Jordan Peterson announces he is moving to America.

[Moonbox]

19 hours ago, User said:

Hmmm... you did not actually say what you don't agree with now, you just restated the same thing. You liked what he said then, but now he is a "clown show"

You didn't ask me what I didn't agree with.  You projected your own conclusions on why I didn't like him.  

19 hours ago, User said:

Is he saying something now you disagree with that he wasn't saying back then?

Uh, yes - almost everything.  Jordan Peterson is just an lolcow now, to be milked for laughs while he rants hysterical nonsense to gullible, uninformed people who he in turn milks for cash and attention.  Whether it's promoting Kremlin propaganda points, or giving his absurdly uninformed theories of evolution, he's tailoring his content for his audience, and wrapping it in a pseudo-intellectual package.  He's just a shitty lifestyle brand now - a dumb person's intellectual. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 He's just a shitty lifestyle brand now - a dumb person's intellectual. 

 

They never wanted an intellectual, they wanted someone to wag their finger at pink haired people and tell them to go back to the oldy days.

They had these guys in the past, Paul Harvey, Andy Rooney, but they were on TV.

And if you haven't heard of them, you're likely under 60.  So subtract your age from 60 and that's probably how long until Jordan's a hazbean.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[User]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

They never wanted an intellectual, they wanted someone to wag their finger at pink haired people and tell them to go back to the oldy days.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that folks like you have never really listened to Jordan Peterson. 

You seem to have little more knowledge of him than one might find from some woke leftist who has only ever seen a few 30-second video clips of him they are outraged over. 

 

[Legato]

33 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Uh, yes - almost everything.  Jordan Peterson is just an lolcow now, to be milked for laughs while he rants hysterical nonsense to gullible, uninformed people who he in turn milks for cash and attention.  Whether it's promoting Kremlin propaganda points, or giving his absurdly uninformed theories of evolution, he's tailoring his content for his audience, and wrapping it in a pseudo-intellectual package.  He's just a shitty lifestyle brand now - a dumb person's intellectual. 

 

Elaborate please

[Moonbox]

51 minutes ago, User said:

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that folks like you have never really listened to Jordan Peterson. 

No, what's clear is that your perception and understanding of him is like Build-a-Bear.  You pick and choose the parts that you want to include, and you discard/ignore all the parts that make him into the clown he really is.  

Your "listening" to Jordan Peterson no doubt amounts to watching Youtube clips of him "DESTROYING/OWNING LIB", and blissfully ignore all of the absurd, batshit nonsense he spouts that remove any credibility he might otherwise have have. 

Go watch a video of him talking about Ukraine, and how it's all NATO's fault.  Then come back here and try to reconcile that with how you've argued against those points on this forum.  I'll wait.  🙃

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that folks like you have never really listened to Jordan Peterson. 

You seem to have little more knowledge of him than one might find from some woke leftist who has only ever seen a few 30-second video clips of him they are outraged over. 

 

Replying to me?

 

Oh right, you're just 'calling out lies'...

If you followed my posts about Peterson, you'll learn that I used to support him and held out hope that he could be the one to bring peace to the culture wars.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

    "DESTROYING/OWNING LIB",

 🙃

Owning the libs, and hating the Chuds is stopping politics today.

It's a big problem.

[User]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Replying to me?

 

Oh right, you're just 'calling out lies'...

If you followed my posts about Peterson, you'll learn that I used to support him and held out hope that he could be the one to bring peace to the culture wars.

Your saying you used to support him has nothing to do with your wildly inaccurate claims about him now. 

You clearly do not listen to much of what he says at all. 

[User]

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, what's clear is that your perception and understanding of him is like Build-a-Bear.  You pick and choose the parts that you want to include, and you discard/ignore all the parts that make him into the clown he really is.  

Specific examples. 

What specifically makes him a clown?

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Your "listening" to Jordan Peterson no doubt amounts to watching Youtube clips of him "DESTROYING/OWNING LIB", and blissfully ignore all of the absurd, batshit nonsense he spouts that remove any credibility he might otherwise have have. 

Those are fun, but I listen to his podcast regularly enough to know that he has interesting people on to talk about a wide variety of subjects and from his appearances on other shows as well. 

Most of those destroying and owning the lib videos are from several years ago now anyhow. 

So... specifics, what is the batshit nonsense he spouts? 

20 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Go watch a video of him talking about Ukraine, and how it's all NATO's fault.  Then come back here and try to reconcile that with how you've argued against those points on this forum.  I'll wait.  🙃

I have. He never said it was all NATO's fault. 

So, now what?

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, User said:

Your saying you used to support him has nothing to do with your wildly inaccurate claims about him now. 

You clearly do not listen to much of what he says at all. 

Ok, well at least acknowledge that I actually used to listen to him

I listen to clips.  He's no longer an intellectual leader, an intellectual or even an academic.

He talks about anything and everything, because he's a media figure, ie. Needs clicks.

Do you want an example of him speaking beyond his expertise?

7 minutes ago, User said:

Specific examples. 

What specifically makes him a clown?

 

How about him debating a Marxist about the problem of Marxist academia and not being able to name any?

 

How about talking about Climate Change?

 

He's a media figure.

[User]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, well at least acknowledge that I actually used to listen to him

I listen to clips.  He's no longer an intellectual leader, an intellectual or even an academic.

He talks about anything and everything, because he's a media figure, ie. Needs clicks.

Do you want an example of him speaking beyond his expertise?

I have no idea if you did or did not. Based on your characterizations, I have no reason to believe you know much of anything about him other than a few soundbites you regurgitate from whatever left-wing source you are getting them from. 

To the point of this thread, it is Canada that is enabling their licensing board to run him off. You want him to be a professional, so, do you support what Canada and the licensing board have done?

Not everyone in the media does what they do as if they have no morals or principles just for the clicks. That is just you unfairly criticizing motives. 

[User]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How about him debating a Marxist about the problem of Marxist academia and not being able to name any?

Give me the debate. Although, I am not sure how that makes him anything more than human that might not always be right, I imagine if I go look at this I will find him being somewhat humble about it. 
 

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How about talking about Climate Change?

What about it? The fact that not everyone agrees with the chicken littles that the world is going to end doesn't make them clowns. 

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

He's a media figure.

And? 

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, User said:

1. I  have no idea if you did or did not. Based on your characterizations, I have no reason to believe you know much of anything about him other than a few soundbites you regurgitate from whatever left-wing source you are getting them from. 

2. To the point of this thread, it is Canada that is enabling their licensing board to run him off. You want him to be a professional, so, do you support what Canada and the licensing board have done?

3. Not everyone in the media does what they do as if they have no morals or principles just for the clicks. That is just you unfairly criticizing motives. 

1. That source would be YouTube 

2. You're stretching stuff all over the map here. I don't care if he's professional or not. I had hoped he could be an intellectual leader to bring some sense to this culture war. That's all.

I don't care about his professional body sanctioning him. I am part of a professional body. Also. If I posted slander and abuse on here I would be disciplined and I couldn't cry that the woke police were after me.

I'm not sure if he believes what he says. The guy who I followed back when he came into the public view was very much able to differentiate public from private, and that's what I liked about him. He had great words to say about the dangers of mind control and group think. 

I was sad when he was denied funding, which I did not think was fair. Not enough was made of that. 

But his response was to go join the blogosphere circus, and that made me sad. 

Like I said I had hope. 

3. Maybe you're right. But I don't see any other reason he would have thrown away his role, such as it was. 

...

I feel like we've had a pretty good exchange here about my thoughts on him.  Maybe I can't blame him, he got a lot of Fame and money the way he went. It still makes me sad. And it makes me laugh when I see some of the clips about him talking about things he knows nothing about. 

 

But that's the big problem today. Lots of talk. None of it is quality.

 

[User]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That source would be YouTube 

YouTube... what? Like, you watch his YouTube channel or you just watch the short clips shared with you by whatever woke leftist you follow?

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You're stretching stuff all over the map here. I don't care if he's professional or not. I had hoped he could be an intellectual leader to bring some sense to this culture war. That's all.

Oh... but you are on here saying negative things about him because he isn't one anymore. 

You guys have a funny way of not caring about these things when you are on here constantly posting about it. 

And you have already proven to be on one side of this culture war, your notion of bring some sense to it is little more than stop disagreeing with the side you are on. 

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't care about his professional body sanctioning him. I am part of a professional body. Also. If I posted slander and abuse on here I would be disciplined and I couldn't cry that the woke police were after me.

Why are you even in this thread? LOL

Thanks for once again proving what side of this culture war you are on and I already knew you didn't have much respect for the concept of freedom of speech before this. 

Also... what slander? He is engaged in no more "abuse" than you are here in your calling him a clown. So... should you be punished now?

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Maybe you're right. But I don't see any other reason he would have thrown away his role, such as it was. 

Well, you have offered no real evidence for his motives, that they must be based on just wanting clicks. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, User said:

1. YouTube... what? Like, you watch his YouTube channel or you just watch the short clips shared with you by whatever woke leftist you follow?

2. You guys have a funny way of not caring about these things when you are on here constantly posting about it. 

 

1. Not shared by people I follow. But if it's just him talking why would it matter? 

2. As I said I did used to care.

As for the rest of your post, it's been a lovely evening.  Let's not spoil it.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

How about him debating a Marxist about the problem of Marxist academia and not being able to name any?

Who?  When was this?

It's so "specific' that you can't give any details?

Quote

How about talking about Climate Change?

Lots of people talk about climate change. You yourself have an "ask me about climate change" comment in your frikkin' tag line. 

Quote

He's a media figure.

How does that make what he says inappropriate in any way?

 

This is why people see you as dishonest Mike. You were asked to straight up question and you have completely dodged the issue with banalities and vague commentary but doesn't address the specifics in the slightest.

 

[Michael Hardner]

On 12/18/2024 at 1:36 PM, Nationalist said:

But they did not ask, let alone politely...did they.

I'm not sure what happened in his interactions with his students. 

But implicitly, you seem to acknowledge that he was willing to accommodate. 

This is why I had hope for him. He could be personally accommodating, while objecting to a national law that demanded you utter a certain word. It would not allow you to avoid saying things, but would compel you to make a sound. 

I supported his thinking here.

[User]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not shared by people I follow. But if it's just him talking why would it matter? 

You are trying to generalize his character as a person now. If that is just based on a few random clips you see selectively shared by whatever leftist person you follow... it matters. 

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. As I said I did used to care.

No, you just got done saying you don't care. 

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

As for the rest of your post, it's been a lovely evening.  Let's not spoil it.

Ah shucks, you want to assert crap about the man... but not defend it when challenged. Nothing new with your behavior on this forum. 

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not sure what happened in his interactions with his students. 

But implicitly, you seem to acknowledge that he was willing to accommodate. 

This is why I had hope for him. He could be personally accommodating, while objecting to a national law that demanded you utter a certain word. It would not allow you to avoid saying things, but would compel you to make a sound. 

I supported his thinking here.

I think the bottom line is, compelled speech is wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I think the bottom line is, compelled speech is wrong.

I agree. 

I think there was a lot of confusion about that. 

On one side, people thought compelled speech meant the government wasn't allowed to declare hate speech. That was wrong. 

 

The other side, people thought Peterson refused to use pronouns. That was also wrong. 

One of my themes, which I haven't used very much of late, is that people actually have an amazing agreement under the covers as to what constitutes acceptable behavior. It follows liberal conservative values, is brought forward from religion, brought forward from the earliest days of civilization in Mesopotamia and Gobekli Tepe 

[Nationalist]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree. 

I think there was a lot of confusion about that. 

On one side, people thought compelled speech meant the government wasn't allowed to declare hate speech. That was wrong. 

 

The other side, people thought Peterson refused to use pronouns. That was also wrong. 

One of my themes, which I haven't used very much of late, is that people actually have an amazing agreement under the covers as to what constitutes acceptable behavior. It follows liberal conservative values, is brought forward from religion, brought forward from the earliest days of civilization in Mesopotamia and Gobekli Tepe 

I agree. But this "social contract" you speak of, cannot become law.

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I agree. But this "social contract" you speak of, cannot become law.

I agree. And this is what he was saying at the beginning.

[eyeball]

As I understand it a social contract works both ways and that governments are as obliged as the governed to follow it.

Did Jordan Peterson think a contract against at least half of society would be a better idea, like so many of the people who follow him do, not to mention the people he follows?

[Michael Hardner]

45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

As I understand it a social contract works both ways and that governments are as obliged as the governed to follow it.

Did Jordan Peterson think a contract against at least half of society would be a better idea, like so many of the people who follow him do, not to mention the people he follows?

 

The social contract of basic kindness and acceptance itself cannot be legislated. 

There are types of social contract that have legislation

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The social contract of basic kindness and acceptance itself cannot be legislated.

That's fine, it's practically genetic already even Neanderthals got it.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are types of social contract that have legislation

And legislated types that also work both ways.

The tension between legislated types seem to box us in on occassion and we default to the more genetic types. Usually on the other end of the spectrum basic kindness is unfortunately.