Lets talk about why we dont like Jordan Peterson

He wants me to struggle when women get everything for free. FUCK femgroids

He promotes tradcuckery and is likely a cuck himself (look at his daughter).

He hits on a lot of points during a lecture, and often times when he uses historical examples he either gets important details wrong or is being purposefully deceitful by omitting certain things. It really doesn't matter which, either way it's annoying.

He doesn't understand that our society is actually based very little on judaeo-christian values and fails to recognize the Hellenistic and, later on, enlightenment influences. He is right in addressing the dangers of widespread nihilism but returning to bronze age faith seems like a very bad path to go down. Overall he's intelligent and has diagnosed some very real problems, but his solutions are hit and miss.

Actually kinda like him but thats just too accurate

>eats an all meat diet (for some reason????)
>body basically shuts down when he drinks apple cider
>he is surprised by this and continues eating his all meat diet

I'm amazing people listen to what this foolish man has to say.

Im listening to his lecture on Cain and Abel and how to get past bitterness and he scoffed and was really dismissive of the idea that a good reason not to have children is that theres too many people, and the idea that humanity is like a virus. He thought these were stupid views. Whats so bad about people, he said. Well, they cover the earth in trash and cause most other forms of life to go extinct. Thats something not to like.

>bronze age faith
so you mean paganism?

>Well, they cover the earth in trash and cause most other forms of life to go extinct.
First, that's not true. Second, why would it even matter? What makes it so that all life forms have an intrisic right to live and we are bad for killing them?
>inb4 hurr that also applies to humans
5 seconds of thought would disprove that

he talks about harry potter too much
read another book, you goon

He hijacks and butchers Jung's and Nietzsche's works to push his ideological narratives

Judaism was practiced in the bronze age. He calls for a return to what he considers "Judaeo-christian" principals

He concedes ignorance on things he doesn't actually have authority to speak on like 20% of the time

I think its wrong to destroy something beautiful and rare that you didnt create. In the whole universe there is only one forest where a certain species of bird lives, and that forest will be cut down for a palm oil plantation so someone can stuff their face with snacks. This also takes away the right future generations have to the beauty of nature
You shouldnt get to decide that since you dont want something no one else gets to have it either
Kill yourself

imagine mindlessly repeating a shitty stormfag meme thinking its funny

For a man who claims to read as much as he does: it doesn't show in his speech or writing

I dont like that he rants about "useless" liberal arts education, while teaching an absolute meme course itself.
His maps of meaning might be interesting, but it is absolutely not college level.

Why are you still contributing to this harm then? The only reason you should stay alive is to kill others so that "nature" is preserved; otherwise you should want to kill yourself

he's on a carnivore diet and that says enough. The man doesn't understand basic science.

YOU GOTTA WASH YOUR PENIS BUCKO
youtube.com/watch?v=hDolkBP98Mg

Not that user, but it's possible for human society to exist without destroying the environment
The example bird species could be saved by legislation protecting it's habit
This isn't rocket science and it's fucking moronic to suggest that pro-environmental people kill themselves, since that would just leave the coal-burning troglodytes like you

Thats always the fallback argument. If you love nature so much why dont you kill yourself, why dont you go live in a hut in the woods. Also you make the assumption that all I care about is nature and dont want a comfortable life. What a fucking weak argument. I dont earn my money by building unnecessary buildings on clear cut land, or by manufacturing things in a quick cheap way that produces tons of trash. We could have as many people as we do now, all with decent lives, but what we would need to give up is bullshit like
Office buildings with huge lawns
New cars every year
Disgusting fast food
Everything that goes into producing normie propaganda tv
Single use plastics like drink cups bags water bottles, plastic wrappers for your plastic
We dont need all this bullshit
Kys

1. I have no fucking idea who he is.
2. I don't like people I don't know.

Right, human society can't even exist without the environment. So we won't destroy it as that would be self genocide. And I didn't suggest anything, I asked a question

Getting rid of all of those things would have a devastating impact on our civilization. We will improve things when necessary just as we've always done. Animals go extinct through nature itself, does that mean nature is harmful to nature? Didn't nature create us? How could we be wrong if we're a product of something that's always in the right?

what does basic science say?

There's nothing wrong with his message if you skim over it, once you go in depth you realize things just don't add up or are pretty crazy.
Also whenever he goes into philosophy, he makes rookie's mistakes (Nietzsche is a nihilist for example).
If you pick up anything of this, you are better just ready philosophy straight from the source, instead of this watered-down version.

I don't recall him ever calling Nietzsche a nihilist. I've heard him say that people incorrectly think that about him though

Getting rid of those things would not harm civilization it would only harm soft bitches like you who cant be fucked to reuse something or mend something thats broken and who cant wait for anything
We will not improve things, we will bury our heads in the sand like humans do until we collapse like the Mayans, from destroying the ecosystem to the point where food cant grow, or if we circumnavigate that wind up in a blade runner style hellscape where anything that is not man made has been destroyed and all thats left is shitty empty experiences like ordering dominos pizza that only mouth breathers like yourself enjoy
We alone were gifted the ability to reason, we should use it. We can think of better ways than following base animal impulses to horde as much food as we can
I do admit that sometimes I comfort myself with the idea that what we are is a force of nature, like the volcanos that covered the earth and wiped out almost all life at several points of history
What I cant understand is why you people want to live in a wasteland
Why do you want everything sterile and at 90 degree angles and have everything you see be something that was created by some twat instead of having the option at least to be around things that came into being without any human

That there are only two genders: male and female. Get used to it, bucko.

I like Jordan Peterson actually,
And am listening to him right now.

It helped cure his depression and autoimmune disease; both of which science barely understands

In his debate with David benatar, the most r9k philosopher

1/2
>Getting rid of those things would not harm civilization it would only harm soft bitches like you who cant be fucked to reuse something or mend something thats broken and who cant wait for anything
I won't even address this for obvious reasons.
>We will not improve things, we will bury our heads in the sand like humans do until we collapse like the Mayans, from destroying the ecosystem to the point where food cant grow, or if we circumnavigate that wind up in a blade runner style hellscape where anything that is not man made has been destroyed and all thats left is shitty empty experiences like ordering dominos pizza that only mouth breathers like yourself enjoy
So your examples are a failed civilization and sci-fi? I thought we didn't know what happened to the Mayans; or was that the Aztecs? Regardless, if that's what happens then that's nature because we are a product of nature.
>We alone were gifted the ability to reason, we should use it. We can think of better ways than following base animal impulses to horde as much food as we can
We do use it and we will get better over time like we have up until this point

He is a boring old man

2/2
>I do admit that sometimes I comfort myself with the idea that what we are is a force of nature, like the volcanos that covered the earth and wiped out almost all life at several points of history
I don't think natural disasters are the only things that have caused extinction, but I could be wrong. What's the difference between some environmentally created destruction and a something that nature created which causes "destruction"?
>What I cant understand is why you people want to live in a wasteland
You're fighting a battle against an absent opponent, I'm trying to understand your point of view.
>Why do you want everything sterile and at 90 degree angles and have everything you see be something that was created by some twat instead of having the option at least to be around things that came into being without any human
I don't want that just like you don't want to kill yourself

>"We want the Rick and Morty audience"

I do remember him saying that in one of his videos, which one? I dont remember
Also it should be a crime that he hasnt read or talked about Kierkegaard

I think my real problem with him is his misunderstanding of postmodernism and marxism
Also his appraisal of Christian morality when he is obvious "too intellectual" to have true faith in the Christian God.

It doesn't even account for their success because statistically there are more white geniuses than there are total Jews.
The JQ totally shreks most of his political rhetoric regarding identity politics and collectivism. Jews benefit massively from in group preferences for themselves and their community cohesion to see themselves succeed. Every racial group is benefiting from that , while at the same time he is saying whites should become more atomized and individualistic.

he wasn't referring to people like peterson, but when you really think about it its same shit different perfume

Attached: kaczynski's take.jpg (960x752, 114K)

Where does he get it wrong on marxism and where does he get it wrong on post modernism?
Being intelligent and faith in God aren't mutually exclusive by any means. That just sounds like projection or stereotyping

>Being intelligent and faith in God aren't mutually exclusive by any means.

Intelligent, no. Being rational and skeptical, yes. Plenty of intelligent people are religious, but not because of their intelligence. Any priest will readily tell you that faith is faith because it's not rationally defensible. The trick is the implication that rationality and irrationality are roughly equivalent options, when it's obvious to anyone in any other arena of thought that they aren't. Chemistry didn't inform alchemy and elevate it, it replaced it, because chemistry is correct and alchemy is wrong.

Well, a priest will readily admit it unless they're at an atheist vs theist debate event, in which case they'll pretend that ontological proofs and other sophisms are rock-solid proof of a deity's existence.

Also,
>No image replies omitted
This is terrible, post more Peterson images, there's tons of good ones.

Attached: 1533769872743.jpg (520x597, 51K)

I used to think that way as well my friend. However, faith in God and rationality are not necessarily at odds. Many things appear irrational until you take the time to learn and understand the system. The limiting factor is your knowledge. Also, let's not assume what every priest ever would have to say about faith

Attached: FB_IMG_1504205763820.jpg (640x870, 42K)

I love him because he opened the door to philosophy and psychology for me. I wouldn't have taken an interest in actually reading books in those areas and forming my own opinion if he didn't introduce me to alternative ways of thinking in a useful way.

This exactly. He's smart as hell, but even smart people can be retards sometimes

0% of people are always rational. you can be a relatively rational person and still be religious. in fact, it can be argued that deciding to be religious is more rational than remaining agnostic if it means a higher quality of life.

He reminds me I had no father figure to brainwash me into being a tradtard.

>0% of people are always rational. you can be a relatively rational person and still be religious.

It seems that implicit in your formulation of this idea is the acceptance of rationality and religiousness being opposed, as it's only when people aren't "always rational" that room for religion is created.

>in fact, it can be argued that deciding to be religious is more rational than remaining agnostic if it means a higher quality of life.

I recognize this argument, and it's an argument from utility; "I read some statistics which state that religious people have better mental health so I've decided that Muhammed was a prophet;" and of course once the reasoning is written out it seems obvious what's wrong with that argument. Nowhere else in life do we decide that things are true just because it would be preferable if they were true, but in religion, many former internet atheists and wannabe boomers think it the height of practicality to lie about what they believe to be true if it creates a strong social environment. In all other areas of human endeavor, this is called "wishful thinking" and is dismissed out of hand. Believing that the toilet will start working again if you make a sign of the cross over it is laughable, but believing that your society will start working again if you make a sign of the cross over it is considered the height of practicality.

The argument from utility, that we should be religious because it's useful, is not simply a bad argument, it's a red herring. What reality we would prefer to exist has no bearing whatsoever on what reality we discover ourselves to be in. Our beliefs match the world that our senses experience and that we discover via rational exploration, and that is the reality we must deal with. And in reality, I don't think any of you scheming utilitarians actually believe in Christianity or whatever the religion du jour is, you just think it's useful, and that maybe everyone else will be tricked.

Attached: 1516586938654.jpg (1015x725, 257K)

he gets a ton of credit for saying really simple, non profound stuff and giving really standard advice.

i got sick of his weird christian shit so i stopped listening to him

*restates what Thomas Sowell has said for the past 40 years through a shitty spiritual lense in your path* psshht Nithin personnel bucko

>It doesn't even account for their success because statistically there are more white geniuses than there are total Jews.

Because of the way bell curves work, there are more Jews in the 160+ IQ range in the US than there are white gentiles in the same range, assuming both groups have a standard deviation of 15.

Attached: jewish_distrib_comparison.png (918x119, 5K)

Regardless of whether God is or isn't real, the placebo effect of thinking that he will ultimately take care of you has real physical benefits. Believing in religion is basically free happiness and anyone who turns that down is a brainlet as far as I'm concerned.

won't call out the kikes

But that's the thing, placebos don't work if you know they're placebos. That's the whole problem you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Belief in God has important personal and societal benefits and improves social cohesion but you can't when you know it isn't true. You can't take it.

if someone has mass appeal then they're fundamentally wrong about something

Justify your reasoning.

Placebos have been shown to work even in cases where people were told they were placebos, it's pretty interesting. Also no one can know that God doesn't exist, it is literally impossible to disprove. Someone who believes that's the case is choosing to take a suboptimal stance on it.

Why do you think that nature is beautiful?
It's a horrible process in which all live forms cannibalize each other for the limited resources on earth.
For no other reason than to put other living beings in the same position.
There is no beauty in nature, no natural balance, no mother nature it is a horrible game where everyone loses.
This is basically Rousseau vs Voltaire and this notion of the "noble savage who finds his predestined place in nature" should die off, as most living beings in chaos do.
The natural state of the world is an evil that has to be fought where ever it can harm a human or something worth anything to a human.

Plus like, Pascal's wager in general

>Also no one can know that God doesn't exist, it is literally impossible to disprove

So is Russell's Teapot, but there's no good reason to believe that either. What's most devastating to a lot of these rhetorical defenses is the fact that they work for almost anything.

A wager which only makes sense when you figure that there's no actual consequences to believing in a god, which there are, and that there's only one religion to consider, which there isn't.

The nature of your trap is that you were born into an era where the field has tilted from "God could easily be real" to "the gaps for God to be in are so small it's not plausible." You want there to be religion for the benefits you perceive, but no religion is possible. So you can either hope nobody's looking at the science (everyone is), or you can try something new and earnest, based on an account of what you actually think to be true rather than an old model that you don't think is true but which you think enough other people think is true to be effective with less effort.

Attached: 1528186635987.jpg (320x218, 21K)

Russell's Teapot is pretty much irrelevant in situations where you're considering the existence of something inherently unprovable. You will (probably) never know the "real" answer, so the optimal choice is to choose the answer that makes you the happiest.

>there's no actual consequences to believing in a god, which there are

Personally I don't believe that there needs to be any consequences for believing in God. I don't think God would be angry at someone who got some unprovable religious details wrong.

>and that there's only one religion to consider
?? There is a countless number of religions, they're all just people's attempts at explaining something they don't know. I don't really care about their man-made rulebooks. I just believe in a god, accept that I know virtually nothing regarding God, and try to be a good person. I feel like that would be enough.

Pascal's wager assumes you can trick God into thinking your faith is genuine.

hes good people

>hurrr durrr doesnt mention (((them))) he is a fake fake
right, yet the only time you anons mention (((them))) is behind closed doors and online where you have zero identity. go bring up (((them))) in public and see how the masses react to you.

JP is a good man doing a good thing. there are many men out there in some serious trouble (increased suicide rates) and hes trying to help them through and evidently already has as hundreds of people have come out and shown him love and support. stop hating on the guy just because he doesnt do what you yourself are too cowardly to do. JP is a piece of the puzzle in waking humanity the fuck up and getting us back on track, you cant do that when the majority of men are falling behind and killing themselves. he is working against (((them))), their universities, and most importantly, their conditioning.

I dont understand how people dont see that he talks for 5 minutes to say something a retarded person could say in 15 seconds.

Thats wrong, I do understand. I understand completely. Following a concept for 5 minutes makes midwits feel smart.

he did it to help support his daughter who has a rare autoimmune disease, in which only a carnivore diet helps. I think he said he is not sticking to it though

Anything good he says is taken from someone else. Just read Nitzsche or Jung and you will have already heard anything important Peterson might ever say.

First point, not at all. Russell's Teapot is just one example of an infinite number of possibilities that could be true but can't be known for sure, or at least can't be disproven. Maybe if you spend your life without orgasming even once you become immortal at age 77. Ready to go all the way to 77 without orgasming based on my supposition that maybe it's true, with no evidence whatsoever that it is? But you can't disprove it!

Second point, the consequences aren't for you, they're for everyone else. If you decide Islam is what you'll bet on and you really try to follow it with the hopes that maybe you'll win the wager, that has real consequences for everyone else in the world. If you decide to martyr yourself via suicide bombing, for instance, nobody who gets vaporized would suggest that your belief in Islam made no impact on your life. Our beliefs about the world around us impact everything we do. Insofar as you really believe that Islam is true, you will be forced to act differently than you would as a disenchanted atheist.

Third point, the sheer numbers don't work out. Religions are mutually exclusive and the options so numerous that your odds are terrible. But your rebuttal to this is even worse, because you claim belief, then state that this entity is the most nebulous creature in existence, equally explained by every religion (coincidentally insulating him from all scientific and skeptical inquiry) and that you "try to be a good person." Good by what standards, the ones of the God you claim to know nothing about? How do you know what "good" is, then?

Attached: 1518076286510.jpg (2560x1440, 292K)

Nah, he tries to sell you something better.

oh fuck. gentiles BTFO again

IQ is a meme, likewise with psychology

His daughter is an internet thot.

I think sometimes he goes a little too far with his philosophy, in that he sometimes makes claims that I think are a bit beyond the scope of what he should be talking about. When he's just trying to get disillusioned men to pulling themselves back together he seems pretty innocuous. I think people on the left have blown him way out of proportion, and have probably given him more attention as a result

99% of his content is free. Calm down

Wrong

Yes, but the cutoff point for genius tier IQ is not 160.

He is sticking to it because he also has autoimune shit.

I like him. I like how he chews complex things and valuable sources and feeds them to the plebs who couldn't possibly do it on their own. It's the best way to combat marxism.