3 ms·

The issue with Peterson is that anything outside of socioeconomics and psychology are drivel. He has two tendencies which make him frustrating: first, he will

by dijit 4y ago

The issue with Peterson is that anything outside of socioeconomics and psychology are drivel. He has two tendencies which make him frustrating: first, he will state a statistic and follow up with an opinion, and when challenged he will reply that it’s not his views it is simply statistics. This can be very disingenuous, as you can infer many things from the same statistic. The second, and much more egregious crime, is that he’s a climate change denier and proposes appeasement towards Russia. His life advice is very good, and he talks about many interesting societal things, but when I see videos of him claiming himself to be a prophet: I am left with a sour taste.

heurisko 4y ago
> first, he will state a statistic and follow up with an opinion, and when challenged he will reply that it’s not his views it is simply statistics. I think you will have to give an example. > The second, and much more egregious crime, is that he’s a climate change denier and proposes appeasement towards Russia. Those are opinions, not crimes. And I don't believe he denies climate change, but rather many of the proposals designed to combat it are causing more harm than good, e.g. Germany unilaterally deciding to decarbonise whilst relying on Russian gas.
- dijit 4y ago
  He said on Joe Rogan that the problem was that “climate means everything and you can’t model everything” - which is not an opinion, it’s just false: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-sal... Here’s his comments about appeasement (taken from his 51 minute documentary about it): https://youtube.com/shorts/cj2axyfmcoE?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/cj2axyfmcoE?feature=share The proceeding examples are crimes because they are untruths that will cost human lives. —- In this video he uses the technique: https://youtu.be/Qnzd5w2FSr4 https://youtu.be/Qnzd5w2FSr4 And as he says about Elliot Page: “this person is a role model and will be emulated, they have a responsibility” this applies to Peterson himself.
noxer 4y ago
> The second, and much more egregious crime, is that he’s a climate change denier.... He does not deny climate change, he rejects climate change catastrophe fear driven measurements of questionable efficacy with known unquestionable negative side effect for many many people. AKA things like the west moving their emissions to poor counties in order to "green" their economy. Or things like raising energy cost in an attempt to incentivizes people to use less energy. The problem here is that this affects the poor people proportionally more. It may reduce emission from the "rich" a tiny bit but it pushes million of people globally into poverty. Ofc anyone is entitled to disagree with him. Many do in fact think the end justifies the means. Many people think it is totally acceptable that some people wont make it but "saving the planet" has the higher priority else we are all not gonna make it. Unsurprisingly Peterson as a psychologist has the focus (or bias if you want) on the individual therefore it would be morally wrong to push someone into poverty today to solve a problem of the future. Again anyone can disagree with him on that but calling him climate change denier isn't disagreeing its just slander to avoid the complex moral problems around the topic.

by dijit 4y ago

heurisko 4y ago

> first, he will state a statistic and follow up with an opinion, and when challenged he will reply that it’s not his views it is simply statistics. I think you will have to give an example. > The second, and much more egregious crime, is that he’s a climate change denier and proposes appeasement towards Russia. Those are opinions, not crimes. And I don't believe he denies climate change, but rather many of the proposals designed to combat it are causing more harm than good, e.g. Germany unilaterally deciding to decarbonise whilst relying on Russian gas.

dijit 4y ago
He said on Joe Rogan that the problem was that “climate means everything and you can’t model everything” - which is not an opinion, it’s just false: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-sal... Here’s his comments about appeasement (taken from his 51 minute documentary about it): https://youtube.com/shorts/cj2axyfmcoE?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/cj2axyfmcoE?feature=share The proceeding examples are crimes because they are untruths that will cost human lives. —- In this video he uses the technique: https://youtu.be/Qnzd5w2FSr4 https://youtu.be/Qnzd5w2FSr4 And as he says about Elliot Page: “this person is a role model and will be emulated, they have a responsibility” this applies to Peterson himself.

noxer 4y ago

> The second, and much more egregious crime, is that he’s a climate change denier.... He does not deny climate change, he rejects climate change catastrophe fear driven measurements of questionable efficacy with known unquestionable negative side effect for many many people. AKA things like the west moving their emissions to poor counties in order to "green" their economy. Or things like raising energy cost in an attempt to incentivizes people to use less energy. The problem here is that this affects the poor people proportionally more. It may reduce emission from the "rich" a tiny bit but it pushes million of people globally into poverty. Ofc anyone is entitled to disagree with him. Many do in fact think the end justifies the means. Many people think it is totally acceptable that some people wont make it but "saving the planet" has the higher priority else we are all not gonna make it. Unsurprisingly Peterson as a psychologist has the focus (or bias if you want) on the individual therefore it would be morally wrong to push someone into poverty today to solve a problem of the future. Again anyone can disagree with him on that but calling him climate change denier isn't disagreeing its just slander to avoid the complex moral problems around the topic.