@Benny: Sure, there are bound to many things I do agree with him on. It's just as stupid to try to disagree with everything someone says as to be a cultish follower, like my brother has become, ugh.

This book just happens to be a collection of all his very worst ideas, positions and ugliness of character. I can't believe he says that smacking children is not always enough. I dread to think what he escalates to. I'm sure he will have a weasel back-talk way of dismissing his own comment if he ever gets called on it in interview.

Has your opinion of him changed over this discussion? Of course I don't expect you to go from thinking he's really good to awful, but just to see that he has a darker and dishonest side.

(September 20, 2018 at 12:37 pm)robvalue Wrote: Peterson is a god-damned bigoted, dishonest, cowardly primitive. Just my (correct) opinion.

I am still perplexed by this idea that Peterson is some racist, bigoted monster.

If anything, a lot of what he says is just sort of uninteresting in that, it's common sense. I am intrigued by a lot of his ideas concerning personal responsibility and psychology. Beyond that, I tend to disagree when it comes to religion and agree only partially when he discusses politics. But a right-wing bigot? Far from it. Seems like a right-leaning moderate to me.

Note: I'm not even necessarily saying you're making these exact claims but your post seems to be running along the same line of thinking.

edit: I actually read 12 Rules For Life and found it to be an interesting read. I'm not some huge proponent of Peterson's ideas but I've found a lot of what he's said to at least be of some interest. I wonder if it's simply the phenomenon of people disliking any of these sort of these intellectual types who gain some fame in pop culture.

I am very often over-the-top for comic effect. But I'll give a quick breakdown of what I was referring to in this video:

Bigot: I think he is a bigot, yes. Not a racist so far. He has very strong anti-homosexual/transgender subtexts in this chapter. He implies that same sex couples are not as good parents, and he also swings at various other people (most likely transgender) by discouraging social change. Now, I could give people a pass and be charitable if they said something dubious looking that was somewhat open to interpretation, if it didn't line up with their general character. But when it totally does line up, I'm less inclined to. He's a misogynist and an incel, which comes out clearly throughout the book.

Dishonest: The opening video Hugo and Jake show features Peterson talking absolute shit. This is also a general criticism for the way he puts out "bad sounding stuff" deliberately (like enforced monogamy) and then back pedals it to try and make himself sound awesome, ending up with a position nothing like what he actually said. He snakes and weasels, saying nasty things but then adding sneaky caveats as get-out clauses.

Cowardly primitive: He's obsessed with physical violence and dominance. He's advocating for hitting (not just smacking) children, keeps talking about how men can dominate women, complains about how he can't hit women, and has said before that the threat violence is what keeps a conversation (between men) civil. He doesn't respect someone who wouldn't fight him. It's all rather pathetic, and his focus on dominating children is very cowardly.

This is of course all my interpretation. Anyone is free to disagree, and to think I've just got the wrong end of the stick. Peterson is smart enough to double-speak at every opportunity, so he can play the victim when called out, and so nailing him down to anything is difficult. This in itself is cowardly dishonesty.

To top it off, we have him making himself a celebrity over deliberately misrepresenting the new (but not actually new) free speech laws in Canada.

(September 23, 2018 at 1:55 am)robvalue Wrote: @Benny: Sure, there are bound to many things I do agree with him on. It's just as stupid to try to disagree with everything someone says as to be a cultish follower, like my brother has become, ugh.

This book just happens to be a collection of all his very worst ideas, positions and ugliness of character. I can't believe he says that smacking children is not always enough. I dread to think what he escalates to. I'm sure he will have a weasel back-talk way of dismissing his own comment if he ever gets called on it in interview.

Has your opinion of him changed over this discussion? Of course I don't expect you to go from thinking he's really good to awful, but just to see that he has a darker and dishonest side.

I'm not bothered by ugliness in people.  Many of the people considered great have deep ugliness about them-- maybe all of them.

Bill Cosby, for example, was a comic genius and a monstrous rapist.  Being one of those things, at least in my view, didn't make him less of the other.  I'd argue that many of the confederate leaders were great men, though slavery of innocents must be one of the greatest evils man might commit.

---

(September 23, 2018 at 1:55 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't believe he says that smacking children is not always enough. I dread to think what he escalates to.

Can you say where this comes from?  I searched the text, but it didn't return a literal match to "smacking children is not always enough."

(September 23, 2018 at 3:37 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 23, 2018 at 1:55 am)robvalue Wrote: @Benny: Sure, there are bound to many things I do agree with him on. It's just as stupid to try to disagree with everything someone says as to be a cultish follower, like my brother has become, ugh.

This book just happens to be a collection of all his very worst ideas, positions and ugliness of character. I can't believe he says that smacking children is not always enough. I dread to think what he escalates to. I'm sure he will have a weasel back-talk way of dismissing his own comment if he ever gets called on it in interview.

Has your opinion of him changed over this discussion? Of course I don't expect you to go from thinking he's really good to awful, but just to see that he has a darker and dishonest side.

I'm not bothered by ugliness in people.  Many of the people considered great have deep ugliness about them-- maybe all of them.

Bill Cosby, for example, was a comic genius and a monstrous rapist.  Being one of those things, at least in my view, didn't make him less of the other.  I'd argue that many of the confederate leaders were great men, though slavery of innocents must be one of the greatest evils man might commit.

Sure, I agree with that. I probably worded the question badly. Let me instead ask if you're surprised by the contents of this book.

(September 23, 2018 at 3:45 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, I agree with that. I probably worded the question badly. Let me instead ask if you're surprised by the contents of this book.

I've just started reading it. However, I'm predicting that I will probably not be surprised by anything he says, given how divisive he's been.

P141 in the book, chapter starting, "If your child is the kind..."

"...

If that fails, being turned over a parent's knee might be required. For the child who is pushing the limits in a spectacularly inspired way, a swat across the backside can indicate requisite seriousness on the part of the responsible adult. There are some situations in which even that will not suffice, partly because some children are very determined, exploratory, and tough or because the offending behaviour is truly severe.

..."

Of course he's not explicitly saying what he really means, because he never does. I'm sure he'd swat away his own words just like he swats away at children.

Hey robvalue.

I liked the discussion Mr Peterson and Mr Dillahunty had together.

I think it's a good representation of both fellows.



Not at work.

Cool Is it one where Peterson is somewhat straightforward and honest? Because I can't bring myself to watch another video of him sneaking around his points.

(September 23, 2018 at 8:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Cool Is it one where Peterson is somewhat straightforward and honest? Because I can't bring myself to watch another video of him sneaking around his points.

I can't tell?

It's the only vid I've watched with him in it. I mainly watched it for Mr dillahunty.

If you just want to watch Mr Dillahunty's 'Deconstruction' of the discussion there's a short-ish vid on the fellow's channel.

Cheers.

Not at work.