Submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world [bot] to technology@lemmy.world
I used to no mind Jordan Peterson. I listened to him a lot, thought he just talked a lot without saying anything. But as soon as he started talking about climate change, something in which he has ***-zero fucking authority- *** , that’s when I started to really dislike him. Pseudo intellectualist where a good portions of his arguments are structured with motivated reasoning.
How do you feel about the rest of his views in retrospect of knowing what you know now?
Crap, wish you hadnt asked me that. I have a lot to say but I don’t feel like typing it out, and I essentially wrote essays about it in the past. But I’ll try to quickly lay some stuff out.
In his lectures he meanders a lot, he jumps from one topic to another without making it clear and without finishing his thoughts. So he never actually has well structured arguments or a central thesis.
He’s an expert at building narratives. I see him as a sort of modern day spiritual leader of sorts. He’s not really giving lectures, but rather it’s more like preaching. He inspires people with his words. People who like JBP say its because he’s smart, I disagree with them, I think they like him because he’s a good preacher. But most people don’t realize that, as I mentioned his intellectual arguments are incompleteor flawed. Him building narratives for people to follow or adopt into their worldview is not necessarilya bad thing. But he is most definitely being a hypocrite because he is doing the exact same thing that he accuses the critical theory postmodernist academics of doing. I never had much issue with this because his message generally tended to be positive and gave men a way to have a positive outlook on themselves. Something that we are sorely lacking now a days.
He is very guilty of motivated reasoning. Back when I was doing a deep dive on JBP I could give specific instances where his intellectualism is dishonest and essentially he builds an argument backwards from a conclusion, but he’s good at it so to a person who is not paying attention will not see what he’s doing and JBP will appear to make a convincing case. There is one video we’re he talks about the archetype of the father and how he says that God and the archetype of the father might actually be an evolutionary artifact. He makes a convincing argument at a surface level, but then there are issues with it that I won’t break down here. Point is, that he essentially is making an evolutionary case in favor of the idea of the father and of westerns religious worldview of a patriarchichal monotheistic God. So essentially he’s starting with a belief, and building arguments around it, not the other way around, which is why I call him a pseudointellectual. A true academic seeking knowledge would start with a premise and agnostically try to reach a conclusion, not the other way around.
Last, he’s a grifter. To me this was clear with his famous abortion video where he is lauded for his “amazing intellectual arguments”. He was asked the question on whether or not he is in favor abortion. And in classic Peterson fashion he meanders for ten minutes, obsfuscating the the question, saying it’s a complicated answer and that we should look at the reasons that women get abortions and so on. Like no fucking shit people shouldn’t be needing to get abortions, but he never actually answered the question if he is OK with abortion. And my belief is that he is grifting for a conservative crowd and he gives them pseudo intellectual arguments to support their worldview. So if he said that women should be allowed to have an abortion it would have damaged his brand. The answer should’ve been “women should be allowed access to abortion” period.
He is so good at hiding his grifting behind his pseudo intellectualism that it’s hard to call him out on it. You really have to dissect his arguments. And most big youtubers that were trying to take down JBP were doing a terrible job in my opinion, because they didn’t understand exactly what Peterson was doing that was bad, because he’s so good at hiding it.
But now with this climate change bullshit…mask is off, he’s out of his depth.
Not OP, I don’t have respect for JP, but he still was a professor back then. This is like Degree Tyson starts talking BS on behavioural psychology, that doesn’t make him wrong about all his previois statements on astrophysics.
I live near him and remember him being on a CBC political talk show on occasion, he wore a feathered fedora and often had the contrarian viewpoint to some liberal notion of social change. Before he made a name for himself lying about the bill that added gender to Canada’s definition of things people can be discriminated based on, he had this personality assessment program and would post random videos on youtube. I remember watching one called “one hour on a single Nietzsche paragraph,” and it was about at the level that other philosophy channels discussed the subject, if maybe a bit more verbose.
After his trans bill thing is when he started to explode in popularity, this was when “anti-SJW” stuff was big on YouTube. Like you had these ridiculous interactions that would get uploaded and drawn in the a political context, stuff like “big red” in Toronto, “Hugh Mongous,” “feminist gets owned.” Eventually most content creators tuned in to how these ridiculous videos were being associated with the burgeoning alt-right and the unwanted attention that brought to their channels, h3h3 was a big one for this as they openly discussed and addressed it many times.
Jordy’s personality brand is now basically a cash cow advertising opportunity for Daily Mail or whatever business interests benefit from his persona. For some reason their family has some weird medical issues and that also works it’s way in to their content. The commodified branding of this is always some absurd exaggerated abstraction, like “ALL BEEF DIET.” Their entire business is basically selling their personalities and doing PR. With addiction and politics in the mix it just becomes this absurd spectacle, especially with how his cognitive abilities have seemed to decline. He’s such a miserable person, that’s always been the case.
Especially considering that he preached that experts in a given domain should be the authoritative figure for that domain.
“You see social injustice as a youth? Quit whining and protesting! Go be the expert in the field and gather decades of experience. Only then should the society listen to you. Expect if you’re a freedom trucker. The. You should absolutely protest against the government”.
For a supposedly logical man, he’s pretty illogical and full of contradictions.
I wonder if his shiny new suits are his way of signaling his selling out?
Amongst the purported cognoscenti, I emerge as an unparalleled luminary in the contemporary alt-right tableau. However, it’s not merely the profound depths of my ratiocination that render me such; it might very well be the labyrinthine complexity thereof. Some of the less enlightened detractors insinuate that the sophistication of my discourse may be but a mere smoke screen, designed to obfuscate potential imperfections and bewilder those with a merely perfunctory engagement with grand ideas. Their assessments, though quaint, are not entirely without merit. Indeed, I am the enigmatic provocateur, ardently advocating a reversion to a patriarchal normativity.
weird bot
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
Thank you Mister President Michael B. Jordan Peterson 🫡
Man this is some really interesting technology-related stuff.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
These people should be deplatformed. Surely there is a way to do that.
glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Google/YouTube doesn’t care. If they can put ads on it and make money they will leave it up.
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Youtube has recently started certifying people. You’ll find real doctors now have “Licensed Doctor in the U.S” or something like that.
Sure the loons will still say their self-made expert is right, but it’s a step in the right direction for those who are still on the fence.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
I’m not saying they will do it voluntarily, but maybe some kind of pressure campaign could be effective. Accuse their advertisers of supporting climate denial. Is that seen as bad enough among the general public to be effective?
qooqie@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t think it’s that simple. I think the ethics of silencing people is keeping them from deplatforming far right or far left individuals. Also the flak they would receive might not be seen as worth it.
thecam@lemmy.world 1 year ago
False, there been so much censorship since 2017 on Youtube. I remember so many Youtubers back them which are now been deplatformed. Google will censor channels that goes against globalism.
asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 1 year ago
IMO there needs to be some kind of federal legislation saying that if a company is large enough, then they need to deplatform people who are promoting pseudoscience like climate denial or anti-vaxxers. At this point I’d argue climate denial is more harmful than Nazziism, which (I think / hope) is already actively deplatformed.
sab@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s tricky. Once you state “these subjects are above criticism”, it will become very easy to silence any criticism. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how such a structure could be abused by those in charge of it.
Who watches the watchmen.
thecam@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What is wrong with you bro? If you do not like it, turn the channel. I do not want the state telling me what I can and cannot watch online.
jordanpeterson@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I strongly agree.