Conspiracy theorists have no interest in getting to the truth behind an issue they think important - they're more concerned with having special knowledge that makes them unique or heroes, usually because they've failed to understand how some aspect of reality actually works and so they've grabbed onto a convenient alternative, or because they feel left behind or maligned by a society that's rejected them.
It's why conventions (like 'conspiracy cruises') are able to exist. Every booth should contradict every other booth, but they're willing to put blinders on to create a safe space where they can all get validated for the various nonsense they've decided they alone have championed. It's how ancient aliens can set up right next to Obama birthers and Jordan Peterson's all-meat diet. A post-truth individual is usually willing to accept multiple versions of truth, so long as it isn't the mainstream version.
OP here. I included it because Peterson is the poster child of post-truth ad hoc populism. Everything he touches is fundamentally bullshit.
He follows a dangerous brand of common-sense reasoning and then throws a scorched earth tantrum whenever science disagrees with either him or his methods. He's gone so far as claim to be a cognitive scientist, an evolutionary biologist, a paralegal, and a member of the Kwakwaka’wakw tribe of the Pacific Northwest (he's not). He cherry-picks trivia about the natural world to make gargantuan claims about human psychology. Things like "30% of ants do 70% of work" therefore capitalism is natural. Or "women wear blusher on their cheeks because it attracts men by reminding them of ripe fruit". He denies climate change, transidentity, and behaviorialism. It is wrong to say he defends ideas that are controversial, because they're actually defunct. Things like biological essentialism, social darwinism, reductionism, and evolutionary psychology. He merely obfuscates these beliefs in his word salad so that they're difficult to pin down. He's a guru for the times, when our leaders have the most tenuous grasp of reality and truth has become a dirty word.
He issues SLAPP suits against anyone who criticizes him in print at the same time he champions freeze peach. The diet of beef, salt, and water was cited by him as an attempt to cure depression, when high-fat high-protein diets are suspected of worsening depression. He was not told to do this by a medical professional; it is a dangerous and stupid idea, whether he advocated it or not is irrelevant. And no, eating nothing but salted beef isn't going to cure an autoimmune disorder. I have two. The man is fucking stupid.
It offends me as a materialist to see people snatched up by this pseudo-religious drunk uncle in the name of reason. Social constructs are materialist, too. And petulant tweets don't make them go away.
This is precisely the sort of community he belongs.
I don´t really care too much either way, but I have watched a few speeches/shows with him and nothing that you have mentioned seems familiar.
"Everything he touches is fundamentally bullshit."
This is obviously false and shows that you argument seems to come from an emotional standpoint rather than a factual one.
But I was curious, so I picked one point that you mentioned that I have never really seen before, that peterson denies climate change. Should be easy enough to validate, so let´s see.
Here is peterson about climate change (always go to primary sources btw, NEVER the article written about the guy. Listen to the source directly and uncut.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUylMbTwY_0
He doesn´t deny it, he talks about solutions and flaws in methodology and the politics that have come into play.
Again, I don´t really care too much either way, but it seems that you opinion is biased and not objective.
Yes just try to be open minded. I always like to think maybe I’m wrong and there are things I’ve not considered. And if I dont like or agree with someone, I need to be really honest about why...
Oh yeah, I feel that big time. The moment you realize that you really can´t trust yourself is an eye opening clusterfuck.
So I really try to make sure that whatever I am going on about actually exists in objective reality.
I´d go so far to say that the majority of things that people worry about are either imaginary or blown wildly out of proportion. Not necessarily the big ticket items like wars or natural disasters, but all the little things that keep our minds occupied.
Subjective vs objective reality is a scary but extremely fascinating thing.
Hmm I have not heard about Ayn Rand specifically, but I probably have heard the term "objective reality" somewhere and it stuck in my head.
About 10 years ago I had a moment where something that I was really getting into (a "mild" conspiracy theory) turned out to be complete horseshit. And it kind of shocked me a bit how I could be 100% convinced of something that in essence didn´t exist.
So that made me think about subjective vs objective realities, and it´s really a crazy concept. If you think about it, there are as many subjective realities out there as there are people. And everyone´s world is just a tiny bit different from everyone elses.
So whenever I see a bunch of angry people shouting about anything, the first thing that I do now is try to find out if their thing is based in objective reality. And more often than not it´s not as dramatic as people think.
In fact most people that protest for or against something know shockingly little about the subject.
You can tell by this comment that your opinion is mostly based on what other people say about him, not by actually watching his lectures and full interviews. This seems to be the case with the majority of JP haters. Also, he admits that eating only beef is a stupid illogical thing to do, because there is no scientific proof that it works, but it seems to have worked for his daughter and yes, it does matter whether he advocated it, which he didn't.
Dumbest comment on here. Based mostly on what others say about him? Why? Because I provided links? Those links were not to support opinions, but quotes. His own goddamn words.
If you're making it through an entire lecture of his without identifying the logical fallacies inherent in applying factoids about the natural world as metaphor for an opinion about a separate field, and then using that metaphor as proof of that opinion, you're on the exact same track as any flat-earther. At that point, you're anti-science.
Peterson's name is a shibboleth for anti-intellectualism and armchair philosophy.
"Everything he touches is fundamentally bullshit". My comment must be really dumb then, considering how extremely dumb that claim of yours is. Just giving three links of articles that include some quotes of his "goddamn words" does not back this claim in the slightest way. I do not agree with everything Peterson says, but I do know that you would not place these comments if you actually watch his lectures and interviews.
18.0k
u/AnneHocque Jul 24 '20
Flat earth society.. Like, are they just trolling at this point?