Jordan Peterson can’t see any holes in his argument


But I can!

The Bible is true in a very strange way. It’s true in that it provides the basis for truth itself. And so it’s like a metatruth, without it there couldn’t even be the possibility of truth. And so maybe that’s the most true thing, the most true thing isn’t some truth per se. It’s that which provides the precondition for all judgements of truth. I can’t see any holes in that argument. And I can’t see any holes in it from a scientific perspective either, because I think we do know well enough now as scientists that the problem of deriving ethical direction from the collection of facts is an intractable problem.

Oh, yeah, the familiar is/ought problem. I agree with the last sentence above, but what I don’t see is Peterson’s solution. So we should derive ethical direction from a collection of contradictory, incoherent myths in a specific holy book? Why should I accept the precondition of the Bible’s rules instead of some other holy book, or instead of a framework of empiricism? That’s all he’s saying, is that ethical action requires a standpoint and a goal, but he doesn’t even try to justify the mish-mash of primitive ideas in the Bible as that good perspective needed to drive ethical behavior.

Why should I consider the ravings of a Jungian weirdo with bizarre dietary beliefs to be representative of a “scientific perspective”?

In his tweet, he seems to be claiming that “the west” should have a different precondition for truth than the rest of the world. Is this relativism? Or maybe it’s post-modernism. I have no idea what philosophical mumbo-jumbo he’s drawing this claim from — I think it might just be what you get emerging from a drug-addled, overly-entitled brain.

Nice suit, though. It drapes well even when its contents are empty.

Comments

  1. mathman85 says

    Peterson seems to be a Rorschach test in human form—one takes away what one wishes from his inane ramblings. For instance, I find him to be an insufferable clod who nonetheless is frighteningly good at saying nothing substantive while speaking for hours on end.

  2. hemidactylus says

    Given at least some of it in the Mosaic parts is based on command morality “the Bible” relies largely upon shall or shall not instead of a bridging between is and ought. Ought is fairly mild compared to what seems more akin to must found in command morality.

    Secular theorists such as WD Ross have even gotten beyond that narrow deontology of Kant’s categorical imperative with the more pluralistic prima facie duties. Even beyond Sam Harris’s silly fMRI tube eudaimonia.

    Why do simpletons gravitate toward Peterson and Harris?

    Remember Peterson asserted this nonsense in 12 Rules for Life: “You might object, “But I’m an atheist.” No, you’re not (and if you want to understand this, you could read Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, perhaps the greatest novel ever written, in which the main character, Raskolnikov, decides to take his atheism with true seriousness, commits what he has rationalized as a benevolent murder, and pays the price). You’re simply not an atheist in your actions, and it is your actions that most accurately reflect your deepest beliefs—those that are implicit, embedded in your being, underneath your conscious apprehensions and articulable attitudes and surface-level self-knowledge.”

  3. Akira MacKenzie says

    The only “ethics” found in the Bible are a list of do-or-die commandments (I’m just just talking about the big 10) that don’t have any justification as for why an act is immoral and are indicative of the misogynistic, xenophobic, Bronze Age patriarchy that wrote them. There is no room for nuance. No explanation. Just “These rules come from Gawd! Obey them or we’ll stone you to death.”

    Sorry Jordy. I prefer to get my morality from people who didn’t treat women like cattle and knew what germs were. I certainly won’t get them from a bootlicking fascist academic like yourself.

  4. houseplant says

    Peterson’s arguments are a logical mush. It is still important to study the Bible as whether wrong or right it gives insight into the way people thought in Europe during much of the last two thousand years. Books do not have to be true to be important and worth reading. You could say the same for the Koran or Communist Manifesto.

  5. raven says

    In the west, the Bible is the precondition for truth.

    No it isn’t.
    That was easy.

    FWIW, Jordan Peterson looks pretty unhealthy in that picture.
    He is 59 and looks a whole lot older than that. He is aging fast but not well.

  6. Chris J says

    What is this weird world where “truth” and “facts” are non-overlapping magisteria? “Truth” can’t only mean “ethical direction,” right? That’s not how the word is normally used. When I ask “wait, is that statement true,” I’m not asking about whether it will help me live a more fulfilling and moral life! Usually…
    And that’s not even touching the idea that the bible of all things is a solid foundation for ethics.

  7. Artor says

    If there’s no holes in his argument, it’s only because he’s not even wrong. He’s spouting meaningless gibberish again.

  8. says

    If the moral preceots in the bible were preceeded with “listen up” and “here’s why” it’d be called The Book of Good Ideas except you’d have to add some good ideas.

  9. rorschach says

    I don’t know that man, but he seems to be confusing truth with ethics/moral behaviour. The Mesopotamians were brewing beer and moral behaviour 5000 years before these goatherder myths were cobbled together, edited and re-edited. “The woman taken in adultery” for example is a fake story added to the text in the 11th century iirc, I don’t know any Christians who are actually aware of this, certainly Hollywood isn’t.

  10. says

    …the problem of deriving ethical direction from the collection of facts is an intractable problem.

    That’s not even close to being an “intractable problem.” We can collect facts about (among other things) what actions are predictably beneficial to people and other creatures, and which are predictably harmful; and then label the former “good” and the latter “bad.” There’s your ethical direction. And yes, it does get more complicated from that starting-point, but that’s how most people derive ethical direction (with, of course, varying degrees of honesty and competence) in a complex universe.

  11. Akira MacKenzie says

    I also take issue with the whole “you can’t get an ought from an is” argument. Sure you can. For example.

    IS: “Climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels will make life–including human life–as we know it unlivable.”

    OUGHT: “In order to survive, we ought to stop the use of fossil fuels.”

    There. That was easy.

  12. Dunc says

    “This isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction! ”

    [“Yes it is” / “No it isn’t” / etc]

  13. says

    Nice suit, though.

    He’s obviously going for the “cultured real man from a bygone era” look. It’s part of his overall pretense of being a wise father-figure bringing authentic old-school manly wisdom to the kids these days. And hoo-boy, is that word-salad ever a lot of pretense — it’s perfectly obvious he’s spouting recycled apologetics to pander to a pseudo-intellectual right-wing-Christian audience.

    And I also noticed how his blithering about “The West” is starting to dovetail with “great replacement” rhetoric, much of which PZ has noted in earlier posts. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

  14. says

    @Raging Bee #12
    Your choice of labels doesn’t derive from the facts, though, but from the goal you set when evaluating the facts. The facts didn’t decide that harm and benefit was the important thing. You did.

    @Akira MacKenzie #13
    Counter-argument:
    IS: “Climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels will make life–including human life–as we know it unlivable.”
    OUGHT: “In order to eliminate mankind, we ought to ramp up the use of fossil fuels.”

    I think we just need to accept that ethical goals are subjective and that’s okay. As I see it, taking responsibility for which goals you set is the point.

  15. says

    I can’t see any holes in that argument.

    I can’t see any holes in yesterday’s empty hot-dog wrapper either. But it’s still going out with the rest of the trash.

  16. flex says

    I’m not even certain I agree with the last sentence.

    Fact: I feel pain when poked with a needle. I don’t like it.
    Fact: My wife reports that she feels pain when poked with a needle. She doesn’t like it.

    Conclusion: Both my wife and I don’t like it when poked by a needle.
    Ethical position: I shouldn’t poke my wife with a needle.

    Sure, the initial facts could be argued with. Maybe there are places on my body where I don’t feel pain when poked by a needle. Maybe my wife is lying to me. Maybe measuring nerve responses would quantify how much pain. But all those things are just trying to clarify and refine the initial facts. The ethical direction given these facts, and no other facts, is consistent.

    Now, you could add additional facts:

    Fact: Vaccinations require injection of a vaccine into my wife’s body by using a needle.
    Fact: A vaccination can reduce the impact (or in some cases eliminate) the effects of contracting an infectious disease which could temporarily or permanently disable or even kill my wife.
    Fact: The disease being vaccinated against is likely to last longer and create more pain than being poked with a needle.

    This changes the ethical position. It becomes ethical to encourage my wife to accept the temporary pain of a needle in order to gain the longer-term benefits of vaccination (even if it is not permanent and needs regular needle pricks causing pain).

    At very stage, the facts lead to an ethical position.

    All that being said, additional facts can change the ethical position. We make ethical decisions all the time based on partial information. We are generally fairly charitable to people who are ignorant of facts which would change their ethical position. We are also generally uncharitable to people who are shown the facts, and ignore them.

    Then there are numerous ethical problems, created specifically to explore ethical positions, which have no clear answer regardless of the facts. There certainly are ethical problems which are intractable to any collection of facts.

    But there are a lot of ethical problems where a collection of facts will lead to an ethical direction. Not all ethical positions are intractable.

  17. says

    Your choice of labels doesn’t derive from the facts, though, but from the goal you set when evaluating the facts. The facts didn’t decide that harm and benefit was the important thing. You did.

    Yes, I did, based on the observable facts of what is beneficial or harmful to me and others. The “choice of labels” is based on both facts and goals — and those goals are, in fact, shared so uniformly, by such an overwhelming majority of people (and less-sentient creatures as well) as to be, for all practical purposes, objective facts on the ground, in and of themselves.

  18. Akira MacKenzie says

    @ 16

    It might follow, but you have to be an absolute sociopath to come to that conclusion.

  19. divineconspiracy667 says

    @21 – Or an oil company executive. But those might be one and the same.

  20. says

    The Bible is true in a very strange way. And when I say true, I mean false. It’s all lies. But they’re beautiful lies, and isn’t that really a greater kind of truth?
    The answer…is no.

  21. raven says

    And I also noticed how his blithering about “The West” is starting to dovetail with “great replacement” rhetoric, much of which PZ has noted in earlier posts. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    Peterson is a routine, garden variety racist.
    He is a huge fan of Douglas Murray, the creep discussed yesterday on Pharyngula.

    The War on the West | Douglas Murray & Jordan Petersonhttps://www.youtube.com › watch

    PREVIEW
    1:51:34
    Douglas Murray is the associate editor of The Spectator and the bestselling author of seven books, including The Strange Death

  22. StevoR says

    @ ^ feralboy12 : A mysterious way?

    Like a nonsensical just believe it becoz they say so kinda way?

    An it-actually-doesn’t-make-sense-but-we’re-gunna-say-it-does-anyhow -&-ya-hafta-lump-it way?

  23. raven says

    An Evening with Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson & Douglas Murray https://www.theo2.co.uk › Events
    See Sam Harris live at The O2, the world’s most popular music and entertainment venue. Find Sam Harris tickets, event details and more.

    Here is a black hole of racism, hate, and stupidity.

    Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Douglas Murray all in one place.

  24. says

    …those goals are, in fact, shared so uniformly, by such an overwhelming majority of people (and less-sentient creatures as well) as to be, for all practical purposes, objective facts on the ground, in and of themselves.

    Are they, though? I mean, sure, you can get most people to agree that they don’t like pain, but why does that imply anything about whether we should inflict pain? After all, if you’re the one tied to the chair and I’m the one with the jumper cables, you’re not going to hurt me. My goal is satisfied before we even start.
    So, we’re relying on some kind of implicit social contract: If I leave you alone, your friends will leave me alone. Is that ethics? Because it’s starting to sound a lot like “might makes right”.
    And then we get to the part where “It’s okay if I can get away with it” is also a very widely shared opinion. Does that make it ethical?

    I guess I just don’t really see where we get to the “ought”, without smuggling it in through the back. In fact, the more I’m thinking about it, the less I’m clear on what it even means. That seems to happen a lot on subjects like this.
    Is there ethics that don’t just come down to “let’s please all just agree to this or the killing will start again”?

  25. says

    @Akira MacKenzie
    But that’s my point. The “ought” didn’t come from the “is”. It came from you.

  26. PaulBC says

    I can’t see any holes in that argument.

    I can’t see any argument in that word salad. “It’s like a metatruth.” Really? Is it a metatruth or just like one? How is the Bible “meta”? It consists mostly of ordinary assertions rather than assertions about how to interpret truth. An actual “argument” would have to address points like this before you could look for holes in it.

    If he’s saying he accepts the Bible axiomatically, that’s his choice, but he hasn’t given any justification.

    Why do people take this man seriously?

  27. raven says

    Why do people take this man seriously?

    LOL. They don’t.

    Peterson is just another right wingnut.
    He is reflecting and selling right wing hate back to people for money.
    His peer group are people like Rush Limpbrain, Ann Coulter, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Franklin Graham, or any Fox NoNews talking head.

    As has already been pointed out, his comments about the bible and truth are gibberish.

  28. PaulBC says

    hemidactylus@2 I enjoyed reading Crime and Punishment back in high school, but Peterson’s take-away is surprising for a psychologist. Most people (myself included) would feel guilt or at least anxiety after carrying out premeditated murder even if they had reasoned their way into a justification for it. People acclimated to killing or sociopaths might be able to brush it off. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief and everything to do with mental state.

  29. PaulBC says

    feralboy12@23

    And when I say true, I mean false.

    Yes! Peterson’s rant sounds like it belongs in one of the Alice books.

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

  30. whheydt says

    Re: Marcus Ranum @ #10…
    You might enjoy reading Graydon Saunder’s The March North. At one point the viewpoint character notes that he is not the kind of person that confuses “listen up” with “attention to orders”.

  31. birgerjohansson says

    OT
    Wales introduces proportional representation. 😊
    Not directly related to the drivel from Peterson, but you aĺl deserve some good news.
    This specific part of the English-speaking world has realised the antiquated first-past-the-post system favors the Theft & Incompetence Party and is changing the system.

  32. PaulBC says

    I think we do know well enough now as scientists that the problem of deriving ethical direction from the collection of facts is an intractable problem.

    What ‘we’? Does Peterson fancy himself a scientist? He gave up any claim to that long ago.

    I judge my choices almost entirely on the effect of my behavior on other sentient beings, mostly humans, but including animals as well (and hypothetically AI and extraterrestrials). I say almost because I could see some hypothetical actions as “wrong” (the destruction of antiquities that no other living person knows about). But the serious cases nearly always affect other sentients or for that matter human beings, so this is good enough for establishing a practical moral compass. Let me get this one working and I’ll see if I need to enhance it later.

    The “facts” can’t tell me that these ethics are correct, but observation actually can identify the impact of my actions on others, ignoring solipsist objections, it can generally be determined if I am harming others’ right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. In fact science can to provide a direction. Even the axiomatic assumption of improving happiness, while not justified by science, is in keeping with human nature. While most people like to get what they want, most people also enjoy having a positive impact on their community. It’s innate, and the reward and punishment is right here among the living.

    The theist assumption seems to be that if I did not have a rule book to restrict behavior and extrinsic reward and punishment, that the only outcome would be selfish behavior that harms others. There is a lot of projection going on here. In my view, it is usually the non-empathy based rules that are used to get around commonsense good behavior (genocide based on religious claims, “honor killings”). It is really not that hard at all to figure out if you’re causing harm. In fact, it is science and not religion that can uncover harm such as effect of your actions on the ecology that are not obvious.

  33. says

    After all, if you’re the one tied to the chair and I’m the one with the jumper cables, you’re not going to hurt me.

    Just because you choose to disregard a rule, doesn’t make it any less based on facts. Lots of people ignore well-known facts, but that doesn’t make them any less true.

    So, we’re relying on some kind of implicit social contract: If I leave you alone, your friends will leave me alone. Is that ethics? Because it’s starting to sound a lot like “might makes right”.

    Actually, that’s more like the opposite: right making might, and might ENFORCING right, when people agree to support a set of rules for mutual benefit.

    I guess I just don’t really see where we get to the “ought”, without smuggling it in through the back.

    I’m not sure how you can say that, when I’ve stated UP FRONT how we get to the “ought.” That sounds just fucking ridiculous.

  34. cag says

    You all have it wrong. How can you argue with a book that truthfully instructs us that the earth was created before the sun, moon, planets and universe. How can you not see the truth that all celestial bodies are in a firmament and revolve around the never moving earth? How can you deny that the stars will all fall to the earth? How can you overlook the indisputable fact that from a tall tree you can see the four corners of the earth? How can you overlook the obvious truth of the talking serpent? What kind of ass would dispute the truth of Balaam’s donkey?
    Re-sin you penters.

  35. PaulBC says

    Maybe we never get to “ought.”

    E.g., I can accept that a person may carry out serial murders, causing untold harm to others, feel happy and pleased with themselves in the process, staying clever enough to elude law enforcement, and due to the nonexistence of an afterlife, never suffer any negative consequences. Or to make it concrete, think of someone like Joseph Mengele dying peacefully in Brazil.

    I still don’t want to be that person. I don’t want my kids to be that person either, so I use whatever parental influence I have to make them more like me and less like Joseph Mengele. Likewise, I may try to influence those not in my care. Also, I don’t think it’s even very difficult, because people generally enjoy having a positive influence on others. People are selfish too, and the key is finding a comfortable and compassionate balance.

    In fact, I don’t classify any of the above as “ought” with reward and punishment associated with it. It is, rather, “pursuit of happiness.” I make choices in life that I am comfortable with, and I am far more comfortable with the choices that cause less harm to others. I find that within those constraints I can still have a happy and personally fulfilling life.

    It is no more about having a philosophical basis than having a basis for planting peppers rather than petunias in some garden plot. We are free to choose, and there is no reason to reason to believe that every free human being must become a monster. In fact, I think monsters are usually made by adherence to rules based on something other than simple empathy.

  36. PaulBC says

    PaulBC@40 I should note that there is also a basis for establishing laws and criminal penalties. These are more pragmatic than philosophical and least at the broadest level emerge somewhat consistently in human society based on notions of fairness. (This is tricky because obviously societies may differ on concepts as fundamental to law as the idea of “property”.)

  37. laurian says

    I kinda feel sorry for Peterson because in his social network of family, friends and colleagues, no one cares enough to stop him from making a complete ass of himself in public. No one says, “Dude, I love you but you gotta chill.”

  38. says

    @31: there are people who take him seriously. They’re the same people who think Joe Rogan is somehow a “deep thinker” and “philosopher”. In other words, mostly fedora wearing dude bros.

  39. PaulBC says

    laurian@42

    No one says, “Dude, I love you but you gotta chill.”

    “Dude I love you but I need to put you into a medically induced coma.”

    That one has been tried and proved sadly ineffective.

  40. KG says

    Yes, I did, based on the observable facts of what is beneficial or harmful to me and others. The “choice of labels” is based on both facts and goals — and those goals are, in fact, shared so uniformly, by such an overwhelming majority of people (and less-sentient creatures as well) as to be, for all practical purposes, objective facts on the ground, in and of themselves. – Raging Bee@119

    You can consider the Republican Party, Fox News, Vladimir Putin and his popularity in Russia, the 42% vote for Marine Le Pen, Nahendra Modi’s electoral victories… and still believe that? Bless!

  41. says

    @45: The goals I’m speaking of are seeking benefit and avoiding harm — basic desires/needs/instincts common to all animals. I’m pretty sure all of the people supporting all of the evils you speak of share those goals, at least for themselves and their immediate families. The difference is in how much people know, how far into the future they’re able to see or plan, how broadly they’re able and willing to think of others, and the prejudices they bring to their thinking.

  42. says

    @Raging Bee #38

    Just because you choose to disregard a rule, doesn’t make it any less based on facts.

    But the rule isn’t a fact, only the desire for one. Whether the rule matters depends on who’s enforcing it. That’s why, as long as I’m strong enough, I can in fact ignore it.

    I could just claim that you’re ignoring my rule of “LykeX is in charge of everything”. Who gets to decide what the rules are? Why should I agree to your rule, when you’re the one tied to the chair? A “rule” that I can defy with no consequence isn’t much of one, is it?
    That’s why I’m asking what “ought” means. If it means anything other than “I’ll make you”, please explain.

    Actually, that’s more like the opposite: right making might, and might ENFORCING right, when people agree to support a set of rules for mutual benefit.

    Right making might is wishful thinking. Might enforcing right is just the words of a dictator. People agreeing to enforce a set of rules for mutual benefit is the Holocaust, as long as they agree that those people don’t count.

    I’m not sure how you can say that, when I’ve stated UP FRONT how we get to the “ought.”

    Clearly, I’m implying that you’re smuggling in the back. I.e. assuming it without acknowledging that you’re doing so. I’m not claiming that you’re being dishonest; just that you’re jumping ahead without realizing it.
    Perhaps you can explain things in ludicrously simple and pedantic terms. That sometimes helps.

  43. birgerjohansson says

    “Seeking benefit and avoiding harm”
    You have been brain-washed by the librul atheist-satanist communist-nazis! A reel patriot does things the opposite way around.

  44. says

    PaulBC #40

    I still don’t want to be that person. I don’t want my kids to be that person either…

    That’s something I find very interesting about ethics; the balance between personal conviction and social engagement. I think that may be a part of where these discussions sometimes go off the track. Ethics is about how people relate to each other, but it’s also intensely personal and subjective.

  45. Akira MacKenzie says

    @ 43

    I’m reasonably certain that Jordy only got any press after his transphobic tizzy-fit a few years back. His claims that the sexually deviant are going to legally force us to acknowledge their perversions made him a hero amongst the fascists. If he hadn’t, he’d just be another obscure right-wing scold.

  46. KG says

    I’m pretty sure all of the people supporting all of the evils you speak of share those goals, at least for themselves and their immediate families. – Raging Bee@46

    Yes (or at least, for themselves), but you talked of:

    what is beneficial or harmful to me and others

    (my emphasis). But the examples I quoted show that many people have as a core motivation doing harm to (a large subset of) others. We can talk about how they got that way, what might change them or at least their children, and I don’t believe it’s inevitable that so many people are like that, but currently, they are. And there’s no collection of facts from which it can be logically deduced that they are in error. I don’t consider that moral judgments are merely the expression of subjective preferences (as for chocolate over strawberry ice-cream), because (like judgments about the good or bad qualities of works of art) they can be rationally criticised and defended, but nor are they statements of objective truth.

  47. birgerjohansson says

    Methinks Peterson would not speak so highly of Bahavadgita, or the koran. As for precondition of rules, Confucius’ analects served as de facto state ideology for the Chinese empire for two millennia yet Peterson ignores the writings of Confucius and his rival Lao-Tze.

  48. DanDare says

    The Is of Ought
    Our evolved biology sets foundational desires. Stay alive, avoid harm, have sex, care for your children, look after familly.
    Those things that “just is” set the framework for our most basic “oughts”.
    The bible has nothing to do with it at all.

  49. PaulBC says

    KG@51

    I don’t consider that moral judgments are merely the expression of subjective preferences (as for chocolate over strawberry ice-cream), because (like judgments about the good or bad qualities of works of art) they can be rationally criticised and defended, but nor are they statements of objective truth.

    I agree, but it’s also true that moral judgments, even those of ethics professors, don’t show up in consequences. People get away with evil (which I’m comfortable identifying and naming) all the time. They may do so in a way that evades legal consequences as well. In fact, the worst perpetrators often do.

    So I wonder how much “ought” even matters. I think for many people, the main purpose is to find a way to rationalize an atrocity. E.g., “ought” the US have dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I recall this as a subject of heated debates for years, as if the conclusion makes any difference. No resolution negates the existence of many innocent victims, nor conversely provides compelling evidence for a happier alternative (a demonstration bombing, an invasion with relatively few casualties, a capitulation for some other reason). In war, people use the weapons available to them, and my desire to sleep soundly doesn’t mean that if I work hard enough I can find an “ethical” basis for dropping an atom bomb on civilians. It also doesn’t mean that if I work hard enough, I can come up with a practical alternative to war and get everyone to follow it.

    Art can be criticized, and someone can disagree with my preference for Miro over Mondrian (who seems very sterile to me). If they know enough about art, they can probably persuade me by the end of it, that I have poor taste. At the same time, this is a different kind of discussion than whether I’m entitled to hot wire a car I like and drive off with it. One thing they have in common is that after I die, nobody will hold me accountable for either artistic taste or automobile theft. Also, back to the point, another thing they have in common is that the Bible isn’t a great guide to either question.

  50. PaulBC says

    me@54 I was just thinking it would be interesting to have an afterlife in which you were instantly forgiven for all your transgressions against other human beings but held accountable for your atrocious taste in art or music.

    This could be made into a consistent religious belief, e.g. supposing a supreme being who was an aesthete and sought only the most worthy admirers for eternity. I doubt it it would be a very popular cult though.

  51. canadiansteve says

    Sadly, the most likely candidate for the Conservative Party here in Canada has recently endorsed Jordan Peterson. Given the current political climate this man (Pierre Poilievre) is likely to be the next prime minster of Canada. fuck

  52. nomdeplume says

    “Jordan Peterson can’t see any holes in his argument” – the first three words would have been sufficient.

  53. says

    @50: I wish. Our manager at Costco set up a little lounge in the break room, replete with chairs, a couch, a faux fireplace, and a bookshelf. On that bookshelf? Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules.

    Ugh. 🤦

  54. hemidactylus says

    @57- gijoel

    Shouldn’t there be some sort of moral constraint where practicing psychologists aren’t throwing marginalized people under the bus? Couldn’t he have just apologized for being an asshole?

  55. hemidactylus says

    I think I can refute a self-styled guru of psychology by merely pointing out the tag (however objectifying) BBW is there. I guess he doesn’t account for variation in proclivity or preference amongst individuals. I wonder if he could alienate some of his fanbase (excluding incels and MGTOWs) with this weight or body frame biased nonsense?

    No Sir Mixalot I’m not going to link your video about being ample.

  56. gijoel says

    @60 He has Arseburger’s syndrome: a condition where it is impossible for the suffer to say the word “Sorry”. Why can’t people be more compassionate to the unfortunate, elderly, white, males that suffer from this terrible disease. /s

  57. says

    Apparently JP didn’t actually leave Twitter — he just told his help to change his password so he wouldn’t be tempted to go back and goad people for more attention. Dude’s not even tough enough to flounce right.

    And what’s this “authoritarian tolerance” rubbish? Is he upset because someone is telling him he should be less of an asshole to other people? TYRANNY! TYRANNY I SAY!!

    Shouldn’t there be some sort of moral constraint where practicing psychologists aren’t throwing marginalized people under the bus?

    I’m guessing that’s at least one of the reasons why he’s not a psychologist anymore. Does he really seem like the kind of guy who’d be willing to listen to people he doesn’t like on a regular basis?

Leave a Reply