The death of a public intellectual • Hacker News Board

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#361

Post by Obscurity4340 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:03 AM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #360

Obscurity4340 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was briefly addicted to anti-depressants This is incredibly wrong and convenient. He was addicted to benzos—not anti-depressants. Benzos are anti-anxiety drugs but it is more helpful to think about them as"alcohol in a pill". Peterson is, in a sense, not distinct from an alcoholic. I'm not one to shit on drug addicts, hell, pot-kettle. But Peterson rubs me the wrong way because of his audacity in acting as if he is…

You realize Peterson was famous well before that 18 month drug addiction, correct?

Where did I say otherwise and where did I say it was relevant at all? What are you contesting here, bud?

Edit: imma help you out here. If you wanna call out something I actually said, use the > and write it

Your comment makes no sense, I never spoke to that which you raise unpredictably and unanswerably so (if thats even a real word)?

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#362

Post by JSavageOne » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:04 AM UTC

noelwelsh wrote: post #329

JSavageOne wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing you just said disputes any of what Peterson has said. The fact that you mention him being a "drug addict" (he was briefly addicted to anti-depressants after his wife got cancer) and then use words like "whining" to try to discredit him without actually addressing or disputing anything he's said shows you just have an axe to grind with no substance.

Just random stuff from Twitter, because I'm not going to waste my time on his books. "You should be a monster, an absolute monster, and then you should learn how to control it." https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/17168812447500333... Or you could just be a decent person. It's not that hard. "The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy m…

Anybody can pick a few random quotes out of context and dispute them. Keep in mind I'm not actually defending Peterson's views (I agree with some, disagree with others), I'm defending his status as a public intellectual.

My experience and history shows that women definitely tend to be more attracted to men who are competent and powerful. There is nothing misogynist about that statement. That statement does not imply that all women are the same, it's a description of a pattern that has a semblance of truth.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#363

Post by Obscurity4340 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:08 AM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #362

noelwelsh wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just random stuff from Twitter, because I'm not going to waste my time on his books. "You should be a monster, an absolute monster, and then you should learn how to control it." https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/17168812447500333... Or you could just be a decent person. It's not that hard. "The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy m…

Anybody can pick a few random quotes out of context and dispute them. Keep in mind I'm not actually defending Peterson's views (I agree with some, disagree with others), I'm defending his status as a public intellectual. My experience and history shows that women definitely tend to be more attracted to men who are competent and powerful. There is nothing misogynist about that statement. That statement does not imply…

Is his status as a public intellectual immutable or irrevokable, ever? Or does his Ph.D + tenure position ahelter him from deserved pushback on his nonsense and grifting in perpetuity?

When he starts talking stupid, am I to defer to his "public intellectual" status and not only turn off my brain and logic and common sense and/or suspend judgment forever or would that still be ok and would you respond well to an invitation to join me in doing so?

Edit: how many stupid things or over how long a period of uninterrupted time does it take for you to at least reexamine your views? Like this advocacy is as illogical as it is manipulatively and fiercely incorrect on a factual and qualitative basis jointly :/

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#364

Post by emmelaich » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:12 AM UTC

RationalDino wrote: post #278

blueflow wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

95% of times when i hear about Peterson, its someone trying to discredit him. Then i go to Youtube, search for what Peterson said about $topic, and can't find shit that i would even bother about. This stuff is getting creepy. Where is all the dislike coming from?

What you are experiencing is called "the controversy bait-and-switch". Peterson is a master of it. What he does is say something designed to look like a dog whistle to get people upset. Then when challenged on it, he say something reasonable to pull in fans. Then he says something else which is designed to be misunderstood, and repeats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwSDqJAum8&t=244s explains it, and shows an actu…

I never thought "enforced monogamy" to be a reference to laws, because that is absurd. I always thought it meant socially enforced, and then not even by any particular sex.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#365

Post by Obscurity4340 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:37 AM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #271

virtualritz wrote: post #211

It's noteworthy but sadly not surprising[1], that someone like Peterson is listed as an 'intellectual'. This man talks like ChatGPT when asked to clad a text of the most basic ideas, frequently completely missing the point, into sophisticated-sounding language. The other names tell me nothing; but having the former in the list kept me from looking up the latter. [1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellec…

Even if you disagree with him Jordan Peterson is absolutely a public intellectual. Anyone who has been so publicly outspoken with such an enormous following and made a dent in the universe is absolutely a public intellectual. Just because you disagree with his views (none of which you've disputed in your vague criticism) doesn't dispute that.

None of this specifically points to status as an intellectual btw. By your logic, Trump is a public intellectual...

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#366

Post by Obscurity4340 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:38 AM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #268

amazingman wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 5% of the time the discrediting is legitimate, then that should be enough to generate dislike for the man. If the 5% was rhetorical and it's really 0%, then you're not actually paying attention for reasons you should investigate. JBP is not a well man. Not physically, not morally, not ethically, and not spiritually.

If you were publicly outspoken on all of your views across all facets of life (eg. controversial topics, personal topics like relationships) with thousands of hours of content online, there would be plenty of people who strongly disagree with you and to use your words "dislike" you. The other way that's not possible is if you're not actually taking a stance on anything.

But what if they were correct or at they weren't completely wrong?

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#367

Post by Obscurity4340 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:40 AM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #358

dralley wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he was briefly addicted to anti-depressants That is a very severe understatement. He was so badly addicted to benzos (for years) that he ended up going to Russia to have himself put into a weeks-long medically-induced coma to go cold-turkey, which resulted in brain damage. (He insisted on that course of action, which Western doctors refused to go along with, for obvious reasons). That left him unable to walk or spea…

He was addicted for 18 months, but he was famous well before this. In any case none of this has any relevance to his status as a public intellectual.

Why is fame relevant at all to this discussion? What is this fixation with "his fame" as a sort of dialectical deus ex machina you keep using it to escape simple unfavorable discussion with respect to Mr. Peterson? (I used the word respect in the same sentence, see? We good?) Can he grab anyone's pussy also?

Edit: also, does he say it was antidepressants? Anyone got the transcripts of podcast episodes where Jordan Peterson lies about being addicted to benzodiazepines/benzos and instead suggests they were antidepressants? I wish Klonopin was an anti-depressant yo, although im also glad thats absurd and truly not the case for my own sake

Edit: help your man Peterson out? Did you purposefully lie or understate the publicly known and available information regarding the nature of his addiction? Was he maybe cleaning his room so thoroughly to find lost drugs Junkie Jesus style? I wanna believe you but my brain can't just lay down its arms and allow this kinda explicit foolishness or deception.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#368

Post by Obscurity4340 » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:41 AM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #359

Angostura wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing you just said disputes any of what Peterson has said I thought it addressed it fairly directly: * gives mediocre-at-best self-help advice * goes around whining about wokenes * saying hateful things I suppose we should add add that he claims to speak authoritatively about subjects well out of the areas of his expertise.

Amazing, you've managed to meaningfully discredit thousands of hours of content and a couple books in a couple flippant sentences /s

> Join the club

—Bible/"God"

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#369

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 6:53 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #350

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a political agenda if it's verifiable fact? When someone says 2+2=4 is that political?

'...in the Scandinavian countries, where attempts to produce gender-equal societies has reached a maximum' Is not a verifiable fact. It's just a political opinion, used in conjunction with a verifiable fact, to smuggle a political argument into a 'scientific' personality test.

it's been studied and the statistics are clear.

Re: The death of a public intellectual

#370

Post by noelwelsh » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 7:07 AM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #362

noelwelsh wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just random stuff from Twitter, because I'm not going to waste my time on his books. "You should be a monster, an absolute monster, and then you should learn how to control it." https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/17168812447500333... Or you could just be a decent person. It's not that hard. "The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy m…

Anybody can pick a few random quotes out of context and dispute them. Keep in mind I'm not actually defending Peterson's views (I agree with some, disagree with others), I'm defending his status as a public intellectual. My experience and history shows that women definitely tend to be more attracted to men who are competent and powerful. There is nothing misogynist about that statement. That statement does not imply…

1. I'm responding to

"Nothing you just said disputes any of what Peterson has said. ... try[ing] to discredit him without actually addressing or disputing anything he's said shows you just have an axe to grind with no substance."

Nothing there about his status as a public intellectual.

2. "Anybody can pick a few random quotes out of context and dispute them." These are tweets he sent on Twitter, not replies to other people. There is no more context. There is a high density of this crap on his twitter feed. At the time I looked, the quoted tweets were in position 4, 8, and 17 on his feed. I could have disputed more of them but those were the easiest to address.

3. There is a difference in between "women definitely tend to be more attracted" and "Women deeply want". If Peterson meant the former he should take his own advice and be more precise in his choice of words. Similarly if I've misinterpreted his other tweets, that's on him for not providing more context. He's not new to this game. (And this is, apparently, one of his rhetorical tactics. There is link in another comment to "bait and switch".)