Not too long ago he claimed that the meat-head lunatic on Infowars had been right about some conspiracies.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Anxiety and paranoia amongst other things. Done in moderation it's no better or worse for you than alcohol but done to excess of course weed can be harmful. I'm not trumpeting an anti-weed position but it's naive to believe it's harmless.
I think he's like Will Absolute because they're both smart people who say lots of stupid things. But having said that...
@Charlie Foley @Irish Jet - Fair enough. I haven't listened to him for a few years so maybe my views are outdated.
He gives that guy for too much time
What’s wrong with Peterson? I get that a lot of people can disagree with him, but hate him? Granted I’ve not seen a whole lot of him, but he seems very rational and laid back. I agree with some of his points and disagree with others.
A friend of mine showed me a video of a very aggressive female reporter who kept ignoring his points and shouting him down for opinions he, apparently, didn’t have. How’s that helping? If more people could keep his form of civilized discourse while debating, maybe the actual points might come across?
A friend of mine showed me a video of a very aggressive female reporter who kept ignoring his points and shouting him down for opinions he, apparently, didn’t have. How’s that helping? If more people could keep his form of civilized discourse while debating, maybe the actual points might come across?
Check back 2 pages for my post on Peterson.
He's a complete hack.
He speaks in vague terms and never commits to positions he can later claim misrepresentation for anything he says or hide behind the complexity of an issue when he's caught out. The Cathy Newman interview which is probably the one you're referring to is a good example of him doing this - although she was terrible as well. He doesn't debate - Just spouts meaningless nonsense about post modern neo-marxism, like that's even a thing, or else he's being outraged over the left's outrage.
He's shown sympathy for some dangerously far right views in the past and there's also the pseudo science bullshit he pushed on issues like climate change. He's a waste of space.
As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, Peterson seems to do just fine as long as he sticks to his actual profession. Its when he deviates into the work of other professions that he makes a mess of things.
Jordan Peterson claimed to not sleep for an month. Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool.
Whether I agree with him or disagree with him, that's the last thing you can suggest JBP is.
He's fcuking intense at all times. He's a bloody weirdo in terms of his social behaviour.
All the research shows there's a link between heavy cannabis use and psychotic disorders. No causality established as of yet but there's clearly a link.
On the flip side, there’s plenty more research showing positive effects of cannabis. I may have painted a broad stroke but the pros outweighs the cons significantly.
Regardless, the context of the original comment was in criticism of Joe Rogan being a loony and blaming cannabis as part of it. I just find that to be absurd case to make just because the poster didn’t like some of his guests or his views.
Cheers for the answers! @Raoul @Irish Jet @Oo0AahCantona
Only ever seen the psychology stuff, and that Cathy Newman interview. What @Raoul says should ideally be the norm. When moving into political themes it’s all opinions and biased anyway.
Must say though, that particular interview with Cathy Newman actually made me actively dislike her (never heard of her before) and feel some sympathy towards him. She really didn’t interview him as much as attack him. Was really weird, and I can’t help but feel she did more harm than good for her cause.
I seem to remember him saying some interesting things about how some women want someone to dominate, lord around if you will, but still complain their men never takes charge. Can’t really generalise, but in my personal experience these types really do exist. My mother being the prime example (higher education than my father, higher salary etc).
Only ever seen the psychology stuff, and that Cathy Newman interview. What @Raoul says should ideally be the norm. When moving into political themes it’s all opinions and biased anyway.
Must say though, that particular interview with Cathy Newman actually made me actively dislike her (never heard of her before) and feel some sympathy towards him. She really didn’t interview him as much as attack him. Was really weird, and I can’t help but feel she did more harm than good for her cause.
I seem to remember him saying some interesting things about how some women want someone to dominate, lord around if you will, but still complain their men never takes charge. Can’t really generalise, but in my personal experience these types really do exist. My mother being the prime example (higher education than my father, higher salary etc).
Hah, yeah, that’s ridiculous if ment literally. That would leave a human being quite dead
Fair enough.
There is no link between providing people from all sides with a platform, and being right wing. That's just something you pulled out of your ass. He is to anybody with ears very clearly a liberal.
That’s the dumbest thing you’ve said yet.
Oh you're trolling, that solves that then.
I was when I first replied to you. But your last reply was some real dumb shit.
The dangers of weedI think he has a good show and reading a post like this doesn’t convince me otherwise a whole lot.
He’s definitely a good advert for the dangers of weed making someone really really boring and predictable whenever weed comes up in conversation.
His politics are fairly middle of the road though. Mainly libertarian.
If anyone hasn’t listened to his interview with Andrew Yang they really should. Haven’t listened to JRE in ages but this is one of his best ever IMO. Andrew Yang is the man. Would get my vote, that’s for damn sure.
If anyone hasn’t listened to his interview with Andrew Yang they really should. Haven’t listened to JRE in ages but this is one of his best ever IMO. Andrew Yang is the man. Would get my vote, that’s for damn sure.
I think JBP may actually have been a fairly ordinary, mildly eccentric, academic before he dug his heel in about pronouns and stumbled onto youtube fuelled celebrity. Which has made him go a bit ga ga.
Ironic that someone who prides himeslf on teaching mental fortitude to others seems to be rapidly going doolally himself.
Ironic that someone who prides himeslf on teaching mental fortitude to others seems to be rapidly going doolally himself.
Nope, you're just clueless if your genuine position is giving people on the right and left a platform to speak means you're on the right, which might not be your actual viewpoint but it's the statement you made that I replied to and since you seem to have an issue with my reply it can only be assumed that that's your position. The company I work for refused to kick Breitbart off our platform and we're probably one of the most liberal and progressive company in the country spearheading legal weed. It's not uncommon for left leaning people to give a platform to both the left and the right and let people make up their minds rather than sticking to an echo chamber.
Here's a guy who votes democrat every time and who is on board with climate change, for universal basic income, medicare, legalizing weed to name a few but sure, that's right wing.
Plus...how many right wingers are out there promoting DMT use.
God he's just so chilled out isn't he? Social skills of Oprah on display there.
/s obviously
Rogan right wing
Not sure which aspect of this post is more cringe-worthy. You thinking it is "progressive" to give a platform to Breitbart and supporting legalization of weed or that you talk about echo chamber thinking while boasting about your company out of context.
How can something be both dangerous AND boring?
How can something be both dangerous AND boring?
There’s no greater danger for a middle-aged man than getting boring, believe me!
Then you should probably go back to school and pick up some common sense.
I think the problem is that 'ring wing' now encompasses whatever the speaker disagrees with. That said, around 2011-14, DMT was huge in the libertarian community in the US on youtube and other social media.
libertarians are almost always right wing
Perhaps, the problem comes when some people lump people as disparate as fascists to libertarians under the same umbrella. In this thread, people identify drug legalisation as a left wing policy, but it's a rather massive issue for libertarians too.
Joe Rogan is not right wing though, he's an idiot, but he seems to float depending on the issue. And I don't think his guests are necessarily reflective of his personal politics. At the end of the day, he makes money off his podcasts so it makes sense to get the most interesting/controversial people on there.
I think you hot the nail on the head here. It’s become more of a reflexive unbrella term for disagreeable people in an increasingly tribal online world where “you’re either with us or you’re with them”, and whenever anyone else is hard to pigeonhole into one or the other, they are by default viewed as on the other side.
Last edited:
I dont really get this suggestion that talking to or interviewing right wing people means you should be disregarded and dismissed.
I dont care that much what Joe Rogans views are, i listen to hear his guests and i like that he gets a weird mix in. I'm never going to listen to all of his shows or even a fraction so I can just skip the ones i'm not interested in regardless.
I dont care that much what Joe Rogans views are, i listen to hear his guests and i like that he gets a weird mix in. I'm never going to listen to all of his shows or even a fraction so I can just skip the ones i'm not interested in regardless.
This.
Clinical psychology, fine.
When he starts going into politics he talks the usual conservative stuff and therefore because he's a scientist, his followers hang on his every word, connecting the two things - coming to the conclusion that right-wing political stances are the most 'rational'.
**cringeee**
From what I've heard from other people in the field, even this might not actually be completely true. He's certainly no Dawkins, for example, compared to their own fields.
Yeah, my mrs seconds that, having a masters in psychology. Not talked to her in depth about it, as she prefers steering clear of hot button nonsense. She assures me that he’s talking out of his arse with regards to evolutionary psychology, though.
Noticed the last week my youtube feed full of suggestions for Peterson and Shapiro videos. I've watched no more than three or four videos of them combined, and none in the last year at least.