Support NeoGAF

[Lupingosei]

Who is they?

Look in the video Kadayi even gave you the time frame

 

[Vicetrailia]

Doesn't necessarily entail a contradiction though. My takeaway is that women consciously wish to dominate, but subconsciously seek domination.

Right. And I think it's a bit more clear that women prefer dominant partners, but out there in the world want equality (and are aggressive about it).

 

[A Link to the Past]

I have Kadayi ignored, could you link?

 

[Cybrwzrd]

This is a common misunderstanding of doxing. Doxing does not merely involve that the information has no potential access otherwise. Posting something on your public Facebook page does not, for instance, mean that someone can share it with hundreds of thousands of followers, especially if the purpose is malicious.

That makes just about any meme or retweet or pretty much every social media interaction where someone is disagreeing with someone over a social message doxxing.

Enough about Milo tho - It's interesting how this recent hit piece on JP made it over to this thread. Where are you getting your talking points?

 

[llien]

What's funny is that the interview this topic is about he kept saying that women want do dominate their relationships with men.

Are you serious? If yes, that's your "are you saying" moment, no offense.
Here is the transcript of the interview (somewhere at 3:30):

JP: Women want, deeply want, men who are competent and powerful...

JP: Women who have had their relationships... impaired and who are afraid of such relationships, will settle for a weak partner because they can dominate them. but it's a suboptimal solution.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That makes just about any meme or retweet or pretty much every social media interaction where someone is disagreeing with someone over a social message doxxing.

Enough about Milo tho - It's interesting how this recent hit piece on JP made it over to this thread. Where are you getting your talking points?

Thread got merged into this one. Talk to EviLore if you want it to be a separate thread

 

[Lupingosei]

I have Kadayi ignored, could you link?

Personally, I always take a presented sound byte devoid of the full context with a healthy dose of scepticism. Full video. Part in question starts around 2 hrs13 minutes: -



I don't take it as him being serious so much as bemused by the feminist movement being comfortable with Islam, which is a culture entirely at odds with western liberalism.

 

[Kadayi]

I have Kadayi ignored, could you link?

The link I posted was in the very twitter they cited. Too funny.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

Lupingosei

This echos my post over in the trans thread - "Once someone calls you a racist/homophobe/transphobe, you will get a mob of people picking apart every thing you have ever done or written to find "evidence", and it is very hard to defend yourself from those accusations since everyone can be guilty of showing bias at some point in their life."

And in this case, even if it takes cutting out all of the context to make him a monster, these people will do their damnedest to make the label stick.

The sad thing in this social media driven hot take and move on world, ad homenim is very effective.

 

[Kadayi]

This echos my post over in the trans thread - "Once someone calls you a racist/homophobe/transphobe, you will get a mob of people picking apart every thing you have ever done or written to find "evidence", and it is very hard to defend yourself from those accusations since everyone can be guilty of showing bias at some point in their life."

And in this case, even if it takes cutting out all of the context to make him a monster, these people will do their damnedest to make the label stick.

Indeed. As the old joke goes: -

How many conspiracy theorists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two. One to change the light bulb, and another to find out who really changed it

 

[Metaphoreus]

Speaking of "Are you saying" moments, notice how the part of Sacha Saeen's tweet that isn't in quotation marks is a complete misrepresentation of what Peterson was discussing. Here's how he introduced that portion of his discussion:

Many of the Islamic states that we purport to regard as allies hold values that are antithetical to our system. And Saudi Arabia is a classic example of that, and I cannot for the life of me understand--except in a psychoanalytic matter--why the radical feminists tolerate . . . the fact that America is allied with the Saudis.

In short, his later statement isn't offered as an explanation for why "[f]eminists support the rights of Muslims," but why "feminists tolerate . . . the fact that America is allied with the Saudis." Saeen's dishonesty accounts for some of the confusion in this discussion thus far.

Follow better Twitter accounts, A A Link to the Past .

 

[Don'tBeWeird]

Since when is "radical feminism" a sex?



Muslims are marginalized in Saudi Arabia?



Let's assume for the sake of argument that (1) Peterson's comment was serious, and (2) he's wrong about it.

So what? Is your argument, "He said something mean and incorrect, therefore never listen to him"?

He was serious, and yes, he is wrong about it.

That's not my argument. He said something profoundly stupid and bigoted, which punctures his the cloak of pseudo-objectivity.
Peterson isn't infallible, as witnessed in the video. He can be criticised and ridiculed for the things he says. He, unfortunately, has shown that he can fall prey to bias. And this evident bias is going to contaminate anything he says in the future or has said in the past. I'm not saying he's incapable of saying anything sensible or factually correct ever again, but if you're trying to be impartial, you should call a spade a spade. I saw waves of people lambasting the interviewer in the OP because she was apparently defeated by pure logic and reason. And that is fine, but if you want to use that as a measurement of right or wrong, then stick with your principles, speak the truth, and just fucking admit that he's wrong here. It's patently obvious that he is, and yet, we've got people (see: Kadayi) who are very quick to defend him. I watched the entire video, and Peterson is as stern and sombre as he usually is. Saying that it was a joke is a pathetic cop-out.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Peterson isn't infallible, as witnessed in the video. He can be criticised and ridiculed for the things he says. He, unfortunately, has shown that he can fall prey to bias.

What's unfortunate about that? Everyone is prone to bias--it's a part of human nature. But, again, so what? You try to answer that question:

And this evident bias is going to contaminate anything he says in the future or has said in the past.

But that doesn't follow. We can judge each statement he makes on its own. What you're trying to do is blow up a stray, out-of-context remark to discredit anything and everything he's ever said, which is a rhetorical game I'm not interested in playing.

But on this specific topic, I have three thoughts:

(1) He could have been joking. He seems like the kind of guy who would have a dry sense of humor. However, he also seemed to protest when they started laughing at his remark, which suggests he wasn't.

(2) He went on to discuss other potential reasons for their tolerance of the U.S.-Saudi alliance, such as "agreeableness" and "openness." This suggests that, in any event, he wasn't attempting to provide a comprehensive analysis of the reasons for their support.

(3) I don't know enough about radical feminist psychology to say whether he's right or wrong. My inclination is to say he's painting with too broad a stroke, but (a) I'm no psychologist, and (b) I suspect he would agree that his statement doesn't literally describe every radical feminist. In any case, no doubt you've plumbed the depths of the literature and can enlighten us.

 

[Kadayi]

Peterson isn't infallible, as witnessed in the video. He can be criticised and ridiculed for the things he says. He, unfortunately, has shown that he can fall prey to bias. And this evident bias is going to contaminate anything he says in the future or has said in the past. I'm not saying he's incapable of saying anything sensible or factually correct ever again, but if you're trying to be impartial, you should call a spade a spade. I saw waves of people lambasting the interviewer in the OP because she was apparently defeated by pure logic and reason. And that is fine, but if you want to use that as a measurement of right or wrong, then stick with your principles, speak the truth, and just fucking admit that he's wrong here. It's patently obvious that he is, and yet, we've got people (see: Kadayi) who are very quick to defend him..

How about challenging what I said word for word versus making asides there buddy? The very fact that the manner in which the quote was robbed of context originally should raise alarm bells to anyone with a semblance of critical inquiry to them. The nail in the coffin is more the desperate fixation on finding something/anything to pin against Peterson, over the key observations he makes in that discussion about the clear disjunction between radical feminism and Islam. The fact that these salient points are ignored wholly in favour of a witch hunt mentality says it all about one's mindset. These are not the droids you're looking for apparently.

I watched the entire video, and Peterson is as stern and sombre as he usually is. Saying that it was a joke is a pathetic cop-out

Also given the video is 4 hours long and I only posted it up about an hour ago. I'm going to have to call BS on that statement right then and there. Sure, there's the vague possibility you've seen it before, but dang it, you don't strike me as someone who'd ordinarily watch four hours of a person you quite clearly dislike. No one has that much life to waste.

 

[finowns]

Personally, I always take a presented sound byte devoid of the full context with a healthy dose of scepticism. Full video. Part in question starts around 2 hrs13 minutes: -



I don't take it as him being serious so much as bemused by the feminist movement being comfortable with Islam, which is a culture entirely at odds with western liberalism.

Started watching this what's up with all the rifles that dude has.

 

[Typical]

That was a pretty shitty thing to say, something milo would say. He’s gone down in my estimation.

 

[Lynd7]

Finally seeing the full clip/context.

To me it seems he was conveying that he cannot rationalize how radical feminists don't find issue with the US etc being allied with places like Saudia Arabia. And that the only way he can find that possible is by saying maybe they have an unconscious desire to be dominated?

Because places like that are very oppressive etc so how can anyone agree we should try and reconcile that with our values.

Am I wrong? Genuinely asking.

 

[Kadayi]

To me it seems he was conveying that he cannot rationalize how radical feminists don't find issue with the US etc being allied with places like Saudia Arabia. And that the only way he can find that possible is by saying maybe they have an unconscious desire to be dominated?

Because places like that are very oppressive etc so how can anyone agree we should try and reconcile that with our values.

Am I wrong? Genuinely asking.

No. That's exactly how I saw it. He frames it beforehand within the comment about being unable to understand this strange relationship of acceptance aside from a psychoanalytical angle, wherein that would be the conclusion. I don't get the sense that he necessarily believes that is the truth to things, given the complexity of matters (we are talking about a movement rather than an individual after all), but more that it's a dysfunctional relationship.

 

[EviLore]

Okay, re: this thing he apparently said.

I think it's important that we all get away from a binary lens for society and for public figures and who we're "following." Like for Jordan Peterson: I've been watching some more of his videos linked in here as I go about my business today and he makes well-structured and salient points and is a great speaker, but I don't agree with everything he's saying. I don't agree with everyone *anyone* is going to be saying. I can understand Jordan's motives for refusing to use preferred pronouns as an act of protest against Canadian legislation potentially enforcing that form of speech or w/e in a way that could become tyrannical, but that's not something I'm going to do. If someone has a preferred pronoun it doesn't bother me any or deprive me of anything to use it and be respectful to their wishes unless they give me specific reason otherwise, and I have no desire to Fight the Power at the expense of my baseline respect toward the individual. Does our dissonance there "lower" him in my estimation? Honestly, I'd rather not evaluate things like that in the first place.

That's how we got to the whole "milkshake duck" witch hunt. Everyone is on a vast and colorful spectrum of experiences, actions, and ideologies, everyone has some value and some failings, and it's absurd to apply binary states to someone's worth, seek paragons of virtue to prop up but then endlessly thereafter sift through their lives looking for some point of failure in their actions or positions so that we can stone them to death and move on to the next false paragon of the moment. That. Is. Fucking. Dumb.

From what I've been watching/listening of Jordan mostly via this thread (just got through the H3 podcast ep, which had some great truth-bombs in there especially about depression and relationships and happiness, though stayed mostly surface level overall and didn't engage me that much compared to the Joe Rogan appearance), I'd put him in the same category as, say, a Christopher Hitchens (rip). He articulates himself very well, debates consistently strongly, and tends to be a compelling watch/listen/read. I've gleaned a lot from Hitchens' debates, lectures, and essays, but I certainly don't agree with all of the content of them, nor do I put him on any kind of moral pedestal that he could suddenly be knocked down from by a reveal about one thing he said some time. Hitchens can easily be dismissed entirely by pointing to how he never conceded that the 2003 Iraq war was a mistake. He rationalized it to the very end. That's a position I do not respect whatsoever. Okay, now what? Why do I really need to take that into account in any way? When does the stuff he said and did that had value cease to have that value? If he sexually harassed or assaulted someone? If he did something abhorrent we find out about eventually? Maybe there's something well known already along those lines, but I'll still gladly read one of his essays. It's not a damned endorsement of his deepest failures to do so. The bar for what constitutes that is always changing anyway as society changes. And I'm not saying I'm better than you for approaching life that way, either, if, say, the Hitchens Iraq thing does in fact poison the well for your perception of his contributions and value. There's validity to that too, and that's a great reason to talk to each other about this stuff.

Sorry, bit of a rant and I don't have any vested interest in Jordan Peterson, and the above is not about him. Just been quiet for a few months I guess, and I've reflected a lot on what happened last year on many levels.

 

[Zenaku]

For what it's worth, Jordan doesn't refuse to use pronouns. He said he would, and he actually has. He had a talk via webcam with a trans woman in 2016 and specifically referred to her as she.

He's not against using the pronouns people prefer, he's against the government forcing things through law. Acceptance needs to come from within, as one might say.

 

[Darryl]

Doesn't necessarily entail a contradiction though. My takeaway is that women consciously wish to dominate, but subconsciously seek domination.

Just a contradiction if you look at it very superficially. Everyone wishes to dominate things at times. Peterson's point is that more or less feminists are LARPing as being comfortable dominating their relationships, and under the surface they're becoming repressed and this is lashing out in their subconscious behavior. It's not the world's biggest conspiracy. Not even all feminists deny it. Thousands of years of gender roles doesn't get erased in a single generation of attempted change. Anyone who actively dates staunch feminists knows this is true, dating them can be an exhausting game of figuring out when you're needed to assume a more masculine role, and when it is needed, to crank it up about 300% to make up for lost time

 

[PtM]

He's not against using the pronouns people prefer, he's against the government forcing things through law. Acceptance needs to come from within, as one might say.

Not things, but compelled speech. He probably would have less of a problem with restricted speech.

 

[Lupingosei]

Not things, but compelled speech. He probably would have less a problem with restricted speech.

That is a huge problem. Not saying certain things is also part of a democracy. Having to say certain things is autocratic and against the idea of a liberal society. And Peterson is very much influenced by the history of the Soviet Union and Stalin and of course this a problem for somebody with knowledge about that time period.

 

[Relativ9]

Not things, but compelled speech. He probably would have less a problem with restricted speech.

He has stated this on many occasions yes. While he isn't a big fan of restricted speech either (against laws, for social norms), from a psychoanalytic standpoint he's far more concerned about compelled speech and what that does to the brain (it's effectively brainwashing). He isn't afraid that people will be brainwashed into being more accepting of transgendered people, he's afraid of what the precedent will mean and he draws very clear parallels to this movement and what lead to the rise of Nazi Germany, Maoist China, North Korea and the Soviet Union.

 

[I'm new be nice]

He does technically have issues with "they" and "them" outside of the context of legislation, if that matters to you. He describes it as a "suboptimal solution" because they are a "closed linguistic system", which to be honest I don't even understand what he means by that last part.

 

[Lupingosei]

He does technically have issues with "they" and "them" outside of the context of legislation, if that matters to you. He describes it as a "suboptimal solution" because they are a "closed linguistic system", which to be honest I don't even understand what he means by that last part.

This is probably about the development of language. New terms usually are developed naturally and language is changing all the time. Words are created and forgotten. So people in a natural environment use the term which is most common and part of their individual socialization. If you legislate language, not in the way of not saying certain things but in having to use certain terms you close the whole system and also stop the natural development. In a way language has to follow social developments and as soon as the transgender movement is accepted as something normal by society language will follow and new terms will be in our vocabulary. And because they were created in a natural way it would also be more accepted.

 

[I'm new be nice]

Ah, in that instance an "open linguistic system".

 

[Lupingosei]

Ah, in that instance an "open linguistic system".

I think so, but I am an historian not a linguist so I could be wrong.

 

[Makariel]

And this evident bias is going to contaminate anything he says in the future or has said in the past.

This might be the silliest thing I read on this entire forum so far.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

So, every time you disagree with someone, you just look that you find one incident where they say something which is wrong and suddenly everything, future past and present is contaminated and impure? I don't understand this obsession with purity, regardless if it's people who eat half a salad leaf a day in the quest for a pure body or those who want to ban words they dislike in pursuit of purity of thought. In other words: only the Sith deal in absolutes

 

[Cybrwzrd]

He was serious, and yes, he is wrong about it.

That's not my argument. He said something profoundly stupid and bigoted, which punctures his the cloak of pseudo-objectivity.
Peterson isn't infallible, as witnessed in the video. He can be criticised and ridiculed for the things he says. He, unfortunately, has shown that he can fall prey to bias. And this evident bias is going to contaminate anything he says in the future or has said in the past. I'm not saying he's incapable of saying anything sensible or factually correct ever again, but if you're trying to be impartial, you should call a spade a spade. I saw waves of people lambasting the interviewer in the OP because she was apparently defeated by pure logic and reason. And that is fine, but if you want to use that as a measurement of right or wrong, then stick with your principles, speak the truth, and just fucking admit that he's wrong here. It's patently obvious that he is, and yet, we've got people (see: Kadayi) who are very quick to defend him. I watched the entire video, and Peterson is as stern and sombre as he usually is. Saying that it was a joke is a pathetic cop-out.

Reality has the ability to be rather surprising. I’m gonna stand by the belief that what he said was partially tongue in cheek and partially rooted in his clinical practice and study.

Who do you think holds the real power in a dominant/submissive BDSM sexual encounter? The person with the safeword holds all the power there.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a feminist woman being submissive in bed. Many women are turned on by it. Why do you think Fifty Shades of Grey was the biggest selling book of all time? For many it is a subconscious fantasy.

https://www.alternet.org/story/1486...dominated_in_bed:_talking_to_bdsm_submissives

 

[HStallion]

Peterson is getting really good at the trolling intellectual thing at this point.

 

[dragonfart28]

Peterson kinda reminds me of that Heaven's gate cult leader.

He's just working with way more fucked up people to dupe.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Peterson kinda reminds me of that Heaven's gate cult leader.

In what way?

 

[jonnyp]

Peterson kinda reminds me of that Heaven's gate cult leader.

He's just working with way more fucked up people to dupe.

Please elaborate and explain this some more.

 

[dragonfart28]

Please elaborate and explain this some more.

People believe his anecdotal assumptions about human behaviour, free speech, etc.

He seems to be pitching some form of objectivism or libertarianism.

Both of which are flawed philosophies which have a fervent, cultish base.

 

[Kadayi]

The guy is a clinical psychologist not some random on a bar stool


Also I assume cultural Marxism is perfectly viable right?

 

[Relativ9]

People believe his anecdotal assumptions about human behaviour, free speech, etc.

He seems to be pitching some form of objectivism or libertarianism.

Both of which are flawed philosophies which have a fervent, cultish base.

I agree both are flawed philosophies, not sure about the cultish base, but sure. I don't think he's said anything that would point to him believing particularly strongly in libertarianism though, I'd like some elaboration on that.

Also please name a philosophy that isn't flawed.

 

[Don'tBeWeird]

Because I'm short on time, I'm not going to reply to everyone who replied to me. I don't think I have to explain why bias can be a bad thing. I mean, come on. What a bizarre question.

This might be the silliest thing I read on this entire forum so far.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

So, every time you disagree with someone, you just look that you find one incident where they say something which is wrong and suddenly everything, future past and present is contaminated and impure? I don't understand this obsession with purity, regardless if it's people who eat half a salad leaf a day in the quest for a pure body or those who want to ban words they dislike in pursuit of purity of thought. In other words: only the Sith deal in absolutes

Possibly the silliest thing you've read on the forum? Either you genuinely believe what you're typing, and that's rather alarming, or you're straight up trolling.

I don't know why you're bringing up a discussion on purity. I'm not saying he should never be listened to again. Yes, he fucked up here, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to speak again. It means we shouldn't accept his word as the gospel. Develop some critical thinking skills. His videos, his book, and interviews are all littered with conjecture and assumptions based on his personal beliefs. This quote about feminists offers a pretty horrifying glimpse into an element of his personal beliefs. It is not irrational for us to scrutinise his opinions regarding similar topics.

If, however, you do revere him as some kind of demigod. Then, I'm afraid the show is indeed over. Pack it up.

 

[strange headache]

From what I've been watching/listening of Jordan mostly via this thread (just got through the H3 podcast ep, which had some great truth-bombs in there especially about depression and relationships and happiness, though stayed mostly surface level overall and didn't engage me that much compared to the Joe Rogan appearance), I'd put him in the same category as, say, a Christopher Hitchens (rip). He articulates himself very well, debates consistently strongly, and tends to be

This is a very valid comparison. I may not agree with everything that Hitchens said, but that doesn't change the fact that he was right in so many other ways. Hitchens (may he rest in peace), much like Peterson, often take poignant and hyperbolic stances in order to make their positions clear. In modern times, where nuanced stances are often muddied or misunderstood because most people don't take the necessary time to understand something, it's become a necessary evil. There is only so much you can convey in 5 minute interviews and breaking down complex problems into easily digestible soundbites is a horrible task.

Peterson, much like Hitchens, are best, when they can have all the time in the world in order to develop their ideas and arguments. Unfortunately, in our entertainment-addled society, the vast majority doesn't want to listen to a 2 hour speech (not enough action and 'splosions I guess).

One of the reasons why, Peterson's interview with Newman went viral is because he was able to pack so much into the short time he was given by carefully choosing his words with surgical precision. It's sad to see people trying to smear him by reducing him to out of context short soundbites.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It means we shouldn't accept his word as the gospel. Develop some critical thinking skills.

Well, if that's your point, then I think we agree. These two statements apply universally.

 

[Dunki]

People believe his anecdotal assumptions about human behaviour, free speech, etc.

He seems to be pitching some form of objectivism or libertarianism.

Both of which are flawed philosophies which have a fervent, cultish base.

There is no non flawed philosophy however something based on feeling and ignoring facts is not a good one in my opinion.

 

[Kadayi]

]Because I'm short on time, I'm not going to reply to everyone who replied to me. I don't think I have to explain why bias can be a bad thing. I mean, come on. What a bizarre question.

Who watches the watchmen. If everything is biased, then who is fit to judge? Certainly one can extrapolate bias but at the same time the case has to be a strong one for it to bear fruit.

I don't know why you're bringing up a discussion on purity. I'm not saying he should never be listened to again. Yes, he fucked up here, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to speak again. It means we shouldn't accept his word as the gospel. Develop some critical thinking skills. His videos, his book, and interviews are all littered with conjecture and assumptions based on his personal beliefs. This quote about feminists offers a pretty horrifying glimpse into an element of his personal beliefs. It is not irrational for us to scrutinise his opinions regarding similar topics.

Did he? Not from how I see it within the context of the discussion. No one's saying that Peterson is beyond criticism, but you're going to have to present a substantially much more robust argument with supporting evidence to convince a fair few people to your view point here. His framing as stated was from a psychoanalytical perspective as a diagnosis of a patient to explain their passive acceptance of something that ostensively goes against their stated values. How does that seemingly quality as 'conjecture and assumptions based on his personal belief'?

 

[dragonfart28]

I agree both are flawed philosophies, not sure about the cultish base, but sure. I don't think he's said anything that would point to him believing particularly strongly in libertarianism though, I'd like some elaboration on that.

Also please name a philosophy that isn't flawed.

Utilitarianism.

 

[Relativ9]

Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism ignores or fights against concepts like individuality, ethics, and justice. It concerns itself with what it believes are objectively measured and attainable goals and the most efficient way to achieve them. Completely ignoring that many people will have different ideas of what those goals are, and won't be willing to make the same sacrifices to achieve them. It treats equality by measuring outcome instead of opportunity leading to injustices and it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of humanity and of the ego.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that you didn't address my first point. What has Jordan Peterson said that makes you think he's a libertarian?

 

[Kadayi]

Utilitarianism.

Are you planning on presenting a case for? Or were you hoping the word alone was sufficient?

 

[strange headache]

Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory which results in the ultimately flawed thinking that "the end justifies the means", meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable. This presents us with two problems:

First, we would actually need to be able to determine exactly which goals are most important. Unfortunately different people pursue different goals and there is no objective criterion or universally accepted theory that would allow us to determine a hierarchy of goals. Second, if the ends justify the means, we're allowed to commit any number of atrocities so long as we achieve said goals. As Kant already stated, it would even mean that we're allowed to instrumentalize / exploit other people.

Hence why deontological ethics are often used as a counter-argument to utilitarian ethics. Deontologists define universal principles and moral duties in order to conduct their behavior independently of possible outcomes. They argue that, since outcomes are not always certain, we can only act virtuous if the intent of our actions are also virtuous. Unfortunately, these moral principles cannot ever be broken even if the possible outcomes are probably negative.

So no, there certainly is no philosophical theory that isn't inherently flawed. Doesn't mean that they are wrong though, but it merely depends on your very own perspective. Hence why, philosophers know no dogmatic truth.

 

[dragonfart28]

Utilitarianism ignores or fights against concepts like individuality, ethics, and justice. It concerns itself with what it believes are objectively measured and attainable goals and the most efficient way to achieve them. Completely ignoring that many people will have different ideas of what those goals are, and won't be willing to make the same sacrifices to achieve them. It treats equality by measuring outcome instead of opportunity leading to injustices and it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of humanity and of the ego.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that you didn't address my first point. What has Jordan Peterson said that makes you think he's a libertarian?

Utilitarianism - a philosophy of ethics, ignores ethics lol

I rest my case on the intelligence of Peterson fans.

 

[Relativ9]

Utilitarianism - a philosophy of ethics, ignores ethics lol

I rest my case on the intelligence of Peterson fans.

Sorry, I guess I should have clarified, and I could have phrased it better: it ignores ethics in the realm of individuality. You could have gleaned that this was my meaning by my preceding three sentences. But sure, ignore my points and degrade my intelligence. I'll give you that, as a utilitarian, you live up to your code: the ends justify the means.

 

[Kadayi]

I rest my case on the intelligence of Peterson fans.

Mayhap you should address Strange Headaches post before you get too self-congratulatory there? He does a pretty good job of outlining the inherent flaws of utilitarianism.

 

[Makariel]

Possibly the silliest thing you've read on the forum?

You might not have noticed that I'm rather new here, and so far most things written has been sensible. But I start finding exceptions from the rule

It means we shouldn't accept his word as the gospel.

Who, other than you of course, ever claimed his words should be considered as gospel? You seem to assume a lot of me if you think I would a) be a Jordan Peterson fan, or b) that I would have much more than passing knowledge of his work. I heard an interview with him some time ago on Dave Rubins show and now this one on C4. That doesn't quite give me VIP access to the JP Fanclub now, does it? May I throw an assumption in your direction then in exchange? I guess you discuss with other, like-minded people in other places, how evil the presumed "other" are ("other" = your mystical, imaginary version of JP fans), so that when you encounter anyone who does not follow your internal logic 100%, you automatically classify them as the enemy? A bit like outlined in this video. But feel free to assume a bit more about me, if it makes you any happier.