Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Men \u0026 Women: Personality Differences | Discovering Personality with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson" video.

@carlyellison8498 Instead of ad hominem attacks, why don't you discuss the points that Peterson is making? Not in mocking terms but from the eyes of one who really wants to understand what he's saying and then outlining why you find problems with it. You're behaving like one that dislikes ideas that throw into doubt you're view of the facts. Your ideas, that are so rigid that discussions that might counter them must be flagged and reported. Are you that weak that you can't even abide the thought that someone might disagree with you on an issue? That's incredibly sad. Also, Peterson has to be the worst cult leader in history. His is a cult that values personal sovereignty over a collective mindset and personal responsibility over group think and action. He's says we should all come to our own conclusions on what is important to our lives. That's one funny way for a cult leader to act or to advocate for.
27
@carlyellison8498 So.....what's wrong with cleaning your room? Since when is that a bad idea? You're not going to tell me that you don't realise that this is also a metaphor for cleaning up your life. YOU can't make my life better or happier. Only I can do that. That's what he's saying. Cultish, I know, but it's the cult of me and the cult of you. Using our own strengths to make a better person.
18
@upcycle.outdoorsman9629 It's a subtle revelation into her belief system. She's revealing the mindset of cult of the collective. We this and we that instead I this or that. No personal responsibility at all. If she says something that's wrong, it's not just her, it's all of the "we". Comfort in numbers and hatred of the dissension of the individual. It's why she hasn't said anything of substance. It's all been sneering and mockery. Her thinks that her behaviour is unimportant because she supporting the collective.
15
Jay Blake Peterson has also talked about other Marxist regimes as well. Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim family, Castro....every Marxist regime that has ever existed has a history of killing of its own citizens as a tenet of that ideology. Wolff doesn't offer any defence of Marxism, he goes off an a tangent about Christianity, as if the fact that Christianity has problems that this is a negation of Marxist deep set faults. It wasn't just Stalin. Even Lenin thought that the intentional starvation of Russian citizens was justifiable if it brought about the true Marxist state. Wolff should defend Marxism, if possible, not start pointing fingers in every other direction. At best, it shows that Wolff isn't that much better than Peterson and true to his Marxist ideology he would offer up his derision of anyone having financial success.
13
@carlyellison8498 If you only would GIVE a viewpoint, I'd discuss it. All you've done is denigrate both Peterson and those who say that he's been a big help in their lives. You've not discussed one thing he's said in this video and offered a cogent point that would add to the discussion. Mockery and denigration is much of a viewpoint. It's elitism.
12
@carlyellison8498 I won't speak for him but I support common sense support for the law. If the laws are broken, including gun laws, do what must be done to the lawbreaker. Besides, there are a lot of gun control laws in place. It isn't complete chaos out there. I'm not a big fan of the NRA but I do support the 2nd Amendment. I know that this sounds counter intuitive to one that is all about the collective but life is about nuance, not rigid application of ideas and thought. Besides, what does this have to do with Jordan Peterson.
11
@carlyellison8498 I'm going to add that if you claim that someone is a member of a cult, there's a strong implications that you believe that they're a mindless bot, without the ability to think for themselves. It's a harsh dismissal and a very elitist way to relate to people. Worse, you've negated their claim that Peterson may have helped them overcome life problems by saying that it's impossible as they're incapable of self reflection or a viewpoint unless spoon fed to them. That's an extremely harsh criticism and comes across as a sneering attitude. Not once have you expressed any hope or satisfaction in the idea that their lives may be better. You just attacked them. Not nice, considering that some of them might have been at horrifically hopeless stages in their life.
10
Jay Blake Apparently, you've not heard of the great famine of 1921, one of the worst disasters of the 20th century. https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/great-famine-of-1921/ http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/1988/458814.shtml I may not know much about Russian history but, at least I know about that. Marxist thought took on many forms and interpretations. Pol Pot based his ideas on those of Communism, the ideology that sprang from Marxism. He joined the French Communist Party while he was studying in Paris and became the Communist Party secretary when he returned to Cambodia. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pol-Pot https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/pol-pot All you're doing is dissecting all Socialist thought and then attempting to claim only one TRUE Marxist ideology from all the many ways that people have interpreted his work. It's all based on his work and variations of Marxist thought.
9
@carlyellison8498 All viewpoints are equally valid for discussion, that doesn't mean that they are equally true. Also, it isn't about arguing a point it's about considering facts and assessing them. When a viewpoint remains rigid, in spite of the facts, that's when arguments ensue. What you've just done is assert that all viewpoints are valid and then sneeringly dismissed any viewpoint that you don't like. That's contradictory. Either a person's viewpoint is valid and doesn't deserve mockery or criticism or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Also, I have read both Solzhenitsyn and Dostoevsky but not very much of Nietzsche. What I've read of the former 2 has been enlightening and adds to the things that I've read and learned and Peterson has read them as well and uses the material in his lectures all the time. We all have our own perspectives on what they wrote. It's not about conclusions that should never be challenged. Their work should raise questions, encourage discussions and offer differences of viewpoints and experience. One should never use any work as an absolute truth.
9
@margueritezoe "how on earth are they supposed to induce people into their cult of collectivism and group think?" They can't. It's an excellent point. The Marxist mindset is one of collective thinking and all their doing quibbling about which type of interpretation of Marxism is the true Marxism. Pol Pot was a Marxist. His view on Marxism was one of Agrarian Socialism but it's an offshoot of Marxist thinking. It's how they lend confusion into an argument and keep deflecting away from their commitment to group think.
6
@humptyslick So....we're all in a cult? Like the one who sees cultism in a clear and concise manner? It's like we're not in control of our thoughts.
3
@carlyellison8498 Now, that was clever. You're actually using the 1st Amendment to rationalise why you don't need to offer a cogent case for the things that you believe. I never said that. What I said or criticised, and I never once said that it should be illegal or whatever you're trying to say, is that if you want to taken seriously, you have to offer more than insults (you're part of a cult) to take part in a serious discussion. That was how you started this entire thread. It was a dismissal.... "cult guy" and after that anything that anyone said was a put down. You know.......he's a "cult guy". I don't know you but that's impression I get from you. It's like there's no talking to you because....HEY.....you're in a cult. Automatic dismissal.
1
Chief Seattle And anyone who isn't shaken to the core after those numbers and STILL supports Marxism, has to be some kind of stupid. Just sayin.
1
@Hannes Zappes Huh???
1