You are certainly right on that last bit. But there is enough in the Peterson interview (which is not the one NY objected to, I know, it just interested me more), when taken in isolation for a whole bunch of people to get their knickers in a twist. For the record, I appreciate a lot of the aspects of Peterson. But there is no escaping his more evangelical* and polemical side, even if he doesn't espouse to any particular religion. * and before you get your knickers in a twist about this one, I mean evangelical in its wider sense, as in sharing his discoveries of how to lead the good life, the "I have the answer" side to him.
It's a pity Peterson has gotten so much of the spotlight and become The Champion of Enlightenment values. There are much deeper thinkers on this topic; I'd put Christopher Hitchens at the top of that list if he were alive, Sam Harris is good but out of his depth too often, and quite a few others you haven't heard of could do a better job. And part of that better job is not spouting off when the topic is something you aren't well-versed in. Peterson, by dint of his high profile, gets asked to pontificate on matters he really doesn't understand and should just answer with a shrug more often. He definitely has a religious perspective; he's been evasive about it but it sounds kind of stoic/Calvinist to me.
I know what you mean about Sam Harris, but I would pick him any day of the week over Jordan Peterson. Sam Harris has got a healthy dose of doubt and self-criticism about him whereas 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 in fields where there simply is no certainty.
That said, if people feel he has helped them in their lives, I am not going to denigrate that. But it does put him in the same box as many religious leaders.
What, pray tell, does this mean? Why do you think he wouldn't have been a psych professor, based on his religion (I don't believe the man even has a religion, although he does explore the idea of God and the impact on behavior)? I find it quizzical how so many in the media and people on the left in general lump folks like Peterson and Rogan in the right wing nuts camp along with tucker, beck, hannity... I find Peterson's views on the human condition to often be quite insightful. Those who adopt a more moral relativism view of life no doubt have a hard time swallowing his comments...and get the knee jerk right wing nut reaction. And as it seems to apply to you, I wonder how many people/media actually watch the full interviews before jumping to conclusions, or have any reaction at all to these two. I haven't watched the podcast that got Young's panties in a bunch, but would still bet it's not nearly as offensive or full of "misinformation" as so many seem to believe.
I would bet money that Neil Young hasn't heard the interviews that got his knickers twisted either. That probably holds true for most of Rogan's critics as well, and Peterson's.
Speaks to the comments made in your earlier video link...
I find it quizzical how so many in the media and people on the left in general lump folks like Peterson and Rogan in the right wing nuts camp along with tucker, beck, hannity...
Just to make it really fun, Rogan generally is NOT Right-leaning. He prides himself on being neutral and historically trends more liberal than conservative. Regardless of the conspiracy he's selling and the political bias it may support, the bottom line is that most of his information is unreliable. That's popular. That earned him a 9-figure contract.
Apparently, rumors are indeed more interesting than facts.
You are certainly right on that last bit. But there is enough in the Peterson interview (which is not the one NY objected to, I know, it just interested me more), when taken in isolation for a whole bunch of people to get their knickers in a twist.
For the record, I appreciate a lot of the aspects of Peterson. But there is no escaping his more evangelical* and polemical side, even if he doesn't espouse to any particular religion.
* and before you get your knickers in a twist about this one, I mean evangelical in its wider sense, as in sharing his discoveries of how to lead the good life, the "I have the answer" side to him.
It's a pity Peterson has gotten so much of the spotlight and become The Champion of Enlightenment values. There are much deeper thinkers on this topic; I'd put Christopher Hitchens at the top of that list if he were alive, Sam Harris is good but out of his depth too often, and quite a few others you haven't heard of could do a better job.
And part of that better job is not spouting off when the topic is something you aren't well-versed in. Peterson, by dint of his high profile, gets asked to pontificate on matters he really doesn't understand and should just answer with a shrug more often.
He definitely has a religious perspective; he's been evasive about it but it sounds kind of stoic/Calvinist to me.
What, pray tell, does this mean? Why do you think he wouldn't have been a psych professor, based on his religion (I don't believe the man even has a religion, although he does explore the idea of God and the impact on behavior)?
I find it quizzical how so many in the media and people on the left in general lump folks like Peterson and Rogan in the right wing nuts camp along with tucker, beck, hannity...
I find Peterson's views on the human condition to often be quite insightful. Those who adopt a more moral relativism view of life no doubt have a hard time swallowing his comments...and get the knee jerk right wing nut reaction. And as it seems to apply to you, I wonder how many people/media actually watch the full interviews before jumping to conclusions, or have any reaction at all to these two. I haven't watched the podcast that got Young's panties in a bunch, but would still bet it's not nearly as offensive or full of "misinformation" as so many seem to believe.
I would bet money that Neil Young hasn't heard the interviews that got his knickers twisted either.
That probably holds true for most of Rogan's critics as well, and Peterson's.
yep, there is a lot of bad energy / aggro going down everywhere. It is like the mood of the crowd is nervous and fidgeting. Not a good vibe generally. I'm halfway through the Rogan Peterson interview and it is admittedly very entertaining. So far it has confirmed my suspicion that Peterson, had he been born in a Muslim country, would likely have become some kind of Mullah. Now he's just Jordan Peterson, superstar. Almost as good I guess. Gotta play the hand your dealt with.
What, pray tell, does this mean? Why do you think he wouldn't have been a psych professor, based on his religion (I don't believe the man even has a religion, although he does explore the idea of God and the impact on behavior)? I find it quizzical how so many in the media and people on the left in general lump folks like Peterson and Rogan in the right wing nuts camp along with tucker, beck, hannity... I find Peterson's views on the human condition to often be quite insightful. Those who adopt a more moral relativism view of life no doubt have a hard time swallowing his comments...and get the knee jerk right wing nut reaction. And as it seems to apply to you, I wonder how many people/media actually watch the full interviews before jumping to conclusions, or have any reaction at all to these two. I haven't watched the podcast that got Young's panties in a bunch, but would still bet it's not nearly as offensive or full of "misinformation" as so many seem to believe.
You are certainly right on that last bit. But there is enough in the Peterson interview (which is not the one NY objected to, I know, it just interested me more), when taken in isolation for a whole bunch of people to get their knickers in a twist.
For the record, I appreciate a lot of the aspects of Peterson. But there is no escaping his more evangelical* and polemical side, even if he doesn't espouse to any particular religion.
* and before you get your knickers in a twist about this one, I mean evangelical in its wider sense, as in sharing his discoveries of how to lead the good life, the "I have the answer" side to him.
"Rogan eventually said on election day that he voted for Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen. His vote for her was not out of line with his previous political endorsements. He endorsed Libertarian icon Ron Paul in the 2012 election and said he voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in 2016."
Irshad Manji has been one of my heroes since I heard her talk at our local college. She runs the Moral Courage Project, an effort to get people of diverse views to talk to each other.
....
A Neo-Viking Constructive Engagement approach to discourse in a USA domestic setting.
Who wouda thunk it?
Now. Could somebody please ask President Biden to stop lying and making up things about the Russians?
yep, there is a lot of bad energy / aggro going down everywhere. It is like the mood of the crowd is nervous and fidgeting. Not a good vibe generally.
I'm halfway through the Rogan Peterson interview and it is admittedly very entertaining.
So far it has confirmed my suspicion that Peterson, had he been born in a Muslim country, would likely have become some kind of Mullah.
Now he's just Jordan Peterson, superstar. Almost as good I guess. Gotta play the hand your dealt with.
What, pray tell, does this mean? Why do you think he wouldn't have been a psych professor, based on his religion (I don't believe the man even has a religion, although he does explore the idea of God and the impact on behavior)?
I find it quizzical how so many in the media and people on the left in general lump folks like Peterson and Rogan in the right wing nuts camp along with tucker, beck, hannity...
I find Peterson's views on the human condition to often be quite insightful. Those who adopt a more moral relativism view of life no doubt have a hard time swallowing his comments...and get the knee jerk right wing nut reaction. And as it seems to apply to you, I wonder how many people/media actually watch the full interviews before jumping to conclusions, or have any reaction at all to these two. I haven't watched the podcast that got Young's panties in a bunch, but would still bet it's not nearly as offensive or full of "misinformation" as so many seem to believe.
yep, there is a lot of bad energy / aggro going down everywhere. It is like the mood of the crowd is nervous and fidgeting. Not a good vibe generally.
I'm halfway through the Rogan Peterson interview and it is admittedly very entertaining. So far it has confirmed my suspicion that Peterson, had he been born in a Muslim country, would likely have become some kind of Mullah. Now he's just Jordan Peterson, superstar. Almost as good I guess. Gotta play the hand your dealt with.
lol
i have watched some clips of sam harris, lex fridman and elon musk on youtube but it's been awhile i just can't fathom tuning into an unscripted, unedited live show for a few hours a day who has that kind of time? unless it is just running in the background...
we're all (me anyway) more aware to what may be happening in our social/work circles more or less i'm rubbing elbows with people from all over obviously there's no shortage of immigrants and refugees here cuba, haiti, venezuela, from all over the place they generally don't broadcast why they made the trek (however a few are very vocal) of course things have come up in conversation
really bad social structure/organization is a biggie opportunity/better life is another speech, censorship, coercion, violence and threats of violence are hot buttons
regards
edit: i heard that rogan had landed the uncle fester role in a new adam's family remake, but has since been 86'd (j/k)
yep, there is a lot of bad energy / aggro going down everywhere. It is like the mood of the crowd is nervous and fidgeting. Not a good vibe generally.
I'm halfway through the Rogan Peterson interview and it is admittedly very entertaining. So far it has confirmed my suspicion that Peterson, had he been born in a Muslim country, would likely have become some kind of Mullah. Now he's just Jordan Peterson, superstar. Almost as good I guess. Gotta play the hand your dealt with.
oh sorry, I wasn't referring specifically to Shermer or even Rogan, with that. More the irony of calling out those who oppose a proto-fascist movement (which after all, is what I see the Trump movement as being, and by association the anti-vax movement (yes, I'm painting with a very broad brush here)) as being proponents of an autocratic/totalitarian regime.
EDIT or to be a bit more specific, calling out NY, Joni Mitchell and others as proponents of an autocratic/totalitarian state is admittedly, just a wee bit hard to swallow.
got it
we're all (me anyway) more aware to what may be happening in our social/work circles more or less i'm rubbing elbows with people from all over obviously there's no shortage of immigrants and refugees here cuba, haiti, venezuela, from all over the place they generally don't broadcast why they made the trek (however a few are very vocal) of course things have come up in conversation
really bad social structure/organization is a biggie opportunity/better life is another speech, censorship, coercion, violence and threats of violence are hot buttons
regards
edit: i heard that rogan had landed the uncle fester role in a new adam's family remake, but has since been 86'd (j/k)
Sometimes you leave me scratching my head, as you are preaching to the converted here. Anyone left on these forums here at RP is almost by definition open to hearing stuff they don't like to hear. Dr. Manji btw says nothing at all that is offensive, or hard to swallow, so I am not quite sure what your point is. I don't think the issue is about open discussion, which as far as I can tell, nobody here has a problem with, it is about the dissemination of misinformation.
When I have the time, I might bother to watch the Jordan Peterson interview to get a better assessment. Crux to that issue will be did Rogan make Peterson squirm like Dr. Manji would have it (as he should have) or did Rogan fawn on him like a sycophantic lapdog? I'm genuinely curious.
Rogan generally lets guests have their say. He isn't there to play gotcha, he's there to let them make their cases, even when it challenges his own views. You can see a snippet of that behavior in the video posted, but listen to his interview with Neil DeGrass Tyson (among many others) for another good example.
as i understand it (i'm learning/discovering as i go) rogan was a bernie supporter looks like the feeling was mutual, and rogan has personally said disparaging things about trump so left wing might be more apropos btw, both rogan and young have said some pretty stupid stuff in the past (if we believe those excavating/dredging the digital repository for one liners and politically incorrect skeletons) i'm not going to post that here
shermer as far as i can tell is holding out as a professional skeptic he seems like a fairly principled guy, but in his line of work it's controversy 10x no stranger to challenges and big debates i doubt he's on target 100% of the time, but on balance i'd say he has been a benefit to humanity
regards
oh sorry, I wasn't referring specifically to Shermer or even Rogan, with that. More the irony of calling out those who oppose a proto-fascist movement (which after all, is what I see the Trump movement as being, and by association the anti-vax movement (yes, I'm painting with a very broad brush here)) as being proponents of an autocratic/totalitarian regime.
EDIT or to be a bit more specific, calling out NY, Joni Mitchell and others as proponents of an autocratic/totalitarian state is admittedly, just a wee bit hard to swallow.
Irshad Manji has been one of my heroes since I heard her talk at our local college. She runs the Moral Courage Project, an effort to get people of diverse views to talk to each other. Many of you would like her and might especially like her YouTube channel. Most of you will not like what she has to say below...which, if you ask Dr. Manji, is exactly why you should hear it.
been a fan for a few years she's been popular and influential in the human rights/pro-human community or at least the ones i peruse
oh, the irony. By hollowing out all reference to facts in their diatribes, these right-wing nuts are doing precisely what you accuse those objecting to it of. They are trying to control the narrative by emptying all dialogue of any reference to facts, leaving the only salient point that of tribal adherence. Then, once you have whipped up your fanbase, you march on government and take control by force, because, by God, we have a right to be angry.
Let's take the politics out of it and approach it like any good librarian and put a massive great FICTION banner on the title. That might solve it.
as i understand it (i'm learning/discovering as i go) rogan was a bernie supporter looks like the feeling was mutual, and rogan has personally said disparaging things about trump so left wing might be more apropos btw, both rogan and young have said some pretty stupid stuff in the past (if we believe those excavating/dredging the digital repository for one liners and politically incorrect skeletons) i'm not going to post that here
shermer as far as i can tell is holding out as a professional skeptic he seems like a fairly principled guy, but in his line of work it's controversy 10x no stranger to challenges and big debates i doubt he's on target 100% of the time, but on balance i'd say he has been a benefit to humanity
Malone appeared on Joe Roganâs Spotify podcast shortly after being permanently booted
from Twitter last week for ârepeated violationsâ of their Covid-19 misinformation policy.
(...) Malone has âsowed doubt about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines on pretty
much any podcast or YouTube channel that will have himâ and mentioned
Maloneâs appearances on shows hosted by Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon,
and Glenn Beck.
And that pissed off the elites! And some hippie with a guitar.
