Top | Newest First | Oldest First
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
Not very high. What he offers is that he reinforces things people already believe. He also reinforces a lot of antifeminist ideas with a calm, rational, educated way of speaking that makes people think he's smarter than he is.
His schtick is super basic advice that for some reason people see as exciting and urgent new ideas, despite the fact it's a 'get your shit together' message that most people were raised with. It's fine and healthy, but not particularly interesting. But once you buy into that, he takes you to a really weird place.
HIs politics are a confusing, jumbled mess that have some seriously fucked up ideas about women at the core of it. And postmodern neo-marxists? That concept is gabbling nonsense and completely unrelated to what any group on the left believes, let alone the idea that you could group a Democrat, a Marxist, an identity politics crusader, and an anarchist together and treat them as one whole. It's idiotic.
He also doesn't address arguments as they're presented, but reinterprets them into simple, dumb ideas he can tear down. His stuff on white privilege shows he fundamentally does not understand the concept.
And as you go further in, you start talking about things like compulsory monogamy and 'what women want' and his fucked up ideas about trans people. The more you dig, the weirder his shit gets.
His schtick is super basic advice that for some reason people see as exciting and urgent new ideas, despite the fact it's a 'get your shit together' message that most people were raised with. It's fine and healthy, but not particularly interesting. But once you buy into that, he takes you to a really weird place.
HIs politics are a confusing, jumbled mess that have some seriously fucked up ideas about women at the core of it. And postmodern neo-marxists? That concept is gabbling nonsense and completely unrelated to what any group on the left believes, let alone the idea that you could group a Democrat, a Marxist, an identity politics crusader, and an anarchist together and treat them as one whole. It's idiotic.
He also doesn't address arguments as they're presented, but reinterprets them into simple, dumb ideas he can tear down. His stuff on white privilege shows he fundamentally does not understand the concept.
And as you go further in, you start talking about things like compulsory monogamy and 'what women want' and his fucked up ideas about trans people. The more you dig, the weirder his shit gets.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@CountScrofula Agreed. The right are short of intellectuals and a lot of online fan boys are in need of a guru. His ideas are confidently pitched and can seem profound to his audience on surface level but can be easily unpicked.
Its the cultural Marxist straw man but with post hitchens 'smart dude' presentation and physcho-mythical woo.
The more I read, the more I think he knows what he is doing. He has been deliberately courting controversy
Its the cultural Marxist straw man but with post hitchens 'smart dude' presentation and physcho-mythical woo.
The more I read, the more I think he knows what he is doing. He has been deliberately courting controversy
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@Burnley123 Yeah. He knows exactly what he is doing, and although he stumbled into his fame he's managing it very cleverly. Although likely to his eventual self-destruction; he's said as much himself.
> post hitchens 'smart dude' presentation and physcho-mythical woo.
Hahaha. Exactly. Speaking of snarly British atheists I was kind of heartbroken to see Stephen Fry arguing with Peterson. He was always a kind of 'intellectual who is not an intellectual' but uh, likable. Seeing him talk about how language doesn't matter and the madness of political correctness was kind of baffling.
> post hitchens 'smart dude' presentation and physcho-mythical woo.
Hahaha. Exactly. Speaking of snarly British atheists I was kind of heartbroken to see Stephen Fry arguing with Peterson. He was always a kind of 'intellectual who is not an intellectual' but uh, likable. Seeing him talk about how language doesn't matter and the madness of political correctness was kind of baffling.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@CountScrofula
[quote]Speaking of snarly British atheists[/quote]
We got a lot of those.
[quote] kind of 'intellectual who is not an intellectual[/quote]
Yup. Another box ticked.
I didn't see the show you mentioned. Is it on youtube and worth watching? I suspect the answer is yes and no. I kind of like Fry too and I'm sad to hear he is buddies with JBP. It does make kind of sense though because a lot of mainstream intellectuals end up defending the interests of the rich and powerful based on their reading of liberal values. The Iraq War springs to mind when the Euston Manifesto group supported Blairs invasion on the idea of spreading free-speech, democracy and human rights by bombing people. I have a pet hate for the classical-liberal interventionist new-atheist types, particularly because I see it as a reactionary misrepresentation of humanist values.
It is ironic though that some of the liberal new atheist crowd has stumbled into alt-rightist territory via new-age pycho-Christian. Perhaps the link is people who hate Muslims or those who need to look up to a stoic white middle-aged uberman? Otherwise I just don't get it. I think is shows that a lot of people's political journey is defined by identity and life experience more than a desire for consistency.
I'm not sure JBP stumbled into fame. I think he has been on the net for years as a minor figure but got two big breaks. One with his misrepresentation of that Canadian Trans Bill and one with the Kathy Newman interview. Both were golden opportunities to misrepresent his opponents arguments.
[quote]Speaking of snarly British atheists[/quote]
We got a lot of those.
[quote] kind of 'intellectual who is not an intellectual[/quote]
Yup. Another box ticked.
I didn't see the show you mentioned. Is it on youtube and worth watching? I suspect the answer is yes and no. I kind of like Fry too and I'm sad to hear he is buddies with JBP. It does make kind of sense though because a lot of mainstream intellectuals end up defending the interests of the rich and powerful based on their reading of liberal values. The Iraq War springs to mind when the Euston Manifesto group supported Blairs invasion on the idea of spreading free-speech, democracy and human rights by bombing people. I have a pet hate for the classical-liberal interventionist new-atheist types, particularly because I see it as a reactionary misrepresentation of humanist values.
It is ironic though that some of the liberal new atheist crowd has stumbled into alt-rightist territory via new-age pycho-Christian. Perhaps the link is people who hate Muslims or those who need to look up to a stoic white middle-aged uberman? Otherwise I just don't get it. I think is shows that a lot of people's political journey is defined by identity and life experience more than a desire for consistency.
I'm not sure JBP stumbled into fame. I think he has been on the net for years as a minor figure but got two big breaks. One with his misrepresentation of that Canadian Trans Bill and one with the Kathy Newman interview. Both were golden opportunities to misrepresent his opponents arguments.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
He is a good physchologist and an excellent public speaker.
His politics are ridiculous though, especially his conspiracy theory about 'post modern neo marxism'.
He has tapped into something because there is a crisis in millennial masculinity and a lot of people are looking for a message of certainty in confusing times. And yes, some student sjws do some dumb things.
A literal reading of his political positions is very dangerous though. He offers no distinction between the Google hr department, trans activists or the gulag archeopelido. All are 'collectivist' and therefore bad.
He blames the left for creating group identities, which he sees as divisive. Ignoring the fact that theses identities have been created in responses to marginalisation by mainstream society and/or the collective interests of the rich and powerful. To diagnose a problem does not make you the disease.
I have read his book and watched his videos because I like engaging with different ideas. However, I think a lot of people are too uncritical of his political views because they like his self-help advice.
His politics are ridiculous though, especially his conspiracy theory about 'post modern neo marxism'.
He has tapped into something because there is a crisis in millennial masculinity and a lot of people are looking for a message of certainty in confusing times. And yes, some student sjws do some dumb things.
A literal reading of his political positions is very dangerous though. He offers no distinction between the Google hr department, trans activists or the gulag archeopelido. All are 'collectivist' and therefore bad.
He blames the left for creating group identities, which he sees as divisive. Ignoring the fact that theses identities have been created in responses to marginalisation by mainstream society and/or the collective interests of the rich and powerful. To diagnose a problem does not make you the disease.
I have read his book and watched his videos because I like engaging with different ideas. However, I think a lot of people are too uncritical of his political views because they like his self-help advice.
ZenKitzune · F
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@ZenKitzune I have and I just disagree with him.
bijouxbroussard · F
@Burnley123 Same.
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
okaybut · 56-60, M
I do believe that physical traits are material/facts/biological and not a creation of an individual's mind. The perception of One is not a Collective reality. A Subjective Personal Truth is fine, but that does not make it a Collective Truth.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
👍 Though a tiny bit of his ideas are flawed!
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXAB6cICG0]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXAB6cICG0]
okaybut · 56-60, M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXAB6cICG0
@SW-User Quick comments...
But
1) Darwinism does not necessary exclude other theories. Similar to Behaviourism, they exist but are not brought directly into the Theory. Therefore not a Black and White Fallacy.
2) An atom causing human death...would still apply to Darwinism. Just a flaw in Human Beings and thus a Darwinian end.
3) Surprised he believed Jesus could have rose from the dead...This is fine with his theoretical ideals as long as he states that his subjective belief should never be stated as a belief necessary for all others.
@SW-User Quick comments...
But
1) Darwinism does not necessary exclude other theories. Similar to Behaviourism, they exist but are not brought directly into the Theory. Therefore not a Black and White Fallacy.
2) An atom causing human death...would still apply to Darwinism. Just a flaw in Human Beings and thus a Darwinian end.
3) Surprised he believed Jesus could have rose from the dead...This is fine with his theoretical ideals as long as he states that his subjective belief should never be stated as a belief necessary for all others.
okaybut · 56-60, M
@SW-User No problem. Thanks for the contrarian view to consider. So nice to have an opinion from the left based upon reason and not emotions or hearsay. I respect this youtube video author for thinking logically. :)
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Chimperator · 26-30, M
I watch his lectures very smart guy
bijouxbroussard · F
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@bijouxbroussard He kind of is that but dressed with subtle presentation and fake intellectualism.
bijouxbroussard · F
@Burnley123 Exactly, which is why even some [b]women[/b] are fooled. 😒