Then he is hardwired to have trouble understanding history. American voters seemed to have forgotten most of the nitty, gritty of the Vietnam War. Why should Joe understand what was going on more than 2 millennia ago?
Ahistorical Americans put on quite the show of righteous ignorance not so long ago during the chaotic exit from Afghanistan.
Then he is hardwired to have trouble understanding history.
American voters seemed to have forgotten most of the nitty, gritty of the Vietnam War. Why should Joe understand what was going on more than 2 millennia ago?
Ahistorical Americans put on quite the show of righteous ignorance not so long ago during the chaotic exit from Afghanistan.
Well he can't use words like "in many ways" and also use "literally" in the same sentence. I get throwing "in many ways" in to give himself cover for the other words he's agglomerating in real time, but we shouldn't accept that as any indication he understood the thing he was saying. Adding "literally" in the sense of "I don't literally mean literally, it's just a word meaning 'super-duper'" tends to be a red flag to me that says "I'm not actually sure but this is a thing I hope is true because I'm about to say it."
Oh lordy lordy.
Not defending Peterson's comment on the first book, but what is the context? What did he define as a western culture book?
Depending on your definition, Bible/Torah was one of the first...Gutenberg printing press was beat out by earlier versions, but in China.
Wasnt harris quoted as saying black IQs are less than whites?
-does he mean morally and/or ethically a specific culture?
or the first ever in print?
i guess i'm curious about "the many ways" part
i'm not sure what the claim is about
am i missing something here?
Given his often smug, self-satisfied posturing, I assume he means "literally" in its grammatically correct (i.e. literal) form, though so many people abuse that word these days that it's hard to tell sometimes.
I think RP posted it to exemplify NoEnz' previous point of how Peterson "charges ahead blindly into any and every argument" whether or not he has any specific expertise in - or even basic knowledge of - what he's brazenly pontificating about.
Well, he started off with "in many ways", then used the word "literally" twice. "Now, in many ways, the first book was the Bible. I mean, literally. Because, at one point, there was only one book. Like, as far as our Western culture is concerned, there was one book. And, for a while, literally, there was only one book, and that book was the Bible..."
in what way does he mean literally?
-does he mean morally and/or ethically a specific culture? or the first ever in print? i guess i'm curious about "the many ways" part
i'm not sure what the claim is about am i missing something here?
isn't the context right there?
"in many ways"
his opinions get a lot of play
i don't see why he is so popular
to be fair i haven't consumed a lot of his stuff
most of what i do see is critique from other canadians
is all of this a weak/lesser form of martyring? of having that effect?
Well, he started off with "in many ways", then used the word "literally" twice. "Now, in many ways, the first book was the Bible. I mean, literally. Because, at one point, there was only one book. Like, as far as our Western culture is concerned, there was one book. And, for a while, literally, there was only one book, and that book was the Bible..."
isn't the context right there? "in many ways" his opinions get a lot of play i don't see why he is so popular to be fair i haven't consumed a lot of his stuff most of what i do see is critique from other canadians is all of this a weak/lesser form of martyring? of having that effect?
(...) Jordan Peterson is so convinced about the skills of his own intellect
and rhetorical skills that he charges ahead blindly into any and every
argument. I am not surprised he has a huge fan base because with the
force of his conviction he peddles a notion of certainty (...)
Lies, and America's growing fondness for them, are at the center of this
divide, which has grown to a chasm since the COVID-19 pandemic revealed
that a significant portion of our population would prefer to construct
an elaborate fantasy world of lies rather than confront simple truths
about the pandemic and how we've handled it. But harsh, unforgiving
truths are at the core of Young's artistry, as anyone who's heard "Keep
On Rockin' in the Free World," among others, can attest. (...)
COVID misinformation aside, we should ask ourselves why such a dull,
mediocre mind has amassed such a large audience, and whether this is the
sort of cultural output America can really be proud of. The Cold War
was won as much through American soft value as military might; much of
the world considered American culture and values preferable to those of
the Soviet Union. But in the 21st century, is the Joe Rogan Experience
really what we want to be remembered for?
It appears this sort of idiocy is already catching on abroad; witness the anti-vaccine "Freedom
Convoy," in Ottawa last weekend, in which a tiny minority of Canadian
truckers made their presence â and diseases â felt in the nation's
capital. Dr. Peter Hotez, an infectious disease specialist at the Baylor
School of Medicine in Texas, said: "Canada gave us kindness, tolerance,
poutine and hockey, and in turn we exported this awful fake health
freedom movement linked to far right extremism that caused so much
senseless loss of life in America and now might do the same there. Our
apologies.
Cult of personality thing then? Does that make any of his points/thoughts less relevant?
This is a long, but respectable discussion...probably good for a road trip.
p.s.,ultimately these discussions revolve around God/No God...good luck with that.
But i think they flesh out some of the misconceptions held between religion/belief and atheism, which are valuable.
