• Redrangutang@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I like a lot of JPs stuff l. He intruduced me to a lot of concepts but ironically i must warn that his content really is for the thinking man in the sense that you need to stay vigilant to spot the cintradictions with reality. Cleaning your room doesnt fix dating or the job market for instance and sometimes those realities that go beyond our own self discipline and talent really are overwhelming.

  • xorollo@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    So, I haven’t heard much about JP in a while,and now I’ve heard a podcast and this. Is it just coincidence or is there a reason we’re talking about him again? The podcast mentioned he’d gone on some show debating Christianity with 20 atheists. It went as you might imagine, where jp argued that atheists were Christian because they didn’t understand the thing they say they don’t believe in. Idk. Anyway – any other reason I’m hearing about him again?

    • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s mostly just that. The whole thing was a mess. The atheists were told they would be debating a Christian and prepared as such, but he won’t define himself as a Christian. So much time is wasted dancing around that. They had to change the title from Christian debates to Jordan Peterson debates. On top of that he will barely engage properly, saying things like he won’t entertain a hypothetical because he wouldn’t allow himself to get in that situation in the first place. Just generally not acting in good faith.

      • axx@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The guy is a notorious rhetorical shitmuffin.

        He just strings fallacies together and his crowd along.

  • drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    I think Rogan was the smarter one.

    Actually, I know Rogan is smarter. Rogan had a craft as a fight commentator; that’s a skill that takes knowledge in both tv presentation and fighting. And I bet you rogan easily talk for a full day about Pride FC without repeating a point.

    JP knows how fill an essay up to four paragraphs.

      • drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        I am not. Rogan is a legit expert at his field. Charisma is just another thing he has on JP. And I am not even a fan of Rogan.

        I can’t even name what JP is good at.

    • Redrangutang@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Dont forget how he had to wrestle mike goldberg so that he wouldnt drink more than 2 monster energys per night and say something outof pocket

  • Frenchfryenjoyer (she/her)@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    2 days ago

    Sealioning (source) + whataboutism. A very cheap method of trolling and exhausting the opponent of the argument which relies on the victim being unaware of sealioning and they’re being sealioned. It’s frustrating seeing JP fans think this is proof he’s a genius. it’s like Ben Shapiro, another rightwing “influencer” who constantly speaks fast and gish gallops on purpose and his fans think he’s a genius for that too

      • Frenchfryenjoyer (she/her)@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 day ago

        That, too. For people who don’t know what that is (source)

        The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”).[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]

        • mikezeman@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Thanks for teaching me something new!

          Also your username is very apt for this thread.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 days ago

    False inductive reasoning combined with butwhataboutism and sealinoning. All designed to exhaust the opponent and muddy the argument. Conservatives love this form of argument.

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 day ago

    My dog is an intellectual powerhouse compared to Jordan Peterson fans.

    Lol. I just Googled him and his YouTube channel description reads…

    “Join intellectual phenomenon Dr. Jordan B. Peterson for enlightening discourse”

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    My father tried to tell me what a “genius” he is. I told my father point blank, Jordan Peterson is only a genius to morons. He even gave me one of Peterson’s self help books, I immediately tossed it in the trash. Though, in retrospect, I probably should have tried to return it to Amazon and used the money to buy something more worthy of reading, like Chick Tracts. 😂 At least they’re entertaining.