|
|
|
Jordan P
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Hack
Well-known member
I've been listening to Dr. Peterson for quite a while... I feel sorry for him having to sometimes put up with having to defend his ideas against attacks leveled by "journalists" and those within the established intelligentsia who's thinking is polluted with politics and "feels".
It's certainly entertaining, but sad at the at time.
Unfortunately he is but one voice in a sea of intellectual mediocrity...
It's certainly entertaining, but sad at the at time.
Unfortunately he is but one voice in a sea of intellectual mediocrity...
He's put himself through some challenging interviews/debates to add to the discussion on a range of current issues - I respect that. Agree or disagree, it's healthy to get different opinions on current issues. I think his training as a clinical psychologist makes him relatable to many on an individual level. In my social circle, he's not as popular with the women as he is with the men. Enjoyed his books, Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life.
N234
Well-known member
Big fan of his ideas on personal responsibility, recovering from addiction, and to some degree, on equality. I disagree with him most often on his views on economic policy and his dismissal of systemic racism's existence.
EDIT (addition): He is incredibly smart and eloquent and is likely to win a debate whether he is right or wrong. I think he is genuinely a good person and cares for the well-being of individuals, but like most people who comment on politics, he doesn't value some factors/priorities that others do.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
EDIT (addition): He is incredibly smart and eloquent and is likely to win a debate whether he is right or wrong. I think he is genuinely a good person and cares for the well-being of individuals, but like most people who comment on politics, he doesn't value some factors/priorities that others do.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
It's mostly "feminists" that give him the hardest time.
I wish I could have seem him after the interview above.
I'm certain he was mentally exhausted. Talk about your brain working overtime. But amazing in his responses.
I know it's a long interview. But well worth the watch
FIFY
Roadghost
Well-known member
He's one of the few who can adequately articulate his points of view in the face of an assault by the leftist elites. Case in point would be this hostile interviewer, who is so very sure, based on presumptions that she is correct and on solid ground. One the most dramatic points Peterson makes IMO is that the mathematical and scientific people's points of view are doomed in the face of the social left who are far better at prevailing with their opinions, no matter how wrong or destructive they are.
Canada among the best examples, with its overwhelming debt, top-heavy social programs and ideological sacred cows. If only people could see where this is all taking us.
Canada among the best examples, with its overwhelming debt, top-heavy social programs and ideological sacred cows. If only people could see where this is all taking us.
A lie, fake news or conspiracy theory can be dreamed up in a few seconds. A wild goose chase takes forever, giving the edge to the smoke and mirror party.
Statements made during debates need to be pre-documented like a PhD thesis. The debates are boring enough without the added yawn factor.
Hack
Well-known member
Well....They try.
Hardly difficult for JP to lay waste to their arguments. 'Probably quite boring for him.
N234
Well-known member
I think most righties just want more careful spending, and are not homophobic.
And most lefties want some better social services, and are not radicals.
And there's a lot of overlap, since people are not strictly left or right on every topic/policy. Eg: many are socially left and fiscally right.
Don't let the loud arguments of "some people" represent the "most people".
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
And most lefties want some better social services, and are not radicals.
And there's a lot of overlap, since people are not strictly left or right on every topic/policy. Eg: many are socially left and fiscally right.
Don't let the loud arguments of "some people" represent the "most people".
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
To me, right and left seems to correlate closely to geography and population.
In densely populated areas, big government is more welcomed by the inhabitants to combat crime, sanitation, and to keep general peace between you and your neighbour who lives within stereo-system distance of your ear canal. There's a lot of social friction in the cities that needs to be dissipated by a third-party arbitrator.
In more remote and less populated areas, that kind of intervention isn't needed as much, and is seen as a waste of tax dollars. I really saw this up in Alaska where the people up there have been taking care of their own needs for a very long time. They don't need government, or very much like it. Everyone takes care of their own sh!t (sometimes literally) and there's enough space between people that social friction is greatly reduced. Good fences make for good neighbours, but so does an acre of land between you and the next house.
Unfortunately, the makeup of people who live in remote areas are less than cosmopolitan, more homogenous, and because they're not exposed to others of a different skin colour, culture or sexual persuasion, there's less tolerance for that.
N234
Well-known member
That's a good point!
As I've read somewhere before, "taxes is price we pay for civilization". Things like traffic lights, hospitals, schools all require funding ... I guess the country side has fewer intersections.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
Yep, where I live, you gotta drive for 10 minutes before you hit the first traffic light.
Coming from the big sh!tty, I think that's kinda cool.
|
|
|
|
|