focus their questioning on Peterson's pseudo-Christianity where his world view breaks down at the fundamental levels, instead of just jabbing at him on the superficial topics where he can easily brush them off as emotional fools and earn himself more Libtard ownage cred with his growing millennial UA-cam fans.
Petersons popularity comes (almost entirely) from attacking the left or the far left in an 'intellectual" sounding way. Where your run of the mill anti-sjw will say "feminism is cancer", Peterson will instead talk about the importance of dominance hierarchies and lobsters. Coupled with Petersons stellar public speaking skills, where he can make the most trivial topic sound profound and all important, his Anti-Sjws and right wing fans come away thinking they just heard a science backed reason that feminism and equality is BAD. And they shower him with money and praise for this.
Uh, but women tend to prefer a dominant alpha male, and it is evidenced in the most popular style of romance novel in the world, no matter what culture (among other examples). So making this point in a scientific way or using analogies is apparently wrong? How else is someone supposed to make this point? Basically you haven't refuted the point, you're just attacking the way he presented it? That doesn't appear any more intellectual than what you claim Peterson is doing.
The problem with the left (with which I identify myself) is that they do all they can to confirm criticism of themselves as intolerant tyrants. I identify as left libertarian but the left today is very much left authoritarian, concerned with controlling what everyone thinks, feels and does.
Even though I'm anti-sjw myself I definately agree with you. I think a lot of the right-wing branch of anti-sjw's really enjoy the credibility he gives to their position. I actually thought the man was sensible when I first saw a video with him, but having having seen a lot of of his speeches and interviews, his persona become somewhat transparent. While I agree with him 70% on sjw stuff, it became rather clear that he's deliberately acting in a manner which makes him seem more intellectual than he really is. Not to mention that the guy is a fool when it comes to religion.
troy mclure exactly!!!
+MaMastoast
I think that he pretends to be vague about religious stuff so that he doesn't alienate the right wing christians in his audience. I have a hard time believing that he's as religious as he claims to be, and one need only look at this Patreon and $80,000 per month to see why he might want to pander a little to religious people. He has done great in some debates, though I haven't seen many. I've subbed to his channel but have never brought myself to click on any of his vids.
Seth!!! It makes my skin crawl to hear you speak of the Royals and the nasty Kardashians in the same sentence!!! There is NO COMPARISON!!!
Eh, two families who are lauded over by the mass idiots of America, seems comparable to me.
It was the Bhagwan's new Orange Order. I often reference Trump's followers to the new Orange Order.
"Lightheated?"
It’s put forth juniper berries! Of course it put forth juniper berries. It’s a juniper bush.
The cult leader you mention would be the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (now posthumously called Osho, if I remember rightly). His name and appearance were memorably parodied by David Copperfield (not the macician or the Dickens character, yet another person with that name) on the show Three of a Kind. Being American, you might not see quite how funny Eastern mysticism in a Yorkshire accent seemed at the time, but here's a sample: ua-cam.com/video/8zhXAEa2_4c/v-deo.html
you mentioned my state of oregon lol
oh i thopught it sounded familiar Antelope oregon
I was about 4 when Osho left oregon, though
Antelope to Rajneesh and back to Antelope as I understand it as far as the town name
Yeah, I never heard of Peterson before until he shoed up on Bill Maher, and he seemed relatively sane on that episode, but I have since looked him up and HOLY SHIT! The man is absolutely bat-shit crazy. To the point that I kinda can't believe that Bill Maher had him on his show.
It’s a moth!!!
A sign from Gawd!!!!
JBP is the Canadian, closeted christian version of Deepak Chopra who offers up an all-you-can stand serving of word salad every time he speaks. Today's special: Unfalsifiable Assertions!
Monster RAM I've been thinking that too, he's very Deepak Chopra eske in his speaking. The words themselves are absolutely empty though.
Derek Botbyl
Unassailable arguments.
. . . . and that's why someone created the Wisdom of Peterson - Word Salad Generator. Enjoy!
www.wisdomofpeterson.com/
TheOicyu812
- You are awesome!
Actually everything he said is falsifiable unless you have been strawmaning him.
My absolute favorite comment on the Royal Wedding was from Saturday Night Live's _Weekend Update:_ ua-cam.com/video/juLE8ShlQkM/v-deo.html
That aint no angel - that's Mothman, obviously.
Funnily enough I watched Jordan the other way (lectures, debates then the matt dillahunty one) and I came to the same conclusion. He isn't very honest when it comes to defining and understanding others views in debates or on air but he seems very good at psychology/teaching so I still like him, he just seems wrapped up in his own heavily defined/interpreted/structured bible that he can't look past it.
Michael A J he isn’t even good at psychology (maybe teaching) but all his “facts” are incredibly contorted and twisted
JP knowledge about psychology is just average and by the book...take some few psychology units and you'll realize there is nothing new he've contributed in that field. But its amazing how he uses scientific,medical and/or psychology jargons to wrap his woo-woo claims to make it sound so profound. He is a con-artist ..a very educated grifter, which is dangerous.
He's actually on probation by the College of Psychologists of Ontario for basically being terrible at being a psychologist and for neglecting patients so he can do talk shows and book tours.
I think the word you were looking for regarding Peterson's statements was this: they're "deepities." He's the intellectual love child of Deepak Chopra and Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Somebody needs to make a "Wisdom of Peterson" site like this: wisdomofchopra.com/
The third image looks like a blessed grilled cheese sandwich...
Except it's green.
I'd love to hear your take on Ben Shapiro
Look mr. bubbles! It’s an angel.
If Jordan Peterson is a genius in any field, it is that of salesmanship. Every psychiatrist in your local community is equipped with an equivalent education. This does not make them all geniuses. Neither does it make them sociologists, neuroscientists, nor philosophers, all of which he claims to be. He may be one or more of these things, but his particular Phd does not qualify him as such. He chose an obscure field description to "study and teach" so that he could BS his way into being published in "peer reviewed "journals without anyone actually checking his work. Just as a point of context, there are currently 1.54 million college professors in the US alone. The funny thing is that I was just joking, a couple of days ago about how Def Leppard were the masters of writing songs that sounded deep and intense until you actually learned the lyrics, and then they turned out to be silly and nonsensical(Much like Spinal Tap/Jordan Peterson).
Wild, Wild Country, keep watching... It is pure Insanity! About time you touched the subject on Dr. Peterson; I wonder what is his agenda, I lil cookie for me!
888Gypsy888
Money!
Interesting issues and a lot of debate could emerge from the "Wild wild country" documentary series. Maybe the main flaw in my opinion is the excessive concern of the directors to avoid a supposedly "biased" vision, trying to balance the "reasons" and "guilty" of both sides, local people and foreign cultists more or less equal. Both sides more or less bigoted: fundamentalist hillbillies vs delusional cultists. Same responsability in the increasing hostility and "weaponization" of the conflict. Same degree in twisting the interpretation of the law and the Constitution in order to to achieve an aim. I think that this is unfair for local people of Antelope, and overlooks a lot of the previous and external toll of victims and collateral damage in families of the Rajneesh cult.
Interesting debates about church and state separation, freedom of religion, and supposed differences between cults and stablished religions.
I apologize for my bad english.
Peterson is a bright dude who’s woo woo makes his thoughts a bit muddy. Overall, I think he provides people with some serious topics to tackle. He’s good for tolerance in the same way Majid Nawaz was to Sam Harris.
It's hard to believe the main character in Handmaids Tale is a scientologist in real life. You'd think she would see simularities between the role she plays & he row belief system.
I thought I should listen to Petersen a couple of weeks ago. I knew nothing of him other than he had really caught on. Okay. I’ll give him a listen. Deep stuff. He kept losing me. I’m I just too stupid to comprehend his enlightened message? Uh, no. As Seth says, word salad. High language but little substance. Or even just plain ridiculous but sounds really good. Which brings me to one of life’s little mysteries. Some people have an absolute genius command of the English language and grammar but the ideas they are selling suck. That’s Petersen.
JP confirms the collective confirmation bias with seductive oratory skills
Never trusted him from day 1, the moment he broke out into the public... I saw the debate that first brought him public attention... and (using George St. Piere's accent) I was not impressed... The dude is a walking word salad bowl... We've used that term before, the deepak choopra one too... Dude is ballin now though, good on him...
Handmaid's tale is Iran, Taleban, Saudi Arabia, Islamic fundamentalism, not Christian or Scientology.
[Writing this currently at around 9 mins. into the video] Hm, I wonder if the part about cults will directly transition into Peterson - there is something cultish about him - and his fans.
Edit later: Didn't turn out that way, just an interesting coincidence.
I personally prefer Pyromania - and even High and Dry - to Hysteria.
Is that moth like the Mothman Prophecies?
It's quite simple; the Royalty must present itself on a regular basis to remind the peasants who is superior, and what to delude one's self to aspire to.
What else would you encourage a 'Wealth Based' society to compete with each other over besides crap they don't need; a popularity contest for fascists.
Ben Carson isn't from another world. He's from another time. His ideas about the pyramids use to be very commonly held beliefs, in the 6th century.
8:00: I have no desire to belong. If my peers don't accept me then screw 'em.
How did Dr. Peterson get so big? Joe Rogan effect?
In the UK we're constantly fed propaganda about how selfless they are and how much in gratitude we should be. Don't buy the tourism argument it's lies. France's palaces get more tourists. And even if people only visited the UK because the Royals exist is that really a reason to have your head of state as such because tourists find it interesting? I'm sure people would love us to wear top hats and dress like victorians. There's only so much you should do for tourism and the set up of your government and state shouldn't be one of them.
Miss Michelle I despise the whole "Royal" family nonsense. Why do we have this shit in 2018?
I say to check out Humans. It's about human look alike androids that gain sentience. It deals with racism and everything tied into it. It's pretty good.
I don’t agree with everything Peterson says about religion but I’m like 99% confident he’s actually an atheist himself. Based on the little I’ve seen him talk about it, though I’m not necessarily impressed, it seems that he thinks belief in a common good (in his mind, a religious social contract) is necessary to remain stable as a person. I don’t agree with it, but I can see where he’s coming from. Think about it, how many people can’t fathom being an atheist, because they themselves might be fucked up people had they not believed in a divine reward and punishment? Religion is what got my mom off drugs. It inhibits her from even drinking these days, and though I might ferociously disagree with her, it still works for her. I think people can be educated the other way around. But that’s a societal good that can be derived from religion.
Are “true” atheists *bad people? No, that’s bullshit. But I can still see where he might be coming from.
Do we think that the jumping on the angel side of the angel/moth debate, by those with faith, says anything about their personal misgivings/ internal debate about the whole thing being real or not? I mean the belief in god/jesus/heaven... in the sense of LOOK, EVIDENCE, grab it, hold on to it, pull it in close to your chest and put your fingers in your ears so you cant hear any alternative explanations. Evidence in the sense of this will sustain me again in my faith until the next 'thing' comes along, the next face in the toast, the next pattern in a dogs butt area, the next 'angel'?? I would be so interested to know how many sermons referenced this 'revelation from god' in the last couple of weeks.
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Jordan Peterson. I have tried to listen to him and the near constant word salad in addition to him having his own personal definitions for words like truth makes him intolerable to me. My 17 year old son loves him though.
IMHO, Ivanka is an accomplice.
Wild Country sounds a little like the plot of Far Cry 5, if the cult brought guns instead of free love
There is little doubt that the younger you are, the better Jordan Peterson sounds. Not a great sign.
Seth, watch Dr. Peterson’s biblical series on the Old Testament. This isn’t an endorsement of him, but you will be much better equipped to understand his arguments if you hear them directly from him, as opposed to solely from his critics. The lecture ends up being a psychological deconstruction of the symbolism contained within it. His views on religion are very difficult to nail down because his view of God seems to be closer to that of a symbolic ideal, as opposed to an invisible man in the sky. Because of this, if he’s debating an atheist they might end up talking right past each other because they’re both talking using different definitions. This also happened the first time he spoke with Sam Harris. The second time they spoke was more productive since they had a conversation instead of debate, so we’re able to explain their respective positions.
i have. it does not make Jordan's point of view any more saner. I agree that watching the series puts his views in clearer light for proper critique.
That sounds like a problem Peterson should address, not Seth.
He makes these long-winding, debatable arguments for the importance of religion (with christianity at the center), but then he just can't get himself to admit that that doesn't make their teachings actually true, so he talks his way around that in various ways.
JP s a stupid fairy tale believer. Grow up.
Honestly that's what so annoying about JP :P it's clear he doesn't think much of the bible actually happened, but he has this weird idea that "spiritual truths" are as real objective reality or something like that. Frankly, it comes off as if he doesn't really know how to process his own thoughts on the matter very well.
Even in the area of psych Peterson is a nutter. He stands by debunked ideas and disregards the DSM
As far as the royal family goes.. I don't care in the slightest... they were born into it.. and if people wanna support that and let them be "royal", then.. cool. That's lucky for them (in ways). I personally like it when some people catch a break.. and they are seemingly normal enough which is definitely good. Some people hate it when others get a "free ride" or whatever.. but.. eh. Why condemn everyone to a life of struggle, just because you have struggle. I take the opposite approach and view. Plus.. they're good for tourism is the main reason lol. Is what it is.
WE WUZ DRAGON SLAYERZ N SHIT
Want to view something really interesting? Go check out the clip by VICE about a Serbian Jesus. It'll blow your mind!!!
I think all religions and cults boil down to being a big social club.
Acting rationally is in no way necessarily the same as rationalizing an action. JBP is always dancing along and obscuring a subtle line.