LogFAQs > #901626159

Antifar posted...

nicklebro posted...

While I don't agree with everything he says (which even he says is a good thing, otherwise youre toeing the line of ideology which is the main issue he is battling against. Even moreso than freedom.of speech, he absolutely abhors any and all ideologies.

A sure sign of someone peddling bullshit is when they claim to be non-ideological. An ideology is a worldview; everyone has one. Peterson's holds that we have strayed too far from the shared narratives and hierarchies that led to our success as a society, and that this is largely the fault of people he terms "postmodern neomarxists." It's an inherently reactionary ideology, in that it seeks to restore the world to a status quo ante that Peterson views as better than the present day.

He's not going around spouting "Make America Great Again," but there's a reason those who do tend to be the ones who latch on to him.

That's absurd. Ideologies are unchanging even in the face if contradictory evidence. A sure sign someone is peddling bullshit is when they have no idea what the words theyre using mean.

Intro2Logic posted...

It's important to actually watch his lectures and listen to the things Peterson says. Like this: https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/997575537089564672

I'd have to hear what he actually meant by that, but that's both something I disagree with him on and also something JP haters would latch onto and claim is a reason not to listen to anything he says.

Tell me who do you actually Iisten to? Cuz I can guarantee every single person in the history of humanity has said something wrong before.

emblem boy posted...

What things do you disagree with him on?
And I guess the question is for others who are a fan of Peterson. It seems to be that the majority of things against Peterson is deemed a hit piece. So what are your critisisms of him? What is not a hit piece?

Well for example his views on religion. I get parts of what he says, like how religion is a distillation of how over the eons humanity has learned we should behave, but he seems to ignore the glaring faults in religion and actually call himself a Christian as opposed to just taking parts of Christianity that he finds truth in (like how he does with philosophers)

Antifar posted...

What do you guys make of this critique?
http://www.carlbeijer.com/2018/05/jordan-peterson-doesnt-understand-jungs.html

This is a perfect example of someone not understanding Peterson at all. He doesn't make any of the claims that he is accused of making. He said that men and women have far more in common than they do apart, and in fact has said the exact opposite, labeling gender a bimodal distribution which includes massive overlap. Also just because Jung says something doesn't mean Peterson agrees with it.... Like anyone who actually listens to JP instead of hit pieces against him will know, he doesn't claim any of the philosophers he's studied to be infallible, he draws from them what he finds truth in and discards the rest.

This likely arose from someone reading a hit piece on JP and believing that he denies the validity of transgenderism. That's patently false. What he denies is that gender can include things that are neither make nor female, like otherkin. Which I'm hoping we all do. This is another perfect example of how people judge JP based on what others have said about him and not what he's said himself. The lie that he's a transphobe has led to plenty of false claims just like this one.
---

Now you can't call me a sigless user.