To find Jordan Peterson...

[pompous]

Quite attractive? I'm a 30 year old woman so he is a little out of my usual age range but there's something about him I find really attractive. Maybe it's an attraction due to how clever the man is, I'm not sure. I can't be alone in this?

I'm sure the poor working class sods being slaughtered in their millions on the frontlines in World War I & II were thinking "I must remember to thank the Patriarchy when, sorry IF, I get home!"

I really don't like the simplistic "goodies and baddies" take, as it does nothing to foster discussion. Somehow though, the people who foment these sort of thought processes seem to think they are on the side of the angels..

Surely a bold statement like 'He denies Patriarchy is a thing' deserves a little more justification. You clearly think it. Are you not able to explain why you think that?

You won't agree with them so they won't want to waste their time, that and they seem to not have any real examples.

After I was called a thick and accused of being a man pretending to be a woman, I was asked a few times for examples on how JP has helped me/my life. I gave them, got no response.
I suspect, had anyone responded, it would have been just to call me a liar and a thick once more 🤣

Well I guess, the more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people🤷‍♀️

I agree, by simply asking a question I was labelled as thick, that's without me even divulging what I thought of him.
Its not rational behaviour and it's not coming from a good place.

The hate some people show to others whilst complaining how awful someone like JP is is actually laughable, total hypocrisy.

Unfortunately I think this sort of behaviour is becoming more common as people live in soundbites: headlines, tweets, quotes. I think you have to remove yourself, or at least enforce boundaries around, the volume of ‘noise’ you expose yourself to in order to give anything due focus.

FUCK ME UP THE ASS MR PETERSON

Impression. You may find funny, you may not.

I don't think he's the worst publicly influential wackadoodle on the planet - there's Trump, there's Tate, there's Musk and so on - but he is a mentally and emotionally scrambled pseudo-intellectual meataholic with foul bowels.

Impression. You may find funny, you may not.

This is brilliant 🤣🤣 He's really good !

Yep.
His pompous waffle fools too many people

I've always viewed him as nothing more than a contrarian agent-provocateur, but he still serves a worthwhile purpose, because by challenging dogma and perceived wisdom he obviously hones in on the inherent flaws and problems therein, so that stimulates people on both sides of whatever the argument is to contemplate those, and that is invariably a healthy thing.

You don't need to agree with someone in order to accept that some of the questions and points they raise are perfectly valid. I think it's naive to believe that you can take a position on a moral, ethical, or sociological issue, and have 100% surety that there are no shortcomings or flaws in the position you have adopted. Human beings, and by extension, life and society is not a matter of blacks and whites, it's usually shades of grey.

The infamous missing 13th chapter from his 12 rules of life?

Have to confess I would not ordinarily call someone who was an assistant professor at Harvard and later a full professor at the university of Toronto a 'pseudo intellectual'. By all means disagree with his views or published works but I can't help but feel a lot of peoples criticism of him are not their own views but rather someone elses regurgitated critique.

I also often find that people using the lazy "he is the stupid person's smart guy" quote are not quite as smart as they like to think they are.

A person who claims proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding. Usage is fraught, and pseudointellectual may be used as a general term of abuse for intellectuals one dislikes or disagrees with.

c/- Wiktionary

He literally said it in his conversation with Helen Joyce.

His voice. Just remembered that. 🙀

All his arguments are here, and they are poor arguments...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jXqkA2YL2pk

He says medicine is female dominated, conveniently ignoring the low paid jobs are the ones dominated by women - same with education. He is picking those examples without acknowledging the inherent sexism in assuming women should go into the caring professions, and the sexism of the pay structure. As with most of his arguments about men, it comes down to him cherry-picking the data he produces to essentially imply men deserve to have status and if they don't is it any wonder they kill women and each other so much?

But now perhaps YOU can explain why you agree with his position?

Ah yes. The old 'men die in huge numbers in war and down the mines' argument for there not being patriarchy. Men create these situations - they are the ones in power, and the ones comfortable sending men, children, animals down mines...not women. It's the male death drive which makes life hard for men as well as women, but of course patriarchy doesn't even view women as human.

None of this is an argument against patriarchy. It's all about Peterson whining from the position of being repulsed by his own relative weakness.

He is picking those examples without acknowledging the inherent sexism in assuming women should go into the caring professions, and the sexism of the pay structure.

Exactly. His justification of the gender pay gap is that women choose lower paid jobs but doesn't acknowledge the societal structures that influence these 'choices'.

Indeed. Men die at war. Meanwhile women simply get on with life while being raped and maimed and left to tend for the kids/elderly/injured by themselves. But hey, that's supposed to mean they're priviledged.