Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Jordan B Peterson" channel.

  1. "Happiness is bad, because it makes people unhappy." ~Slavoi Zizek, 2019
    292
  2. "Feminist" is a meaningless label. There are "feminists", who claim that Mohammed was one.
    108
  3. What?! He's probably the most humble person, I've ever come across. I can hardly imagine someone with less ego. I think you are projecting your own shortcomings on others.
    51
  4. Being intellectually honest is MUCH more important than being "nice". The worst atrocities were all committed by "nice" people, stuck with bad believes.
    25
  5. When something makes sense, you cannot help but understand. When you must try, you are fooling yourself.
    23
  6. You have no idea what you are talking about. None.
    11
  7. Reminds me of the Red Guards and the Nazis rejecting quantum physics and relativity respectively for being a "Jewish science" and "imperialist".
    11
  8. "God exists... in the same way Santa Claus exists." -Peterson, defender of the Christian faith
    8
  9. I never understood the negative responses to the podcast. Both speakers were very polite and calm and got to the point.
    6
  10. I see the work of Lord Brahman everywhere. You could, too, if you just really, really wanted to.
    5
  11. I don't agree with him, therefore he is not an intellectual...
    4
  12. If it was the other way around, you would have complained that Sam didn't let Peterson talk, but only presented his own ideas. Shouldn't the guest on a podcast have preference?
    4
  13. This is basically natural sciences vs social sciences. Clarity vs obscurantism. Logic vs rhyming.
    4
  14. Did you ever open a bible? What you are describing is slavery among Israelites, but the bible mostly adresses the enslavement of foreign people (especially young women) following horrific genocides. It's also funny how your religious believes are making you defend the atrocious barbarism of indentured servitude, which was often even worse than the slavery imposed on foreigners, because the masters had an incentive to work their slaves to death.
    4
  15. Let's debate Marxism with someone, who disagrees with Marx and another, who doesn't know what he wrote.
    4
  16. There are no gods. He struggles with accepting reality as it is.
    3
  17. They should first have had a debate on what "political correctness" is . I've listened to all of the opening statements and I agree with all of them. They are talking past each other.
    3
  18.  @serpentines6356  How do you not notice your own dishonesty. Imagine someone, who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness monster describing their emotional response to a cryptozoology apologist, who didn't provide any evidence for the Loch Ness monster or even tried to. What could it possibly mean to "remodel your architecture" here? Either you think there's evidence for the Loch Ness monster or you don't. It seems that you do not, but you like to pretend that there is a Loch Ness monster regardless.
    3
  19. His definition of god is not the same as the one of ANY believer. To Peterson, anyone, who believes in gods even in the slightest, is a "fundamentalist. I grew up in a pretty secular family, not understanding or fully buying into Christian doctrine at any point and only going to church on special occasions. My god was an extrapolation of my own moral intuitions. But still, because I believed it to be some sort of entity, rather than a concept, to Peterson I would have been a fundamentalist.
    3
  20. But Peterson clearly DOESN'T believe in a god. He just thinks that it's a good thing to say that he does.
    3
  21. That's all bullshit. Being extroverted simply means that you enjoy socializing more and that it is less stressful. A more introverted person can still enjoy socializing, but for him it's more straining. You obviously think that you are a genius, because you are awkward around people. That's not what the extroversion trait is about.
    2
  22. Harris is entirely progressive. He often speaks about things we could still improve.
    2
  23. When I was at my lowest point in life, I took a pen and just began writing in a stream-of-consciousness style. Also I naturally began writing in English rather than my native language. I set down a lot of thoughts that had just spooked around in my head before and it genuinely made me feel better. Even though I had no system, I now see that what I committed to paper does include a summary of my past, a discussion of my desires and fears and reflections about which of my attributes might have led to my situation.
    2
  24. Yeah the real intellectual conversations happen in the youtube comments.
    2
  25. In your opinion "immersing" oneself in "more philosophy" makes divine commandment into an acceptable moral foundation, whereas ultimate goals are not?
    2
  26. Correct. I've never seen an atheist defend religion with as much fervor as Peterson does. According to him, when you actually believe in a god, you are a "fundamentalist". When you admit to not believing in a god, you are deficient. So you are supposed to be an atheist, who denies being an atheist.
    2
  27. I'm not sure what political correctness is, but isn't attacking the person rather than their ideas part of it? They are applying the thing they are defending.
    2
  28. Tim Wijnant Some lectures are professionally recorded. The programming lecture I attended today had a camerawoman filming with some huge stationary camera all the way through.
    2
  29. If you're producing word salad, you can't be refuted. But you also aren't countering anything. Phrases should have meaning, but you use phrases without meaning while at the same time trying to attribute meaning to natural phenomena, who don't have it. Quite ironic.
    2
  30.  @davidmano9050  >Acting as if capitalist powers assisting 3rd world countries He said nothing about third world countries being assisted. That's something you came up with out of the blue. >is what destroyed the infrastructures, economies, and societies of those nations in the first place Nope. Imperalism is what created that infrastructure, the economies and often the societies in the first place. The latter sometimes to the detriment of people in those societies. And afterwards it wasn't handouts that lifted people out of poverty as you imply, but rather trade: economic growth and governmental institutions that aren't corrupt.
    2
  31.  @davidmano9050  >Other governments are only "incompetent" based on capitalist and Eurocentric ideals of right and wrong. I guess having food and not being raped are "Eurocentric ideals"?
    2
  32. What a bunch of horseshit. He superimposes his modern views on the text. He ignores what it actually says. He ignores the historical context in which it was written and pretends we have to take the "wisdom" he interprets into the text as given, because of it's antiquity. He is a bigger threat to Christianity than outspoken anti-theists like me, because he undermines the religion.
    2
  33. >the catastrophic denial of the subject in the science as worldview formulation There is no such denial. >There is no more pressing issue in terms of species survival. I don't see humans as endangered. And you don't give any concrete danger to "species survival". >"[Humanity is] to be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape." I get it that wise sayings and literature and quotes are more fun than equations and algorithms, but the former are simply not useful to understand anything really complex or novel. They are not that deep.
    2
  34. What absolutely disgusting and cowardly humble bragging. Peterson's contempt for truth is breathtaking.
    2
  35. @Morpheus If you actually think that, I pity you.
    1
  36. >>We hit an impasse over the definition of truth.<< Should have known that some pedantic obscurantism gets in the way.
    1
  37. Your problem is that you don't understand the term "liberal".
    1
  38. Agreeing on what truth means is a prerequisite for any discussion. If you cannot fundamentally establish what truth means, then you can smuggle in all kinds of nonsense through the backdoor.
    1
  39. Apparently he tries to confuse applicability of stories with truth.
    1
  40. No. Truth is a very simple concept. The problem is that the fuzzy social sciences, Peterson has spent his time in, sidetrack your mind. When you can solve a problem faster than at random, you have true information. For a physicist or mathematician or computational scientist, this is a trivial issue.
    1
  41. @Spookville That "one point" was the concept of truth itself, you moron.
    1
  42. The IQ shouldn't change more than about 5 points. Did you fall on your head?
    1
  43. They don't disagree about personality traits.
    1
  44. @Sebi20070 I found both conversations great to listen to. Both Peterson and Harris were calm, polite and to the point.
    1
  45. True. He just completely ignores what religion is about and what people believe in and treats it like a kind of book club, wherein people discuss archetypes in literature... He misses the point entirely.
    1
  46. >but that is the way the vast majority of religious people interpret their holy books That is simply not true. You are arguing for religion by claiming that no one buys into or is motivated by religion in the first place. >who is trying to get at the deeper pathology of authoritarianism It's funny that you try to defend religion and the ABrahamic god while at the same time complaining about authoritarianism. If you cannot even bring yourself to say anything bad about the worst kind of authoritarianism, how can you combat it in general?
    1
  47. @Gurp Preet Knowledge of the bible is what made me an atheist in the first place. I'm certain if you tested unbelievers and believers in the West, the former would have a MUCH better understanding of Christianity on average. Anyways I oppose astrology without knowing anything about the specifics. In the same way it would be totally ok to oppose Christianity without knowing the specifics.
    1
  48.  @tudornaconecinii3609  Nietzsche is every bit as bad as his greatest critics claim. I read the first two chapters of "Thus spoke Zarathustra" thinking he belonged to the enlightenment philosophers (I had no idea who he was) and it tells you everything you need to know about his character.
    1
  49. So you began to believe in gods again when you got into the political left?
    1
  50. You want the stories to be true so you can justify taking sex slaves. Why do you need the permission of some Bronze age deity to kill gays or to beat children when that's already what you want to do?
    1
  51.  Messenger Charles  Religion and belief in gods is a horribly corrupting influence on spirituality. It keeps you from discovering anything novel and fills you with delusions of grandeur. The first necessary condition of spirituality is to stop believing in spirits.
    1
  52. "Facts are not necessarily true." - Jordan Peterson
    1
  53. From the outside it's painfully obvious that you are building a castle of bullshit in order to host pet believes. And anyone, who knocks over the castle, is hateful, arrogant or simpleminded.
    1
  54. The "big bang" is not a "miracle". That matter was concentrated at high density at some point in the past was a straightforward conclusion from astronomical observations and it was later verified in the microwave background radiation. Meanwhile the resurrection is a myth among many and the more we learn the less plausible it becomes.
    1
  55.  @calebsmith1899  >everything can't come from nothing. There has to be a first cause You don't even understand your own apologetics. "there is a first cause" and "everything came from nothing" are equivalent. What you badly parroted is the position that there isn't an infinite regress of causes. But it doesn't matter whether there is an infinite regress of causes or not, because in neither case does your god add anything to the story nor is either more "miraculous" than the other.
    1
  56. >Christian thought is becoming more mainstream Is it? >Everyone is better off with a transcendent aim! Looking forward to getting impaled?
    1
  57.  @nickhancock4337  Your "thinking deeply" is just motivated reasoning. You should try thinking clearly instead. Giving your god new superpowers doesn't make it any more real.
    1
  58.  @Liamgross3000  >I fully respect others rights to think differently than I do In other words you lie to people. A "right to think differently" is the most absurd euphemism I can think of. You don't decide what you believe, you are persuaded by evidence. Leaving people ignorant of what you know is not some libertarian policy, but simply deception.
    1
  59.  @scottmcloughlin4371  Those "foolish paintings" were made by people, who actually follow the traditions you pretend to follow. God is a dude. He's an anthropomorphic, intelligent agent with desires and plans that are very similar to that of humans. He interacts with people, bargains, commands, persuades, etc. This person is the very bedrock of the faith. Not a passive phenomenon, not an abstract concept, a real, active person. You just refuse to take the religion you're pretending to defend any seriously.
    1
  60.  @ttfweb1  That's like shitting your pants all the time and thiniking "well it kind of stinks everywhere anyways".
    1
  61. So religion is good, because religion is good? That this idiotic comment has hundreds of thumbs up speaks volumes about the motivations of people commenting here.
    1
  62. Your height still exists, even when it changes. Personality seems to be far more fluid than intelligence.
    1
  63. Clinging on to ancient delusions and pseudoscience is not humble, it's the pinnacle of arrogance. Having faith is saying "I know everything better, without even having looked!"
    1
  64. That's how you deal with absurd claims. If you cannot make fun of absurd claims, you have arrived in exactly the type of dystopia, religious thinking leads you into.
    1
  65. If this atheist is now seen as one of the foremost defenders of religion, it only shows how far religion has been pushed. A couple of decades ago, Peterson would have been pummeled by believers, now he is seen as a champion of faith, although he defends it in name only.
    1
  66. Your epistemology is as circular as saying "the bible is true, because the bible says it's true".
    1
  67. Shouldn't that teach him that he doesn't need to have his "house in perfect order" before "critizising the world"? He made big money critizising the world while being depressed, anxious, a junkie and so on.
    1
  68.  @Baalaaxa  No. What you suggest leads to not getting anywhere. Your worst isn't important. How you usually are and will be is important. You'd practice a million different boardgames and every time a new one is invented you have to learn that. Min-maxing is simply not how good living works at all.
    1
  69.  @Zelchinho  You realize that there some sort of logical tension in you calling yourself evil right? Who exactly is disagreeing with whom here?
    1
  70. If I'm getting married, I'm getting married whether God agrees with it or not.
    1
  71. So religion is good, because religion is good. -Straun30
    1
  72. >his forthright nature and laser focus on issues What do you mean by "do"? And "you"? And "believe"? And "in"? ...
    1
  73. She defends religion by denying what it is, pretty much like Peterson.
    1
  74.  @swesleyc7  You are correct. Although Peterson seems to be an atheist, who calls belief in gods "fundamentalism", he still defends religion and Christianity - if only in name - and must therefore be opposed.
    1
  75. Nowhere in this rambling nonsense have you given any reason to believe that any god exists or any Christian dogma is true. You seem to be saying "I'm trying to bullshit myself".
    1
  76.  @romeisburning6739  Having a guy on the inside is a severe sin. Repent.
    1
  77. Peterson just completely ignores the historical context, what the authors wanted to express, what their peers believed, what's Christian doctrine, what people believed throughout history, what people were motivated by etc And he just superimposes his psychological take and pretends that's what the text is really about.
    1
  78. ​ @BigfootRAHHH I like a lot about him, but that's the most annoying thing he does.
    1
  79. ​ @tmmroy You're totally ignoring what the text actually says and just replace it what YOU think it "represents". And you seem completely oblivious to doing this. It's actually like you're suffering from schizophrenia.
    1
  80. > it can’t be answered by us (or any living persons) in reality because we weren’t there when it happened You needed two people to come up with something so stupid? Do you apply the same reasoning to everything? You can't know anything about the Jurassic because you weren't there? You can't know anything about star formation, because you weren't there? You can't know anything about the Roman Empire, because you weren't there? Just apply your regular, every day reasoning and it's clear that you don't believe in the resurrection. >These four men knew Christ It's clear that you don't know the first thing about biblical scholarship. None of them knew Jesus. John had Mark, Luke and Matthew and other sources and wrote long after Jesus' death. Luke and Matthew had Mark and common and separate sources. Moreover even if we had several contemporaries claim that Jesus did rise from the dead, that wouldn't be any more reason to believe it than any of the current devotees of various gurus are reason to believe in the magical powers of their masters.
    1
  81.  @julioalonzo1383  "Materialist physicalists" don't say that there is only matter. Matter is a form of energy. It behaves according to certain universal principles. Your metaphysics is a thousand years out of date.
    1
  82.  @TheClassicWorld  If you can't even accomplish a simple epistemic task like getting over your belief in gods, the rest of philosophy is really completely wasted on you. You are reasoning towards a goal, not trying to gain clarity.
    1
  83. How is that more of a contradiction than being a Christian and a democrat. Peterson himself is apparently a Christian and atheist.
    1
  84. >Any time he makes a normative statement like "It would be much better if..." without explaining why, it is a type of dogmatism. No. When I say that 2+2=4, I don't have to give a five week lecture on logic and set theory in order to defend that statement.
    1
  85. @BergerJr Is BergerJr a witch? Well we don't know *EVERYTHING*, so it could well be so. I don't know, so we better make sure he cannot do any witchcraft by burning him alive.
    1
  86. So my moral intuition that the biblical commandments, god and prohpets are totally immoral, comes from the bible? My disgust at the cold-hearted, cynical, misanthropic nature of biblical stories is a result of those stories? How does that make sense to you, MB?
    1
  87. @MrKosobi It is neither. Both primitive socieites and the book religions are totally immoral by modern standards. Even societies of just a hundred years ago are. The ONLY thing explaining the state of the world is moral progress (a cultural phenomenon) and it always goes against religion.
    1
  88. To "protect" someone from information is tyranny and deception.
    1
  89. ​ @hieyeque1  Being a code monkey doesn't make you wise in using technology. Of course you're "fragile" when you're a little girl and your own parents tyrannize you. Self-esteem is incompatible with being so obviously submissive towards people violently erecting barricades to what you can do. You only have self esteem when you are free.
    1
  90. @Konstantin Dahlin Reading books also "twists young minds". This is literally the same retarded argument that has been coming up for at least 3000 years. Every future generation will grow up differently than the people before.
    1
  91. I don't understand or care about either side on this, as it is of little importance compared to the believes of Peterson about the usefulness of religious thinking. Still I don't see what it should even mean for morality to be objective or subjective. If you call the pursuit of happiness morality, is that subjective or objective? What would subjective morality even look like? I think the terms "subjective" and "objective" here are, as so often, completely misleading.
    1
  92. How about you actually read the bible? Or better yet listen to what actual bible scholars have to say about the stories?
    1
  93. According to contemporary Christian theology Christ created all of that suffering to begin with, so the motivations are more unclear than that.
    1
  94. > in assuming that in the absence of Religion or Spiritual Faith, that Humanity would be any better off than it is already We know that from history. The less religious a society, the better it is. >humanity may well have constructed these frameworks knowing full well What kind of idiotic cartoon notion of history do you subscribe to? Humans didn't have a meeting twenty thousand years ago, in which they decided to belief in various sorts of nonsense in order to be better people. Religious believes evolved over time and no one decided to have them.
    1
  95. >You can't encapsulate such a profound idea like 'God' in a dictionary definition. It's the least profound thing I can imagine. Little children ask: "What is rain for?" Belief in gods, even abstracted until the gods are unrecognizable, is an infantile behavior. Jordan Peterson is, if he actually takes his own conceptualizations seriously, an atheist. An atheist doing everything to defend the words god and religion, without most of their content.
    1
  96. You are operating under the assumption that the bible is full of metaphors, who sound atrocious on the surface, but turn out to support a modern humanist ethic, if understood correctly. That could not be further from the truth and if you actually believe it, you have never opened a bible. There is commandments and narratives in the bible and the message of both is equally horrific. The narratives even make sure that you cannot wiggle yourself out of the commandments. For example your kind of like to reinterpret the prohibition against working on sundays as an encouragement to take some time off for yourself once in a while. Well... WRONG. Moses and his followers brutally murder a person for gathering firewood on the wrong day. On the "surface" the bible reports of a killing taking place in the past, whereas the "deep contextual meaning" is that the commandments mean exactly what they say and not what you want them to say.
    1
  97. @M P He's an atheist and he undermines your entire religion.
    1
  98.  @Random_Number  That sentence alone implies a particularly snobbish obscurantism. It's quite obvious that Peterson doesn't believe in any gods. He just thinks that it's good to pretend to.
    1
  99.  @jig6894  A powerful spirit that takes interest in human affairs.
    1
  100. To completely reject the existence of a god is not compatible with Christianity.
    1
  101. I disagree with Peterson on almost everything, but I will defend to death his right to be just as wrong as Chomsky.
    1
  102.  @joeupton7058  Yeah that has been the mantra of reactionaries since antiquity. If you think that things get worse when things get better, I guess there is no reason to look for improvements. The reality is of course the opposite. Wise men make good times, which make even wiser men, who make even better times. When you are fighting for survival, you are not usually inclined to be curious and nuanced and open in your thinking.
    1
  103.  @stephenhughes2526  If that was true, victims of bullying and veterans would have the strongest characters, when in reality they suffer from depression and often kill themselves.
    1
  104.  @latioswarr3785  No, greatness comes when you are perfectly safe and have free time. I don't know the name of a single person struggling to stay alive, I know the names of hundreds of philosophers, mathematicians and scientists.
    1
  105. You're writing this like you're completely oblivious to the actual history of the religion. What makes Christianity and Islam special is that they explicitly call for faith, that faith is a virtue in itself. And within Christianity you have a schism of whether "works" are even relevant spiritually at all.
    1
  106. Where is the contradiction. Those tests don't measure morality or political opinion (other than a tendency to liberalism, which it got right in your case).
    1
  107.  @RossArlenTieken  It's honestly hard to believe that you actually lack the imagination to understand just how fantastically unconvincing all of that bullshit is from the outside. It's like you tacitly assume that everyone else must have the same motivated reasoning. As an exercise one can come up with similar justifications for any myth.
    1
  108. Peterson doesn't see the grandeur of political correctness, because he lacks faith even as small as a mustard seed.
    1