Thank you for your submission. | We're currently experiencing a higher than normal troll volume. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*


This is also the most postmodernist thing ever to be said by anyone.


At this point even Derrida would say "Dude, shut up and answer straight."


What do you mean by literally, what do you mean by punchline as when... (starts crying)... when you're dealing with... (rambles on for 5 minutes saying nothing of substance)


When you wrote ramble what do you mean exactly? Are you discussing a man?


When you ask the question, “are you discussing a man,” that begs the question, “what is a man?” When you’re dealing with fundamental realities of humanity you cannot just have one man.


imagine wasting people's time by talking like that.


He takes himself way too seriously.


Well of course he does. He's the greatest thinker of all time. Look how hard he's thinking in that clip. He is thinking so hard his eyes have rolled to the back of his skull and he's reading directly of his brain. That is not him trying to grasp at straws to avoid answering, no siree, that is a man thinking so hard his face has started crushing inward.


That can also happens when you actually have a negative amoung of brain cells, creating a black hole inside your skull that sucks you into yourself until you are inside out. I'd say Jeepers is about a month away from that happening


Fucking guy is always stuffed into his little grey suit weeping


I said this for a long time: He is the caricature of a postmodernist and also the biggest hypocrite. Rule number 10 - Be precise in your speech I guess it depends on what you mean by "precise" and "in" and "YOUR" and "speech". These are profound questions, you cannot take this lightly bucko. This guy is such a joke, I pity the people that still think he is some genius philosopherpsychologist.


Tbf "defining one's terms" is part of being precise in speech. The thing is Peterson has no real sincere interest to define his terms, he merely uses it as rhetoric to obsfucate his intentions.


I never really understood his appeal. When I first heard of him I was still mildly a conservative but I quickly moved away from him when I saw how little sense he was actually making. His talk about the Holocaust and how he claimed he hates Nazis and has studied authoritarianism for 40 years and still got such basic facts wrong gave me the gut feeling that he was being wrong on purpose in order to mimic how such authoritarians got into power so he can do the same.


Can you point me to a link that discusses his talk about the Holocaust? How was he wrong? I've been following his work but somehow missed that part. He's definitely trying to be more influential but lost the support of so many people in the last couple of years because of his rambling.


I can't think of any specific videos right now but he's definitely said incorrect stuff about the Holocaust a few times. I know he did an AMA a few years ago and someone asked him how he is able to claim the Nazis were a secular group not influenced by religion. The person calls him out pretty clearly asking where his claim is coming from, and JP is just like "Nazis were atheists, duh."


People also think he is a THERAPIST. Terrifying.


Jorpies is just unraveling. Usually and up to this point I'm able to piece together something from him, but now he sounds like an academic Herschel Walker.


“academic Herschel Walker.” Ooof, body blow!


Well they do both likely have brain damage.


The thing is in many Christian sects you say creeds which specifically define what you believe. The eastern orthodox masses which he claims to be attending recite the nicene creed which clearly states you beleive in a literal all powerful God and that Jesus is his son but one in being with the father died and was resurrected in spirit AND body from death. Did he not notice this part of the mass? Does he think religious people don't believe the things they say?


Remembering things can be pretty hard when you are brain damaged


I wish just once someone debating or interviewing Peterson would bring a dictionary and whip it out when he tries his usual, "It depends what you mean by xxxx" shtick.


Well I suppose that would depend on what you mean by "definition"


“We all know what it means in the greater context of the sentence and there’s no need for you to question it or split hairs over it.”


For real it’s a stupid trick he uses to make himself seem wise. Zizek has a whole monologue on why he hated wise guys, this is exactly what he means. Just a collection stupid platitudes and manuerisms.


I thought this guy was against post modernism? This seems like a very post modernist response lmao


Yep, don't do drugs kids


Ugh, can you imagine if he were questioned in court as a witness. "What do you mean, he? What do you mean, stab? What do you mean, stomach? What do you mean, SEE?" Wait actually, didn't he give his opinion in court in some capacity? He must have been insufferable.


Haha he wasn’t just insufferable, he was completely ANTI-productive to the trial. He loves going off about how some leftist ideology is not just untruthful but ANTI-truth, meanwhile he is the opposite of efficient or productive in his speech and communication. He basically tried to advertise his bullshit course on agreeableness and said he was an expert in job interviews and so that would make him an expert in police interrogations as well. He hadn’t even watched the entire interrogation and so got basic things wrong in his testimony about the order of events that had an effect in painting the defendant guilty or innocent. His participation in the trial is ridiculously stupid and reading this article is hilarious and you can read the linked court documents with quotes from the judge in the case as well. https://pressprogress.ca/jordan-peterson-was-an-expert-witness-in-a-murder-trial-the-court-called-his-expert-opinions-dubious/


Oh man I didn't know about this, thank you


Benzo Lobster Boy


What interview is this from? Would like to watch the whole thing for context. Nevermind, found the full interview: https://youtu.be/gqS1ov4lSI0


Wrong sub for this (I realize) but… he’s right, no? This just sounds like it’s part of defining your terms. Where is he going wrong here?


>but… he’s right, no? every english speaker in the world knows what happen means.


Half the philosophy 101 class I don’t remember much of anything from was all about super different opinions re: the nature of reality—basically how you define “happening.” (Your sense lie bc that twinkling star went kablooey* 5k years ago… Or quantum shit happening—but not in any way “happening” would mean to a lot of people… Or how things can only happen if you have a mental concept of them—or maybe not…) *(Or maybe stars just fade? I don’t remember astronomy 101 much either.)


Among other things it's ironic because he rails against post-modern neo-marxists... and here he's being excessively post-modernist.


Oh yeah, my comment isn’t operating on this level or talking about contradiction in his work more broadly. I couldn’t speak to that. But just this 40 secs in isolation doesn’t seem to offer much to go after hard. Edit: I’d def be outclassed by super knowledgeable people in here in any real, broader discussion.


Sit and listen to him rail against post modern neo-marxists, then go watch his debate against Slavoj Zizek. His absolute lack of understanding is on full display, as well as his intellectual laziness.


You don’t need to define all your terms unless you are redefining common verbs like “happen.”


It’s not hard to imagine it mattering in a philosophical conversation tho. It’s common. The nature of whether or not something “happened,” you can set that criteria a few diff ways.


Which he do you mean? The Reddit poster, the twitter poster, or Jordan Peterson? In this case, there are multiple nouns that can be addressed. Where-as, in Peterson’s case, not every word in his sentence has multiple meanings. Let’s say they did. He still leaves the listen to have to fill in what meanings there could be. If he had multiple meanings, it would have been easy for him to say, “do you mean believe as in I know or believe as in I think it would be good?” Simply implying that words can have multiple meanings doesn’t get him off the hook of answering a question. Suppose a car dealership asks if you want the color RED for a car, and you say, “depends on what red.” You haven’t helped narrow anything down for them. They could list the thousand different shades of red, but a better communication would be listing what you do want in a red or what you do want in color. Where do you want to eat? Depends on what you mean eat, and what you mean Where. See how that didn’t help clear anything up? Now we are even further back, left to guess what meanings there could be for eat and where. Is he worried it’s a private event? Is he worried there won’t be talking? Is he worried about alcohol? It just makes the issue less understood and needlessly complex. Imagine if every time you asked someone if they wanted to get a burger you needed to be exactly specific. “You want to get a whole grain, beef based, medium rare with cheddar cheese burger at a sit down restaurant within 5 minutes that we can chat and catch up while also enjoying the taste and atmosphere?” And then it lends itself to even more, “what do you mean atmosphere! What do you mean BEEF?!?” It falsely makes it seem like the asker is at fault for even asking the question, while Peterson takes NO responsibility to clarify. That being said… he sure does say he knows what other people are thinking while never asking the “what do you mean” question for them. When he said Atheists act as if there is a god… he didn’t define anything. Nor did he ask, “what do I mean by atheists? What do i mean by god? What do I mean by act?” When even asked to clarify, he doubled down that he was right in his definition… without giving ANY, and made us assume we knew what he meant. And said any question of it was wrong. Based on that we have to assume Peterson is a untrustworthy narrator and source of information. We may never get a clear answer from him, and shouldn’t act like we have. Because what did he actually mean by any of those words?




It depends what you mean by 'he' and what you mean by 'right' ?