Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 09, 2018

The young men voted for Hillary, they called home in shock when Trump won, they talked about flipping the House, and they followed Peterson to other podcasts -- to Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. What they were getting from these lectures and discussions, often lengthy and often on arcane subjects, was perhaps the only sustained argument against identity politics they had heard in their lives.

That might seem like a small thing, but it's not. With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things -- religion, philosophy, history, myth -- in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology. All of these young people, without quite realizing it, were joining a huge group of American college students who were pursuing a parallel curriculum, right under the noses of the people who were delivering their official educations.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I thought this was an interesting piece in The Atlantic.

I'm not familiar with Jordan Peterson other than I know his name has been popping up recently and that the rabid wing of the left seems to despise him, which suggests to me that he's on to something.

Other than that, I thought it was an interesting read, so I created a thread.

I'm not really anticipating many comments, but who knows...

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 10:50 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Canada had zero bankruptcies due to healthcare expenses. United State it is the number one cause of bankruptcy. Simple things like insulin are becoming unaffordable even with insurance. Nuf said.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-09 10:56 AM | Reply

Danni,

What does that have to do with this thread?

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Been following Peterson for a few years. Aside from politics, his psychological analyses of popular culture, pulling together Jung, Nietzsche, theology, etc., are intellectual tour de forces.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-09 10:58 AM | Reply

Forget it she's rolling.

#5 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-09 10:59 AM | Reply

Oh lovely a right winged lunatic.

www.theguardian.com

The Canadian psychology professor and culture warrior Jordan B Peterson could not have hoped for better publicity than his recent encounter with Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. The more Newman inaccurately paraphrased his beliefs and betrayed her irritation, the better Peterson came across. The whole performance, which has since been viewed more than 6m times on YouTube and was described by excitable Fox News host Tucker Carlson as "one of the great interviews of all time", bolstered Peterson's preferred image as the coolly rational man of science facing down the hysteria of political correctness. As he told Newman in his distinctive, constricted voice, which he has compared to that of Kermit the Frog: "I choose my words very, very carefully."

The confrontation has worked wonders for Peterson. His new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has become a runaway bestseller in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Germany and France, making him the public intellectual du jour. Peterson is not just another troll, narcissist or blowhard whose arguments are fatally compromised by bad faith, petulance, intellectual laziness and blatant bigotry. It is harder to argue with someone who believes what he says and knows what he is talking about – or at least conveys that impression. No wonder every scourge of political correctness, from the Spectator to InfoWars, is aflutter over the 55-year-old professor who appears to bring heavyweight intellectual armature to standard complaints about "social-justice warriors" and "snowflakes". They think he could be the culture war's Weapon X.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-09 11:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Check out Maps of Meaning. It's a mere 20 hours of graduate level education.

Part one: only 2 and a half hours. :)

www.youtube.com

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-09 11:08 AM | Reply

#6 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You are fast becoming the intellectual lightweight of the DR.

Your go-to M.O. is to slaughter the source. You do it every fricking time.

You rarely, if ever, judge a person's works on merit (or lack thereof).

What's weirder is that you call him a right winged lunatic, and then do a cut-and-paste that paints him in a decent light as if what you posted makes the guy look bad.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Danni,
What does that have to do with this thread?"

The "Left" doesn't "fear" anyone who doesn't have better solutions to life's real problems. I haven't read his book but the population overwhelmingly wants single payer healthcare, that is the "wave" of the future so pretending the "left" is afraid of this guy is ridiculous.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-09 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The new Ayn Rand. Appealing to arrested adolescents. Yay.

#10 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-09 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You are fast becoming the intellectual lightweight of the DR.
Your go-to M.O. is to slaughter the source. You do it every fricking time.
You rarely, if ever, judge a person's works on merit (or lack thereof).
What's weirder is that you call him a right winged lunatic, and then do a cut-and-paste that paints him in a decent light as if what you posted makes the guy look bad.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-09 11:19 AM | REPLY

Don't like your threads eviscerated. Quit posting garbage. This is Pat Caddell X2..

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-09 11:22 AM | Reply

"You rarely, if ever, judge a person's works on merit (or lack thereof)."

Says the guy who admittedly posted a thread on someone he knows NOTHING about just because the guy (deservedly) earns the scorn of leftists. You wouldn't know intellectual integrity if Socrates rose from the slapped you across the face.

#12 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 11:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--I haven't read his book

Of course you haven't. Nor have you listened to any of his lectures. All you need to know is that your team hates him because he is an intellectual heavyweight.

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-09 11:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Says the guy who admittedly posted a thread on someone he knows NOTHING about just because the guy (deservedly) earns the scorn of leftists. You wouldn't know intellectual integrity if Socrates rose from the slapped you across the face.

#12 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

You wouldn't understand a logical fallacy even if it were libsplained to you.

I was open about knowing very little about this guy.

Laura, obviously knows very little about him, other than a single paragraph screed, here or there, from some LW extremist.

I called out Laura for her laziness but did NOT offer any kind of defense for this guy because, as I've already admitted, I don't know much about him.

Shouldn't you be attending an Antifa meeting to plan vandalizing some statues?

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 11:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Don't like your threads eviscerated. Quit posting garbage. This is Pat Caddell X2..

#11 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You didn't eviscerate anything. All you did was copy and paste 2 paragraphs that painted this guy in a better light than you were intimating.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"your team" - from the devotee of a man that supposedly derides identity politics. Excuse my lack of credulity.

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-09 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hey look!

There goes Hillary keeping her name in the Newz, again

And when I say Hillary, I mean Hillary obsessed jeffyj

#17 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-09 11:54 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

"I was open about knowing very little about this guy."

You threw a party for the latest right wing hack despite confessedly knowing nothing about him. This is as embarrassing as your IDW thread the other day.

#18 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 11:56 AM | Reply

your team hates him because he is an intellectual heavyweight.

#13 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-08-09 11:34 AM | FLAG:

Delete your account, you hack. The guy is to Academe what you are to these forums: a laughingstock with delusions of intellectual adequacy. The smartest people on the damned planet in just about every discipline are liberals, but this snake oil salesman comes along and suddenly you are gushing about credentials. You are a damned hypocrite.

#19 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 11:59 AM | Reply

--Shouldn't you be attending an Antifa meeting to plan vandalizing some statues?

He's probably too busy conducting Maoist study groups.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-09 12:01 PM | Reply

Dirk,

You are not a person to be taken seriously.

You are part-troll and part-hater. I go back and forth as to which percentage of each makes up your psyche.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 12:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Rape Joke Jeff's new hero is (surprise!) a raging misogynistic -----!

www.nytimes.com

#22 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:11 PM | Reply

He's probably too busy conducting Maoist study groups.

#20 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-08-09 12:01 PM | FLAG:

Want to join one? Your political education obviously came out of a radio, so every little bit helps.

#23 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:12 PM | Reply

One can see why Jeff and Dulli fawn over this internet garbage person:

jacobinmag.com

#24 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:13 PM | Reply

--jacobinmag.com

lol. You might just as well post something from revcom.

revcom.us

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-09 12:18 PM | Reply

You are not a person to be taken seriously.
You are part-troll and part-hater. I go back and forth as to which percentage of each makes up your psyche.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-09 12:03 PM | REPLY

Well apparently so are you part troll part hater. Why did you pen this thread in the first place?? Or the Pat Caddell thread???? Trying to take cheap shots at the Left or who you perceive is part of the left. Standard MO of yours since the American Thinker days.

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-09 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#25

Just stay in your bubble, drone.

#27 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:26 PM | Reply

#26

Jeff is a stupid person trying to find a smart person to justify his perverse ideology. You'll note he can't really argue philosophy himself.

#28 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:29 PM | Reply

"You are not a person to be taken seriously"

HAHA
Lets remember that this is the Dink who said "Mark My Words" that OBAMA was going to legalize all the immigrants before leaving office.
He also swore the Kansas tax cuts were going to "Show all the Liberals" how economics is really done

#29 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-09 12:31 PM | Reply

Jordan is a hero to beta cucks that are failing at life. He wants enforced monogamy so male sexual losers get equal access, but he is against gender equality because men should run things because they are better.

He wants to enslave women for the benefit of failed males.

This speaks volumes about his supporters.

#30 | Posted by bored at 2018-08-09 12:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Trying to take cheap shots at the Left or who you perceive is part of the left....

#26 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

The lack of self-awareness with that is astounding, little Miss Slaughter The Source.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 12:36 PM | Reply

#30 - that explains why his audience is disproportionately white college aged males.

#32 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-09 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The lack of self-awareness with that is astounding, little Miss Slaughter The Source.

#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-09 12:36 PM | FLAG:

And just what do you call your post 21, you damned hypocrite?

#33 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:39 PM | Reply

He wants enforced monogamy so male sexual losers get equal access..

#30 | POSTED BY BORED

From the embedded article:

here is an eagerness to attach reputation-destroying ideas to him, such as that he is a supporter of something called "enforced monogamy," an anthropological concept referring to the social pressures that exist in certain cultures that serve to encourage marriage. He mentioned the term during a wide-ranging interview with a New York Times reporter, which led to the endlessly repeated falsehood that he believes that the government should be in the business of arranging marriages.

I have no doubt this guy has offered plenty that warrants criticism. But when easily disprovable falsehoods are peddled, it suggests to me that his success has some people becoming unglued.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 12:40 PM | Reply

He's probably too busy conducting Maoist study groups.

#20 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-08-09 12:01 PM | FLAG:

Want to join one? Your political education obviously came out of a radio, so every little bit helps.

#23 | Posted by DirkStruan

Are you teaching one? My Maoist study group leader in the 70s was Michael Klonsky, former chairman of SDS, who founded the short-lived Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-09 12:41 PM | Reply

And just what do you call your post 21, you damned hypocrite?

#33 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

You should go back to your Das Kapital bible group with Pajama Boy.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 12:41 PM | Reply

I've never heard of him. He must be an even less capable, Canadian version of a ben shapiro. Whenever the right finds an "intellectual" its always comical.

#37 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-09 12:45 PM | Reply

You should go back to your Das Kapital bible group with Pajama Boy.

#36 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-09 12:41 PM | FLAG:

Awww looks like I hit a nerve with the little hypocrite.

#38 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:48 PM | Reply

--that explains why his audience is disproportionately white college aged males.

Doesn't look like his lecture I posted in #7.

#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-09 12:49 PM | Reply

#35

You do a lot of name dropping, but when the rubber meets the road you can't back any of it up. Your faltering efforts to discuss Marcuse a couple threads ago were downright embarrassing.

#40 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:50 PM | Reply

Doesn't look like his lecture I posted in #7.

#39 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-08-09 12:49 PM | FLAG:

Oh, are we counting protestors and people in need of a good laugh?

#41 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:52 PM | Reply

Awww looks like I hit a nerve with the little hypocrite.

#38 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

A nerve? No. Did you hit my funny bone? Yes. Your trolling really is funny. I mean that.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#42

You find getting exposed as a hypocrite funny? Well, if you can't laugh at yourself and all that...

#43 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 12:55 PM | Reply

--You do a lot of name dropping,

Did I mention that I also met your hero Bob Avakian, founder and still chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party? Also attended a lecture by Herbert Marcuse in LA. lol

#44 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-09 12:55 PM | Reply

#34 I didn't say anything about arranged marriages. Jordan does say enforced monogamy is needed to help failed males.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges."

Jordan wants socialized sex but privatized wealth and no gender equality.
Makes perfect sense if you are an under performing male.

#45 | Posted by bored at 2018-08-09 01:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#44

Sure you did, Dulli. Sure you did.

#46 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 01:09 PM | Reply

No, I find you funny, and I don't mean that in a completely negative way.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 01:19 PM | Reply

Doesn't look like his lecture I posted in #7.

The article Jeff linked and based this thread on qualifies and quantifies his followers, not me.

#48 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-09 01:20 PM | Reply

No, I find you funny, and I don't mean that in a completely negative way.

#47 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-09 01:19 PM | FLAG:

Hey remember that time I exposed you as a hypocrite and you had no response but to try to change the subject? How funny was that?

#49 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 01:37 PM | Reply

How funny was that?

#49 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was hilarious, but it was pretty damn funny.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-09 01:39 PM | Reply

"his name has been popping up recently and that the rabid wing of the left seems to despise him"

Sounds like a right-wing yakking point to me.

"which suggests to me that he's on to something."

Sounds like a right-wing yakking point to me.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-09 01:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Jeff is a stupid person trying to find a smart person to justify his perverse ideology. You'll note he can't really argue philosophy himself.

#28 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2018-08-09 12:29 PM

Your faltering efforts to discuss Marcuse a couple threads ago were downright embarrassing.

#40 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2018-08-09 12:50 PM

Project much?

Why do you persist in digging yourself into increasingly larger holes, Vizzini?

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 01:54 PM | Reply

He wants enforced monogamy - #30 | Posted by bored at 2018-08-09 12:33 PM
^^^^Here's how you can tell people who didn't read the article before commenting.
Allow me to quote a bit for you, Bored:
"There is an eagerness to attach reputation-destroying ideas to him, such as that he is a supporter of something called "enforced monogamy," an anthropological concept referring to the social pressures that exist in certain cultures that serve to encourage marriage. He mentioned the term during a wide-ranging interview with a New York Times reporter, which led to the endlessly repeated falsehood that he believes that the government should be in the business of arranging marriages."

So, Bored...why are you choosing to repeat a falsehood?

#53 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-09 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Damn, Jeff beat me to it. Sorry for the repeat.

#54 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-09 01:57 PM | Reply

#52

The only thing more embarrassing than Dulli's efforts were yours, Rightostupid. It was like you read the Sparknotes to One Dimensional Man while drunk, gave up halfway through, and filled in the blanks from a Mark Levin podcast. But what could one expect from a "lawyer" who doesn't know what a heckler's veto is?

#55 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LOL, coming from someone who screams "you're stupid" when cornered, I take that as an acknowledgement that you have nothing substantive or relevant to add to the mix, Vizzini.

Once you learn how to identify and separate the issues, rules, analysis and conclusions from caselaw, get back to me so we can discuss Bible Believers v. Wayne County without you being reduced to infantile screaming.

#56 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#56

Quadruples down! And here I had such hope that you would spot your error. It appears you really are that irredeemably, irrecoverably stupid.

#57 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You'll note he can't really argue philosophy himself.

JeffJ makes bold proclamations like "I'm against all government subsidies!"

When asked for soecifics, like "what happens to poor old people in Michigan when they don't get subsidized home heating oil?" he doesn't answer. He just repeats that he's against all subsidies.

There is no philosophy, just ideology.

As The Who wrote, "I've got values but I don't know how or why."

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-09 02:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, but you are drawing him down to your level.

#59 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-09 02:14 PM | Reply

#57

Like I said, coming from someone who screams "you're stupid" when cornered, I take that as an acknowledgement that you have nothing substantive or relevant to add to the mix, Vizzini.

#60 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 02:15 PM | Reply

#60

I think you will find that you are the cornered one, Rightostupid. Since, you know, you claim to be a lawyer and don't know what a heckler's veto is.

#61 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I was the one posting the relevant sections of the opinion, Vizzini, you were just screaming like a frightened little boy.

Tell you what, why don't you enlighten us with your "knowledge", if you have any.

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 02:20 PM | Reply

"I was the one posting the relevant sections of the opinion,"

No, you weren't. That is the joke. That's why I am laughing at you. That opinion you cite? It doesn't mean what you think it means. You are misreading it. Because you are an idiot.

#63 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I was the one posting the relevant sections of the opinion"

Yeah, the part that talked about "lawless behavior."
Which in that case was "throwing bottles."
Not "speech."

Capisce?

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-09 02:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#64

Oh his stupidity goes deeper than that. Remember, his original claim was that no one has the right to shout someone down, in support of which he cut and pasted (without commentary, per his usual) the case in question.

#65 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is the heckler's veto (as understood in constitutional law) the same as shouting someone down, Rightostupid?

#66 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 02:25 PM | Reply

Tell you what, why don't you enlighten us with your "knowledge", if you have any.

#62 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-08-09 02:20 PM | FLAG:

Look at that: poor, stupid RightodarnIshatmyself wants me to put him out of his misery. Should I oblige him? Or might he yet discovery and admit his own embarrassing error?

#67 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 02:29 PM | Reply

Too funny, I give you the holding and all Snoofy can talk about is throwing bottles and Boydirk refuses to tell us how he thinks the holding would be applied to a different fact pattern.

Stick to this, it is more your speed.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 02:31 PM | Reply

Is the heckler's veto (as understood in constitutional law) the same as shouting someone down, Rightostupid?

#66 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2018-08-09 02:25 PM

If that is what you got out of my posts Vizzini you need to go back to your Reading Comprehension Tutor.

#69 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 02:32 PM | Reply

If that is what you got out of my posts Vizzini you need to go back to your Reading Comprehension Tutor.

#69 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-08-09 02:32 PM | FLAG:

That is the section of the decision you quoted, idiot: that there is no permissible heckler's veto. And yet you posted that in response to my post asking why it is not permissible to shout someone down. So, if the two concepts (shouting someone down and he heckler's veto) are not related, why did you post that case as a response to my initial comment?

#70 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 02:36 PM | Reply

See how Rightostupid is now between the horns of a dilemma: either he was conflating shouting someone down with a heckler's veto (laughable) or he was posting a lengthy non-sequitur. Either one makes him an idiot. But which one is true?

#71 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"his name has been popping up recently and that the rabid wing of the left seems to despise him"

I am not sure why that would be. I see nothing wrong with his 12 rules for life. I am not all that impressed with them but there is nothing really wrong with them. Unless you are allergic to cats. Then rule number 12 is not a very good rule for you.

(and number 11 sounds like some kind of weird personal phobia)

#72 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-09 02:40 PM | Reply

LOL!
Goofy crackpottery.

#73 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-08-09 02:47 PM | Reply

"all Snoofy can talk about is throwing bottles"

Because that lawless behavior is at the crux of the opinion.

Go find an opinion where merely yelling at a speaker was construed as a lawless act and you'll have a point.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-09 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Personally, I like The Four Agreements from Don Miguel Ruiz much better.

They are more universal in nature (can apply to anyone anywhere in the world) and much easier to remember.

The Four Agreements

The First Agreement: Be Impeccable with Your Word
The Second Agreement: Don't Take Anything Personally
The Third Agreement: Don't Make Assumptions
The Fourth Agreement: Always Do Your Best"

#75 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-09 05:24 PM | Reply

Apparently her Bachelors and Masters in Art History aren't doing her much good in understanding politics, what identity politics even is, the last 40 years of philosophy, or voting trends.

Most people don't know who Jordan Peterson is. Most people don't care. And there are a million people writing the same drivel as him. There is a reason literally no one else is backing her up on this. Because ANYONE who studied philosophy in the last 20 years saw this same argument before. The exact same crap has been spewed by other philosophers in the 1980's and it failed to ever materialize.

But JeffJ and others will look for anything to make themselves feel better about the current political climate Donald Trump has dragged Conservatives into.

By the way, one of the other best sellers for that period: "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a ----." Should we be scared of that author too?

#76 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-09 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Because that lawless behavior is at the crux of the opinion.

Yeah, the court seemed really concerned about it:

"The "mob" in this case was comprised mostly of children and teenagers. The "violence," though not imaginary, involved little more than plastic bottle and garbage throwing."

#77 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-09 06:53 PM | Reply

Rightostupid, still going strong defending the indefensible.

#78 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-08-09 06:58 PM | Reply

Oh I see.

Plastic bottle and garbage throwing == free speech.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-09 06:58 PM | Reply

#53 I quoted Jordan's own words advocating for enforced monogamy, see bold. The only falsehood is your claim that enforced monogamy = arranged marriage.

#34 I didn't say anything about arranged marriages. Jordan does say enforced monogamy is needed to help failed males.
Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges."
Jordan wants socialized sex but privatized wealth and no gender equality.
Makes perfect sense if you are an under performing male.

That is the same as saying the cure for theft is communism. Both remedies are worse than the problem they claim to solve.

#80 | Posted by bored at 2018-08-09 07:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Who doesn't dig Jung?

#81 | Posted by Karabekian at 2018-08-09 07:31 PM | Reply

"The Subtle Art of Not Giving a ----." Should we be scared of that author too?

#76 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Good book by the way. I was terrified! (Not)

#82 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-09 07:44 PM | Reply

He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That's actually why monogamy emerges."
Jordan wants socialized sex but privatized wealth and no gender equality.
Makes perfect sense if you are an under performing male
#80 | POSTED BY BORED AT 2018-08-09 07:19 PM | FLAG:

Only if you can't read. He's talking about the Toronto killer's views due to the killer's religion. He is in no way advocating enforced monogamy.

#83 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-08-10 08:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Silly, stupid BS.

Nobody is afraid of Jordan Peterson.

#84 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-08-11 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Silly, stupid BS.
Nobody is afraid of Jordan Peterson.

#84 | POSTED BY ANGRYDAD AT 2018-08-11 10:13 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Jeff thought he found himself a winner to fuel his liberal left hatred. He got a dud instead. Now he silks.

#85 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-11 10:19 AM | Reply

Who?

#86 | Posted by cbob at 2018-08-11 06:24 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort