3 ms·

Peterson in person is Peterson in his lectures, see comments below. Make up your mind yourself, and try to understand why people like and hate him both ways. He

Peterson in person is Peterson in his lectures, see comments below. Make up your mind yourself, and try to understand why people like and hate him both ways. He's a pretty compassionate guy as far as I can tell, he just can't tolerate people who aren't willing to have proper discourse with him.

dekken_ 8y ago
> he just can't tolerate people who aren't willing to have proper discourse with him why would anyone? if it's not a discussion it's a battle of ideologies and someone (them/they) have to win
- grenoire 8y ago
  Case in point, you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue. You don't have to agree with everything someone says, and doing so would be philosophical suicide by the very definition of it. Just be a little more open on what you can take out his ideas, and if you're not interested in a specific subset of his subjects such as religion or identity politics or his diet (as one of the students in the audience asked him a question on), then just skip that. You be the judge, but be reasonable in your judgement.
  - dekken_ 8y ago
    > you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue I did no such thing how dare you
    - turc1656 8y ago
      You didn't literally say those words but that's the only reasonable conclusion based on your statement. You said it was a battle of ideologies. Which means he is there as a representative of an ideology. That would make him an ideologue, based purely on logical flow from your statement. If that's not what you believe, then you shouldn't label the discussions he partakes in as ideological battles and instead brand them simply as honest political discourse with guests of varying viewpoints.
      - dekken_ 8y ago
        > You didn't literally say those words True. > but that's the only reasonable conclusion based on your statement False.
- tome 8y ago
  I suspect, by "why would anyone", you were referring to him tolerating rather than people having proper discourse.
  - dekken_ 8y ago
    Why would anyone tolerate not having proper discourse. In full.
UncleMeat 8y ago
Does his proper discourse include getting to wildly misrepresent the law, marx, marxism more broadly, individual postmodern thinkers, and postmodernism more broadly? Peterson doesn't publish his ideas in academic outlets. He is avoiding the proper discourse.
- turc1656 8y ago
  Why would he publish in academic outlets? Why is that the place of "proper discourse"? No one except academics reads those things. And if he has the ability to reach a far greater number of people through the outlets he has chosen and therefore maximize his reach, why would he ever choose the academic route instead? When you factor in the money from the non-academic route, the case only gets stronger. And for Peterson in particular, it makes even more sense. He claims academia has been corrupted - particularly the social sciences, like the one in which he is engaged. If you were him, why would you ever write a paper for corrupted academics to denounce you? That's like asking why someone doesn't try to speak at a RNC event and try to convince everyone in the room to switch to the Dem stance on immigration and abortion. It would never happen. Seems to me that Peterson has made rational choices given his set of claims and alleged beliefs. His strategy seems entirely sound as far as I can see. I'd also say that he doesn't shy aware from attending any speaking event or being a guest on any show. He's even said things about how his attendance in potentially adversarial discussions/debates is an important function of the way he does things because there's value in discussing things with people who disagree with him. There's little value, or at least far less, in going on a program that is an echo chamber. I've seen him throw himself into many situations that I would describe as hostile or adversarial. Doesn't seem like he's avoiding any sort of proper discussion and he seems more than willing to defend his statements. I would be genuinely interested in some details about the alleged misrepresentations you stated. If you are willing to share, I have an open mind and admit to not having studied most of those topics at great length so if Peterson is misrepresenting them, I would love to hear the details. I am particularly interested in how he might be misrepresenting the law, as that is something I do study (although not Canadian law).

dekken_ 8y ago

> he just can't tolerate people who aren't willing to have proper discourse with him why would anyone? if it's not a discussion it's a battle of ideologies and someone (them/they) have to win

grenoire 8y ago
Case in point, you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue. You don't have to agree with everything someone says, and doing so would be philosophical suicide by the very definition of it. Just be a little more open on what you can take out his ideas, and if you're not interested in a specific subset of his subjects such as religion or identity politics or his diet (as one of the students in the audience asked him a question on), then just skip that. You be the judge, but be reasonable in your judgement.
- dekken_ 8y ago
  > you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue I did no such thing how dare you
  - turc1656 8y ago
    You didn't literally say those words but that's the only reasonable conclusion based on your statement. You said it was a battle of ideologies. Which means he is there as a representative of an ideology. That would make him an ideologue, based purely on logical flow from your statement. If that's not what you believe, then you shouldn't label the discussions he partakes in as ideological battles and instead brand them simply as honest political discourse with guests of varying viewpoints.
    - dekken_ 8y ago
      > You didn't literally say those words True. > but that's the only reasonable conclusion based on your statement False.
tome 8y ago
I suspect, by "why would anyone", you were referring to him tolerating rather than people having proper discourse.
- dekken_ 8y ago
  Why would anyone tolerate not having proper discourse. In full.

UncleMeat 8y ago

Does his proper discourse include getting to wildly misrepresent the law, marx, marxism more broadly, individual postmodern thinkers, and postmodernism more broadly? Peterson doesn't publish his ideas in academic outlets. He is avoiding the proper discourse.

turc1656 8y ago
Why would he publish in academic outlets? Why is that the place of "proper discourse"? No one except academics reads those things. And if he has the ability to reach a far greater number of people through the outlets he has chosen and therefore maximize his reach, why would he ever choose the academic route instead? When you factor in the money from the non-academic route, the case only gets stronger. And for Peterson in particular, it makes even more sense. He claims academia has been corrupted - particularly the social sciences, like the one in which he is engaged. If you were him, why would you ever write a paper for corrupted academics to denounce you? That's like asking why someone doesn't try to speak at a RNC event and try to convince everyone in the room to switch to the Dem stance on immigration and abortion. It would never happen. Seems to me that Peterson has made rational choices given his set of claims and alleged beliefs. His strategy seems entirely sound as far as I can see. I'd also say that he doesn't shy aware from attending any speaking event or being a guest on any show. He's even said things about how his attendance in potentially adversarial discussions/debates is an important function of the way he does things because there's value in discussing things with people who disagree with him. There's little value, or at least far less, in going on a program that is an echo chamber. I've seen him throw himself into many situations that I would describe as hostile or adversarial. Doesn't seem like he's avoiding any sort of proper discussion and he seems more than willing to defend his statements. I would be genuinely interested in some details about the alleged misrepresentations you stated. If you are willing to share, I have an open mind and admit to not having studied most of those topics at great length so if Peterson is misrepresenting them, I would love to hear the details. I am particularly interested in how he might be misrepresenting the law, as that is something I do study (although not Canadian law).