I disagree with a lot of what he says, and don't care about much of it, but he's not a very stupid man just because you disagree with him. The only reason people get so riled up about him is that he's fairly intelligent. He has his faults, but an inability to admit mistake or flaws or that he's wrong or could be wrong is not one of them (unlike, say, Trump, Shapiro, Fox, etc).
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
he's a stupid man because he's constantly saying very stupid things, i.e dragons exist
You can be fairly intelligent and really fecking stupid.
Neve study psychoanalytical psychotherapy. You’ll be constantly telling your lecturers how stupid they are (full disclosure: those thoughts did occur to me when I studied it)
https://www.quora.com/If-you-could-...riend-or-husband-Why/answer/Jordan-B-PetersonPeterson said:
oh man he's so clever
I'd forgotten about the Quora answers.
I don't know if this has been posted already but here's another video for you Peterson-Harris-Rubin-Weinstein haters to get your teeth into. And for those of you that appreciate their views and eloquence, enjoy!
Oh man, at this rate we'll find out he also has a history degreePeterson said:
the cleverest
I wonder how much time silva and eboue spend trawling through the tweets of - in their opinion - a very very stupid man?
It's not an interesting thought. It's misogynist horseshit that reduces women to their reproductive abilities.
Why does it matter? I'm not arsed enough to do it but doesn't mean I can't appreciate the effort. The same applies to Trump tweets. Are the people who trawls his Twitter feeds to expose his stupidity and hypocrisy no lifers?
Well Trump is the POTUS...
In fairness, you have made quite a remarkable amount of posts in this thread about our Jordan, sort of defending him, when you think he's a wally yourself. So, I mean, we all have our own ways of wasting time.
EDIT - I probably should've just gone with 'we all have many thousands of posts on a football forum' to be honest.
The thing is it takes a matter of seconds to find Peterson being either misogynist, transphobic, scientifically illiterate, historically revisionist or going on about dragons and witches being real, the difficulty is deciding which to highlight.
It happened long before he was POTUS.
I enjoy arguing about silly shit on here (as you may have noticed!) I don’t think I’d enjoy trawling through the twitter history of someone I consider “dumb dumb dumb”.
To play devil's advocate Trump's tweets are from a man who is the President and further reaching ramifications. Although some tweets speak for themselves, others require a tad more explanation as to why it is or wrong or you disagree with it. People elsewhere add commentary or argue with what Trump and Peterson say, but in this thread a lot of what I have seen is just tweets dumped randomly, even on a Peterson and co. enjoying a meal out which somehow enrages people.
This for example doesn't require an explanation as his assertion that anything written to serve a political purpose is only propaganda is wrong. There are is a lot of politically charged music that I would consider art.
It does?
What’s “laughable” about this tweet? Seems to be a link to an academic journal. The link doesn’t work but I’m guessing it was research on IQ and semen quality. What aspect tickled your funny bone? Did you even notice the link doesn’t work?
It's inherently funny to see such a stupid person talk about the relation of intelligence and semen. It would be like Donald Trump talking about the link between a healthy diet or exercise and semen quality.
Does Donald Trump have any academic qualifications or peer-reviewed publications in the field of clinical psychology? If we’re throwing around “stupid” then your analogy ticks all the boxes.
He doesn't do press conferences very often which is why people rely on his tweets to glean policy. If he did public Q&A lectures, long podcasts etc then there may be the beginnings of a legitimate comparison.
Youtube and podcasts in general yes. They allow ideas to get fully fleshed out for more than forums, twitter and the like.
To any interested observer, he is quite obviously not a stupid person. To say that he is says more about you than you seem to realise.
The man believes in witches and dragons. He has the intellectual capacity of a particularly dumb 7 year old who watches the cartoon network all day.
If the premise that hes above average intelligence or he has interesting points to make can be so easily disproven by the things he actually says and does then what does that say? You and raoul and chutney act like we are posting about how he didnt tip the waitress in 1987. This guy is supposed to be public intellectual and yet a huge amount of the things he says in public are either extremely stupid or not thought about for more than 30 seconds. The video where he literally hadn't considered the existence of the civil rights movement is a good example. The emperor has no clothes.
It's probably due to the suspicion that the people who are cherrypicking his quotes out of context are spending an inordinate amount of time attempting to discredit him to people who are already not fans of his, but are still open to listening to the entirely of his schtick for entertainment purposes or to perhaps help add a bit of contrast to their own existing ideas about some of the topics he discusses.
I literally found all of these (and more, there's a limit on tweets in one post) in 15 minutes when I originally posted them. If we are supposed to view someone as a public intellectual, it would help if he didn't constantly give us evidence to the contrary.
Posting a tweet isn't cherrypicking his views out of context. It's a direct statement made by him that makes his views clear, especially when a lot of those tweets begin to relate to each other.
I get that it can be annoying when some posters automatically dismiss certain ideas or people out-of-hand, but at the same time I think it's sometimes quite good to cut the shite and get to the point. Silva and Eboue, whatever you think of their approach, are ultimately highlighting that Peterson says a lot of stupid stuff for a supposedly very intelligent academic.
Instead of telling us that we're decontextualising all of this why not add the context? We've given dozens of examples of Peterson being dumb as a rock, are there dozens of examples of his intellectual prowess shining through?
Why don't you instead take one of his recent public talks on youtube and assess the things you agree or disagree with and we can have a debate about it. That would take the cherrypicking and taking out of context issues off the table.
I have, it's like Kermit was possessed by a a misogynistic character in a tolkien book. What would be the point in fleshing out an argument when simply quoting him verbatim does a better job of exposing that he's a charlatan.