LogFAQs > #895277638

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Globe and Mail had a really good article about Jordan Peterson
CruorComa 02/01/18 8:36:15 PM #11:	averagejoel posted... CruorComa posted... No one ever really addresses anything he says, do they? They just condense complex subject matter to overly simplified, uncharitable and misrepresentative strawfigures, then attack that. It's not impressive. he said, after reading an article that succinctly addresses what he says Not really. 'It is little wonder, then, that Peterson is prominent among conservatives (he identifies as a "classical liberal," which is a conservative), angry young men, and the ranks of the alt-right. (Following her recent interview with Peterson, Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman was deluged with death threats; thus giving Peterson the dubious distinction of being the rare "dangerous scholar" who is actually dangerous.) Peterson dresses up the language of misogyny in the woozy jargon of Eastern religion (he identifies chaos, his enemy, with the Taoist notion of the "eternal feminine"); he justifies existing structures of social dominance by deferring to the hard-wiring of ancient crustaceans; he capitalizes words such as Being and Woman and Nature with no apparent rationale. For all his wailing about the dangers of tyranny, Peterson's use of language is itself spookily Orwellian justifying the most noxious, moronic ideas by making them seem intellectual or, in his words, "archetypal."' This was really the only thing that really dealt with anything he's said and it was low resolution. His lectures unpack single concepts over hours and I wouldn't say it's succinct to handwave over a bunch of them with a paragraph of misrepresentations. https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/azXLNNp_700b.jpg --- If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn? <cite>CruorComa posted [p:895277638] in Globe and ... [t:76271369]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CruorComa posted...</cite> <quote>No one ever really addresses anything he says, do they? They just condense complex subject matter to overly simplified, uncharitable and misrepresentative strawfigures, then attack that. It's not impressive.</quote> he said, after reading an article that succinctly addresses what he says</quote> Not really. 'It is little wonder, then, that Peterson is prominent among conservatives (he identifies as a "classical liberal," which is a conservative), angry young men, and the ranks of the alt-right. (Following her recent interview with Peterson, Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman was deluged with death threats; thus giving Peterson the dubious distinction of being the rare "dangerous scholar" who is actually dangerous.) Peterson dresses up the language of misogyny in the woozy jargon of Eastern religion (he identifies chaos, his enemy, with the Taoist notion of the "eternal feminine"); he justifies existing structures of social dominance by deferring to the hard-wiring of ancient crustaceans; he capitalizes words such as Being and Woman and Nature with no apparent rationale. For all his wailing about the dangers of tyranny, Peterson's use of language is itself spookily Orwellian justifying the most noxious, moronic ideas by making them seem intellectual or, in his words, "archetypal."' This was really the only thing that really dealt with anything he's said and it was low resolution. His lectures unpack single concepts over hours and I wouldn't say it's succinct to handwave over a bunch of them with a paragraph of misrepresentations. https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/azXLNNp_700b.jpg --- If you have a problem with potheads, throw your computer out the window. Why should you be able leech off the creativity of those you condemn?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1