If it helps some kid clean themselves up, get a career, and get out on their own, and generally get their life together and pointed in a better direction, how is that a bad thing?
A lot of sects can help you clean yourself up and get your life together. Is it a good thing if you’re being brainwashed into strange believes (like transphobia) at the same time? Maybe it still is but maybe there are better ways to help people.
Have you read my comment? I’ve said that maybe it’s good but maybe you can teach those things in a better, less toxic and less sectarian way. I don’t have issue with his old teachings but I think following anyone blindly is stupid and with JP from the very beginning I’ve seen a lot of it.
It looks like you believe I have some issue with you personally finding some value in Peterson’s writing. I don’t. You’re basically paraphrasing the same thing I’ve said. Can his writing help people? Yes, probably. Can you approach it in a healthy way, avoiding the toxic part and not becoming part of a cult? Yes, I’m sure it’s possible. Did most people approach it like this? Well, my sensation is that no, they did not. The community that grew around him became part of the right wing toxic masculinity and transphobic movements. And he never renounced it, it keeps playing a right wing guru. So yes, I don’t have any issue with people that read some of his books and found something valuable in them. But I also believe (and I think most people that are against him think the same) that he did more harm than good overall and that the world would be better without his philosophy. But of course it’s impossible to measure, it’s a subjective point of view and you can disagree.
Wait. He wants us to believe that he is intelligent? I’ve known toddlers that have an easier time getting words out.
I thought his whole shtick was portraying himself a bumbling idiot to bring out the hyperemotional crazies who get worked up about people not being just so? It is always fun watching the hyperemotional crazies.
I believe the lobster bollocks is actually Rule # 1. ‘Stand up straight’ or some shit (which lobsters also do not do because, well, they are lobsters).
I have read the book yes, and the lobster stuff is in chapter 1 indeed.
I don’t think that chapter was particularly enlightening, as far as I remember it was mainly about how evolutionary selection results in hierarchies in al species (hence the lobsters), and standing up straight gets you higher in the hierarchy because of something something confidence.
The evolution stuff is not wrong, and the stand up straight is… Eh… weird psychology stuff? However it didn’t mention women or gays as you said.
And how do you understand “hierarchies” in the context of human sociology?
Your message is notable in that it’s the first time I have realised that his readers may not even be reading this drivel at the level at which it was written, which is already laughably stupid.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
deleted by creator
It’s sanctimonious, hang in there cat poster stuff. I’d tell my brother to spend less time online if he shared this with me.
deleted by creator
A lot of sects can help you clean yourself up and get your life together. Is it a good thing if you’re being brainwashed into strange believes (like transphobia) at the same time? Maybe it still is but maybe there are better ways to help people.
deleted by creator
Have you read my comment? I’ve said that maybe it’s good but maybe you can teach those things in a better, less toxic and less sectarian way. I don’t have issue with his old teachings but I think following anyone blindly is stupid and with JP from the very beginning I’ve seen a lot of it.
deleted by creator
It looks like you believe I have some issue with you personally finding some value in Peterson’s writing. I don’t. You’re basically paraphrasing the same thing I’ve said. Can his writing help people? Yes, probably. Can you approach it in a healthy way, avoiding the toxic part and not becoming part of a cult? Yes, I’m sure it’s possible. Did most people approach it like this? Well, my sensation is that no, they did not. The community that grew around him became part of the right wing toxic masculinity and transphobic movements. And he never renounced it, it keeps playing a right wing guru. So yes, I don’t have any issue with people that read some of his books and found something valuable in them. But I also believe (and I think most people that are against him think the same) that he did more harm than good overall and that the world would be better without his philosophy. But of course it’s impossible to measure, it’s a subjective point of view and you can disagree.
deleted by creator
I cannot understand how you folks who love to defend this cretin can overlook this utter malarkey and focus on ‘make your bed’.
deleted by creator
Look at some of his old tweets. He’s racist and not as intelligent as he wants you to believe. It’s not complicated in this case.
deleted by creator
You can look in this thread, mate. There are screenshots a few comments up or down…
deleted by creator
Wait. He wants us to believe that he is intelligent? I’ve known toddlers that have an easier time getting words out.
I thought his whole shtick was portraying himself a bumbling idiot to bring out the hyperemotional crazies who get worked up about people not being just so? It is always fun watching the hyperemotional crazies.
Absolutely he wants to and a lot of people buy it.
For sure. A lot may even be an understatement for how many hyperemotional crazies have bought into his schtick.
How did you get that out of the book?
I believe the lobster bollocks is actually Rule # 1. ‘Stand up straight’ or some shit (which lobsters also do not do because, well, they are lobsters).
Have you read the book?
I have read the book yes, and the lobster stuff is in chapter 1 indeed.
I don’t think that chapter was particularly enlightening, as far as I remember it was mainly about how evolutionary selection results in hierarchies in al species (hence the lobsters), and standing up straight gets you higher in the hierarchy because of something something confidence.
The evolution stuff is not wrong, and the stand up straight is… Eh… weird psychology stuff? However it didn’t mention women or gays as you said.
And how do you understand “hierarchies” in the context of human sociology?
Your message is notable in that it’s the first time I have realised that his readers may not even be reading this drivel at the level at which it was written, which is already laughably stupid.
You got to expand a bit on your question, I don’t know what you want to hear.
Regarding hierarchy in the animal kingdom, it’s this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy
deleted by creator
deleted by creator