Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[Amarok]

Haha, yup! It's a scary place

They did a pre-intro intro too where they talk about all his crazy bullshit regarding the "new" (5 year old) laws regarding transgenders.

It's a dark and scary ride like that scene in charlie and the chocolate factory with the tunnel 

[Lucanus]

I don't really have much time to write about daddy JP right now, so here's a cool video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

[bennyboy]

But he really hedges his bets about explaining why, exactly, they're bad, and his alt-right fans love him for it.

He goes into it in quite some length in his interviews with Joe Rogan. He doesn't really express hatred for those groups, but he explains why they end up the way they do, and why it's a problem for society.

---

Besides Jordan Peterson being extraordinarily popular and reaching that popularity largely by opposing transgender rights?

That never happened, and your statement typifies the kind of drivel that he was originally opposed to.

He became famous for saying in no uncertain terms that he wouldn't use made-up pronouns like "ze" and "zir," i.e. that he didn't think it was reasonable for a very tiny minority to expect to have the power to not only re-write the English language, but to determine legally what words people could or couldn't use.

This is hardly opposing transgender rights.

---

He's also said women who wear makeup should not be allowed to complain about sexual assault (soon after he has been accused of sexual assault )

He thinks an argument can be made for rape inside of marriage 

He thinks men and women should not work together 

He thinks Feminists who are not overly critical of Islam secretly crave male dominance

That's quite the list.  Why don't you show where you got all these so we can see what he actually said, in context?

I'll bet $100 that you didn't hear him say all those things yourself-- you've gotten them 3rd-party from some site or blog.

---

Also, he said that you need religion to quit smoking (starting 14:58):

I wish I was making this up. To be fair, he does concede that it can be simulated with magic mushrooms, but he does equivocate between a chemical reaction in the brain caused by introducing a known hallucinogen into the mix and the supernatural (which, by definition, goes beyond that).

You understand that he's saying this as a psychologist, not as a proponent of any particular religion, right?

[Amarok]

That's quite the list.  Why don't you show where you got all these so we can see what he actually said, in context?

I'll bet $100 that you didn't hear him say all those things yourself-- you've gotten them 3rd-party from some site or blog

Ahh the tired you just took him out of context tell me Benny when did you become a Christian? If you doubt he said these things look it up . Because yes i have seen him say those things in print and from his own mouth .

He became famous for saying in no uncertain terms that he wouldn't use made-up pronouns like "ze" and "zir," i.e. that he didn't think it was reasonable for a very tiny minority to expect to have the power to not only re-write the English language, but to determine legally what words people could or couldn't use.

Too bad that objection isn't what the bill says as has pointed out to Peterson a dozen times by the Bar Association and the Canadian Senate and a mountain of lawyers. It's gotten to a point were it's safe to say that's not his real objection and considering he's written anti LGBT stuff it starts to form a picture.

[bennyboy]

That's quite the list.  Why don't you show where you got all these so we can see what he actually said, in context?

I'll bet $100 that you didn't hear him say all those things yourself-- you've gotten them 3rd-party from some site or blog

Ahh the tired you just took him out of context  tell me Benny when did you become a Christian? If you doubt he said these things look it up . Because yes i have seen him say those things in print and from his own mouth .

He became famous for saying in no uncertain terms that he wouldn't use made-up pronouns like "ze" and "zir," i.e. that he didn't think it was reasonable for a very tiny minority to expect to have the power to not only re-write the English language, but to determine legally what words people could or couldn't use.

Too bad that objection isn't what the bill says as has pointed out to Peterson a dozen times by the Bar Association and the Canadian Senate and a mountain of lawyers. It's gotten to a point were it's safe to say that's not his real objection and considering he's written anti LGBT stuff it starts to form a picture.

No. . . you are citing him, do your own damned homework.  Show me what he actually says that is anti-LGBT, in fact.  Quote it. . . or better yet, link a video.

I'm saying I've watched several hours of video of him, some of which I've linked, and while I can see why bullshitters would claim  he was racists, sexist or anti-LGBT, I don't believe that to be the case-- or at least, that he's promoting that position.

[Amarok]

You understand that he's saying this as a psychologist, not as a proponent of any particular religion, right?

A proponent for a particular religion nope a proponent of religion yes at least the belief in belief kind 

Dillahunty: We have no confirming that this something mystical or supernatural actually can -- happened, this this is this is about the language --
Peterson: Stops people from smoking.
Dillahunty: Well, you can stop smoking without any sort of supernatural intervention.
Peterson: No, not really. 
Dillahunty: You can't stop smoking without supernatural --
Peterson: There aren't really any, any reliable chemical means for inducing smoking cessation. You can use a drug called Bupropion, I think that's the one, whatever Wellbutrin is, um --
Dillahunty: Is that supernatural? 
Peterson: No, you don't need a supernatural effect, but it doesn't work very well, but if you give people magic mushrooms, psilocybin, and they have a mystical experience, they have about an 85 percent chance of smoking cessation.
Dillahunty: Sure, but --
Peterson: With one treatment. Yeah, but that's kinda like evidence, you know.
Dillahunty: Sure --
Peterson: It's kinda like evidence.
Dillahunty: It's evidence that you can take mushrooms and increase your chance of quitting smoking.
Peterson: No it's not, it's indication that if you take mushrooms, and you have a mystical experience, you'll stop smoking. Because it doesn't work if you don't have the experience.
Dillahunty: Okay, if you take the mushrooms, and you have an experience that you describe as mystical, um, then you'll decrease your chances of smoking. But that doesn't tell me that there's something to this notion that they had an experience that was supernatural in any sense.
Peterson: Well, it's not definitive evidence, but --
Dillahunty: It's not evidence at all!
Peterson: Oh sure it is! Wait a second, wait a second, that's wrong, it is evidence!
Dillahunty: No. He's right. He's right. I will concede that.
Peterson: So, because, look, you want to think this through skeptically, okay, you have a pharmacological substance, psilocybin, and you give it to people who are trying to commit -- to quit smoking, the psilocybin doesn't directly have an impact on the smoking behavior, it has to elicit what's described subjectively as a mystical experience, and you can get physiological indicators of that mystical experience, and you might say that's not enough to prove that it's a mystical experience, but you know, you're conscious, and I accept that, it's like you accept all sorts of things without being able to demonstrate their, their validity on every possible objective, um, with every possible objective criteria, so don't get into too much of a hurry, it's a serious issue, if you give people psilocybin for example, and they have a mystical experience, not only are they much more likely to quit smoking, which is really something, but they're also much less likely to death anxiety if they have cancer, like, that's quite the thing, and not only that, if you test them a year later and they've had a mystical experience, which the majority of them regard as the most significant one or two three, one two or three experiences of their life, including such things as getting married, their personalities are permanently altered in the direction in the direction of more openness to experience and more creativity by a standard deviation, like that's walloping effects, so we can't get too much in a hurry about dispensing with all that.
Dillahunty: So, skepticism, as I repeatedly point out on the show, is not about cynicism, it's not about debunking, and I'm not saying that there is no supernatural and that there is no mystical experience. What I'm saying is, the thing that people subjectively describe as "I had an incredibly impactful mystical experience," whether it comes from taking a pharmaceutical, or whether it comes from attending a revival church service, or hearing a particular preacher, whether it comes from having a particularly impressive sexual experience, all of those things, that is the subjective description of that, which may be because of limitations in language, that they don't have any other -- this is the language that infuses culture, so that we have to use that to describe it but that doesn't in any way serve to confirm that there is any sort of supernatural realm or any sort of supernatural actor.
Peterson: Well it depends on how you define supernatural. Like, look, I get your point. And I'm not saying that the phenomena of psilocybin intoxication is direct proof for the existence of God.

I have lectured and written for the last thirty years, working on ideas originally laid out by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. In the late 1800's, these two thinkers began to contend with the "death of God" -- the disruption of traditional religious and cultural belief by rationality and science. If God dies, Dostoevsky said, "everything will then be permitted." This is a very frightening idea. As you move forward through time and history from the 19th century and contemplate National Socialism and the horrors of totalitarian communism, Dostoevsky looks positively prophetic.
The same is true of Nietzsche. In the aftermath of God's death, he believed humanity, would become entranced, even possessed, by utopian political ideas, such as those of Marx. Nietzsche believed that such possession would kill millions in the twentieth century, as it did. The great German thinker also posited that human beings would have to create their own values, to fill the void left by God's demise. However, it is not clear that we can create values, voluntarily. Individuals who have forced themselves to manifest interest in something that just didn't interest them know the limits of our value-creating capacity. We also don't live particularly long. It's impossibly difficult to self-generate a complete model for being in the span of a single short life.
Dostoevsky, for his part, recommended a conscious revisiting of Russian Orthodox Christian ideas. But it is also not clear that we can return safely to past certainties, real or imagined. There may be much we have to rescue from our damaged traditions, but all of it will have to be viewed in a new light, if it is going to function and live.
I have been working, instead, on the belief that transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being. Such values have to be discovered, as much as invented, during the dance of the individual with society and nature. Then they have to be carefully integrated and united into something powerful and stable. This is in part something that Carl Jung discovered, during his forays into the deep past of ideas

The worship of the rational mind makes you prone to totalitarian ideology. The Catholic Church always warned against this. The warning was that the rational mind always falls in love with its own creations. The intellect is raised to the status of highest god. The highest ideal that a person holds - consciously or unconsciously - that's their god.It functions precisely in that manner. It exists forever, it exists in all people, it takes them over and exists in their behavior. That's a god. We have to think about that idea functionally.

o say "I believe in God" is equivalent, in some sense, to say "my thought is ultimately coherent, but predicated on an axiom (as my thought is also incomplete, so I must take something on faith)."
To say "I don't believe in God" is therefore to say "no axiom outside my thought is necessary" or "the necessary axiom outside my thought is not real." The consequence of this statement is that God himself unravels, then the state unravels, then the family unravels, and then the self itself unravels.
To stem this unraveling with false certainty: that is totalitarianism. To speed it along is nihilism. We experimented with totalitarianism in the twentieth century, as alternative to the ultimate axiom of faith in the unknowable and unspeakable. Totalitarianism failed. Now we will have to experiment to [sic] nihilism. This experiment, led by the resentful, will also fail and it is as doubtful that we can survive it as it was that we could survive totalitarianism

Peterson arguing for presuppositionalism

---

Ahh the tired you just took him out of context  tell me Benny when did you become a Christian? If you doubt he said these things look it up . Because yes i have seen him say those things in print and from his own mouth .
Too bad that objection isn't what the bill says as has pointed out to Peterson a dozen times by the Bar Association and the Canadian Senate and a mountain of lawyers. It's gotten to a point were it's safe to say that's not his real objection and considering he's written anti LGBT stuff it starts to form a picture.

No. . . you are citing him, do your own damned homework.  Show me what he actually says that is anti-LGBT, in fact.  Quote it. . . or better yet, link a video.

I'm saying I've watched several hours of video of him, some of which I've linked, and while I can see why bullshitters would claim  he was racists, sexist or anti-LGBT, I don't believe that to be the case-- or at least, that he's promoting that position.

1.No you do your own homework your doubting he said it 

2. Same answer 

3. Yup you linked video's good for you 

4. And nope no bullshitters and no claim only facts and his apologists who like the Christians before them scream "out of context " when there lord and savior is called out .

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure why posting the text for the video we literally just had linked was you doing homework.  Yes, we've all seen that video already.  I understand English, and know what words he said.

This is a strange situation.  You've taken the effort to quote him, but it's pretty obvious that what you're quoting doesn't mean what you think it means.

 But it is also not clear that we can return safely to past certainties, real or imagined. There may be much we have to rescue from our damaged traditions, but all of it will have to be viewed in a new light, if it is going to function and live.

When you read this, do you really think that he's trying to bring back religion in general, or Christianity in specific?  His intent is pretty clear, but you seem to be quoting it to support a different point entirely.

At any rate, are you just going to keep quoting rationalwiki's distilled quotes out of context, or are you actually going to watch some of the videos, in which Peterson directly addresses some of these points made against him, and clarifies his position candidly? Do you have any issues of your own with him, or your own ideas, or are you just going to keep quote-mining?

You have a lot to say for a guy who so far has watched a 1-minute video clip and spent about 5 seconds googling.

[Little lunch]

I don't really have much time to write about daddy JP right now, so here's a cool video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

I like this.
Think I'll go ahead and watch the rest of the contrapoints videos.
As for Jordon Peterson, I don't agree with everything he says, in fact much of what he says, but some things I do and he's no idiot and also has credentials.
And that is the seductive, intellectual trap that a lot of young intelligent men seem to be falling into, similar, in my opinion, to Ben Shapiro's approach.
Both men are highly intelligent, seem to have all the answers and cater to people who are unsure of themselves and their place in the world.

[bennyboy]

I don't really have much time to write about daddy JP right now, so here's a cool video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

I like this.
Think I'll go ahead and watch the rest of the contrapoints videos.
As for Jordon Peterson, I don't agree with everything he says, in fact much of what he says, but some things I do and he's no idiot and also has credentials.
And that is the seductive, intellectual trap that a lot of young intelligent men seem to be falling into, similar, in my opinion, to Ben Shapiro's approach.
Both men are highly intelligent, seem to have all the answers and cater to people who are unsure of themselves and their place in the world.

Yeah, I gotta say I like the intelligence of that response.  Fun.

[Amarok]

This is a strange situation.  You've taken the effort to quote him, but it's pretty obvious that what you're quoting doesn't mean what you think it means.

First of all, I'm not sure why posting the text for the video we literally just had linked was you doing homework.  Yes, we've all seen that video already.  I understand English, and know what words he said.

 But it is also not clear that we can return safely to past certainties, real or imagined. There may be much we have to rescue from our damaged traditions, but all of it will have to be viewed in a new light, if it is going to function and live.

When you read this, do you really think that he's trying to bring back religion in general, or Christianity in specific?  His intent is pretty clear, but you seem to be quoting it to support a different point entirely.

1. I posted text because i wanted to focus on one specific point 

2.As i said he endorses religion in a belief in belief manor not in a literal manor and were you get the idea i'm proposing he wants to bring religion in the literal sense back i have no idea . But he clearly believes that belief in belief is functional . Just as i originally said .

A proponent for a particular religion nope a proponent of religion yes at least the belief in belief kind

---

I don't really have much time to write about daddy JP right now, so here's a cool video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

I like this.
Think I'll go ahead and watch the rest of the contrapoints videos.
As for Jordon Peterson, I don't agree with everything he says, in fact much of what he says, but some things I do and he's no idiot and also has credentials.
And that is the seductive, intellectual trap that a lot of young intelligent men seem to be falling into, similar, in my opinion, to Ben Shapiro's approach.
Both men are highly intelligent, seem to have all the answers and cater to people who are unsure of themselves and their place in the world.

I love Contra Points i know him/her we use to be on Kristy Winters Discord before it was disbanded. He/she is just as funny when not scripted .Gotta try and get in contact with he/her again .