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