thunderspanks posted:

when was the last time you were invited to a party because my goon you sound insufferable

Jelly posted:

I listen to the IASIP podcast religiously and it's kind of entertaining how Glenn and Rob share a lot of similarities with Dennis and Mac. They're both very strong willed and have got into it on multiple occasions on the show, but they're always adept at working it out and remain the best of friends.

On a recent cast after a pretty heated argument had been resolved their assistant Meg mentioned that people would write in with comments like, "Are they okay?" "Are they still friends?" etc. And they were both kind of taken aback by it and Rob made an observation about how so many people view conflict as always being bad or negative, but he thinks that's ridiculous and conflict should be viewed as an opportunity to learn or solve a problem.

I thought that was a really great point of view. We get so caught up in taking offense to others taking issue with something, that we forget the pursuit of knowledge. Like one of my pet peeves is when someone gets passionate about something people will immediately play the "u mad" card, or gaslight them about their mental health. Why should someone's passion or anger invalidate their argument or opinions? Of course it's nobler to maintain composure, but our demonization of any kind of display of emotion in discourse has become pretty ugly.

Jelly posted:

shut up bird

Ghostlight posted:

inside you are two wolves

Private Cumshoe posted:

Myers Bigg rear end Tittays

mojo1701a posted:

It's why I ultimately can't trust someone like Jorp with his "smartest in the room" mentality. He's never wrong. If he is, he won't admit to it. And if he does, he and/or his fans weasel his way out of it.

5er posted:

I'd pick Musk and have and lead out with an airtight contract for him to blue-ink sign that he will immediately transfer me $1mil USD (net, not gross, taxes are on him), and for the duration of the dinner while the cameras are rolling I'd have nothing but positive things to say. $1mil is such a pittance to him, and his ego is so loving fragile that I'd probably get the money. Of course I'd ask him really nice stuff like, 'how are the kids, got pictures?' or 'what was the best date you ever took someone on,' or 'lay out for me how you think we're getting to Mars...'

Mister Speaker posted:

junglists

MrQwerty posted:

that it's not a measure of anything quantifiable, because if you're using it under any real-world circumstances, you can't know that the person taking it doesn't just know how to manipulate the results; you're relying on 100% inertia and human stupidity rather than figuring anything out about anything.
It's not a real thing that should be taken seriously, and yet it is, just like drug testing and polygraph tests.

Halisnacks posted:

Is there any (presumably old) Peterson content that is non-insane and non-hateful, perhaps even thoughtful and intellectually enlightening? I’m genuinely curious about trying to read his “best stuff” (even, or especially, if it’s not the stuff his fans consider his “best stuff”).

Was he an okay professor prior to all the benzo abuse, destabilising fame and exposure, and audience capture by the rightwing grift crowd?

Piell posted:

Does this do anything for you?

Halisnacks posted:

Is there any (presumably old) Peterson content that is non-insane and non-hateful, perhaps even thoughtful and intellectually enlightening? I’m genuinely curious about trying to read his “best stuff” (even, or especially, if it’s not the stuff his fans consider his “best stuff”).

Was he an okay professor prior to all the benzo abuse, destabilising fame and exposure, and audience capture by the rightwing grift crowd?

Shageletic posted:

No

Halisnacks posted:

Was he an okay professor prior to all the benzo abuse, destabilising fame and exposure, and audience capture by the rightwing grift crowd?

The Bible posted:

You're not wrong, but your dating life will be a lot easier if you just relax a little about it.

Rupert Buttermilk posted:

Is that the Enterprise?

Jelly posted:

shut up nerd

Halisnacks posted:

Is there any (presumably old) Peterson content that is non-insane and non-hateful, perhaps even thoughtful and intellectually enlightening? I’m genuinely curious about trying to read his “best stuff” (even, or especially, if it’s not the stuff his fans consider his “best stuff”).

Was he an okay professor prior to all the benzo abuse, destabilising fame and exposure, and audience capture by the rightwing grift crowd?

Pennywise the Frown posted:

This isn't jorp but someone else has to see it. The first line had me laughing like an idiot.

https://twitter.com/TallBart/status/1703939371504894296

Jelly posted:

I AM GRANDO posted:

Peepee Doodooson

bird food bathtub posted:

Yeah sure it would be nice to live in a productive, civilised society where disagreement could be seen as a possible source of growth and understanding of other view points. Unfortunately the chief disagreements today are things like "Do women control their own bodies?" and "Do people with alternate sexual preferences deserve to be shot in the street?"

Turns out fascists are not good on nuance or good faith disagreements so that kind of productive disagreement is going to have to take a back seat for a generation or two until we can get these poo poo heads back under their rocks.

Halisnacks posted:

Was he an okay professor prior to all the benzo abuse, destabilising fame and exposure, and audience capture by the rightwing grift crowd?

Private Cumshoe posted:

It's how all debates go really, debate itself is pretty fascist, even the Bible hates it in the abstract (for good reason !)

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Explains why the entire academic debate scene (where debate is literally a points-based sport) has been overrun by nazis for about 20 years who game the system and then bring those tactics online, it's why they expect sputtering toothless libs who have no idea how to respond to the most basic working the ref.

Offler posted:

If only people engaged in pure debate without nonsense speculation Peterson's greatness could be appreciated.

Here's one of his acolytes showing us how it's done:

"He then talks about Jordan Peterson for quite some time and AGAIN just asserts what Peterson is trying to ACCOMPLISH rather than engaging with any of the specific statements made, then he goes on to claim that "consensus" is basically the only "objectivity" and since he can make claims about the supposed outcomes of Peterson's actions and statements made by people who like Peterson...therefore he knows what Peterson is TRYING to accomplish...? and there is no need to engage anything Peterson says ??? ...It is astounding how childish these arguments are, they almost always ALL boil down to: saying a bunch of big words and referencing philosophers, deconstructing the concepts of 'definition', and then equivocating everything, hoping that the listener will not understand this and thus ANY opposing argument can be swiftly deconstructed (because it relies on definitions) meanwhile whatever opposing perspective this guy wants can be asserted with equal validity (established equivocation)...and since information can be infinitely combined/divided, if you agree with him, he can still point out how he disagrees and has a more nuanced perspective, seemingly pointing out how you are incorrect even if you "agree""

Even in a post literally complaining about someone not addressing the actual arguments, he only "debates" the arguments his opponent made by listing them in a mocking tone. Mostly he just whines that they shouldn't be allowed to think about why Peterson says something. He moves on to calling this childish, which leads to a rant about a made up argument that begins as a caricature of how "they" debate, which includes some wild speculation about their imaginary opponent's motives. After some confusing back and forth of this, he concludes by complaining that his imaginary caricature of a debate opponent looks like the winner now. So he debated 0-1 points and speculated and argued against his made up caricature of someone so much that it's hard to count in a post about how you should debate the points.

Sorry for the repost from last page, it's at least kind of relevant to what's being discussed now, and I can't get this extreme example of how complaining about debate rules is just something to complain about, not something they believe in.

Modal Auxiliary posted:

Maybe? This was the first clip of saw of his ages and ages ago and tbh he seemed like he'd have been a fine Psych/Phil 101 teacher. I never paid him much mind, and was honestly pretty surprised to see him popping up in the news for being such a raging loving chud, he always seemed like a pretty typical, harmless academic goof to me.

I know I've mentioned it before, but he's a perfect example of the type of person who was not psychologically equipped to deal with social media/the internet as we currently know it. All it took was a few (thousand) benzos to send him spiraling over the edge into unfettered douchebaggery.

Powerful Katrinka posted:

No one is reading all that, stop posting it