Discussion in 'theory, philosophy & history' started by Beats & Pieces, May 22, 2018.
This is worth viewing - for a multitude of reasons.
Munk Debates - Munk Debates
What is it?
Jordon fucking Peterson, again.
Name three, b&p
peterson and fry make a better point than the other two
yet you can't name three. pisspoor b&p
Jordan Peterson being called a mean old white man
Jordan Peterson being invited to the pastors church for a knees up.
The verbose thesaurus gobbling rhetoric of the pastor, loads of words no message
Stephen Fry, for being Stephen fry
Apart from that a rubbish debate
yeh. do you also post as Beats & Pieces?
Sorry did I disturb you mid beef?
here's a tip: when someone asks someone else a question they might not want it answered by you. wouldn't be surprised if you made yourself popular doing this down the pub, jumping into other people's conversations and that.
I suggest you re-analyse your understanding of Internet forum discussion threads
Ask me one on sport
i suggest you reread my post until you actually understand it.
What are the multitude of reasons we need to watch a right wing academic being a right wing academic?
liked this for thinking mans dale gribble. Seymour does love how much theory he's read sometimes but this was funny.
Another reason to keep watching him is the hope that someone gets wheeled out who can counter his positions and dent his air of certainty.
There’s a lot of noise being made about him there must be someone smart enough to challenge some of his stuff.
I’ve already posted my opinion of him somewhere on u75. Having watched his videos/podcasts and read his second book I find him a bit repeatative, messianic and unstable in his writing and his lectures, I certainly don’t agree with his 12 rules as anything other than rejigged platitudes.
You have to tip your hat to his performances in combative interviews and debates, which brings me back to my first point which is, where are critics when it comes to fronting him out in debate/discussions.
Who is going to step up and slay the dragon on his home turf.
I think the main issue is it would be lengthy and unpalatable for mainstream viewing and so we are left with short format, sound bite style combat and no satisfaction.
It would help if people didn’t try and take him down with ill prepared third hand opinions of his words which seem to get amplified and twisted as they are told/spread through journalistic pieces, this falls into his favourite defence, which is “I didn’t say that” “I choose my words very very carefully”
It’s fascinating and entertaining to watch him.
I’m thinking he’ll either have a break down, start a cult or someone will shoot him in the face at a public lecture
I must lead a sheltered life. I've literally only heard of him a couple of times, both on here.
I have used a like here to show that my experience mirrors Danny's.
ETA. Though I have now rendered it somewhat superfluous by also posting to that effect.
You're one time ahead of me
Now we're even.
An interesting critique of the bloke from his former academic sponsor and later family friend who pushed him up and supported him through the academic system
I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous | The Star
Beats & Pieces, you may be wondering what happened on this thread.
First, it is normal etiquette on these boards to provide a brief synopsis of what is in a link or video, and why you think it relevant. While you may get away with not doing so during the thrust of a thread, to open a thread in this way leaves people unclear about what it is you want to discuss. It is unlikely that anyone is going to watch even a ten minute video in order to guess what your point of interest is, never mind a two hour one, as is the case here. It is simply both courteous to explain why you're posting the link, and actually more likely to get you relevant responses.
Secondly, your linked video contains a speaker who is clearly somewhat divisive. Because you have not told us anything about what he's said in this instance, and whether you agree or disagree with it, people are now focusing on the personality of this speaker and ruminating on the nature of his supporters in their experience. (I have no prior knowledge or experience of his support base, and still do not know whether you are one of these).
Thirdly, you have not come back to clarify. To date, your only contribution to this thread is a content-free and context-free OP, and some 'likes' (showing that while you are reading responses, you aren't contributing any further). The thread will therefore run off in whatever direction it pleases, and will probably then grind to a halt.
Fourthly, this is 'theory, philosophy & history', colloquially known as the Eggheads Forum. A degree of thought is expected here that may not be necessary in 'general', say. Because you have not provided this, responses are more likely to be jokey and dismissive. Have a look around at OPs of longer threads here. At least a modicum of thought has usually gone into them.
Probably my favourite article on JP:
The Intellectual We Deserve | Current Affairs
Oh dear. What has happened to Beats & Pieces the towering intellect of u75?
That's a bit more like it. He isn't keen when he is challenged by a more adept interviewer and intellect
He seems happy sitting back armadillo like on his reductive "twelve rules" but the interviewers use of "Parochial" with reference to his specific interest in university SJW students hit the mark
Claiming he didn't know what solidarity was could be a disingenuous debating technique or a scary snapshot of his mind, i'm presuming he does know but his space lizard psych doesn't want to recognise it as a positive human characteristic
We do have a rule about not just posting threads with links/videos without explanation or what you think of them, so if you could do that it would be grand.
What a load of Harry Munk
Self awareness is a beautiful thing.
Separate names with a comma.