4 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

I just see him as the most articulate and intellectual voice in the academic circles these days who can refute these utterly retarded collective schemes and the people who peddle them.  Of course guys like Moto will try and delegitimize him.  How he goes on, day after day, all wrapped up in this shit is mind numbing.  Then we have the mouth breathers like Ben.  Just wow.

Peterson: here’s the facts of the subject.

moto and behn: oh yeah? Here’s my feelings on it

Edited May 8, 20188 yr by Rod Johnson

7 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

Like how he dissected the gender pay gap. Nerds were pretty pissed 

you're just mad cuz you haven't decolonized your praxis yet and aren't even incel.  Proletariat scum!  

Edited May 8, 20188 yr by DriftBusta

Just now, f7ben said:

 

Sweet fuck you are insufferable .......

Speaking of which, kill any cops today Foamy?

Just now, DriftBusta said:

you're just mad cuz you haven't decolonized your praxis yet and aren't even incel.  Protletariat scum!  

 the the fucking MAXIMUM MAX  what a clown show 

2 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

Speaking of which, kill any cops today Foamy?

Shoot any muslims today shyster ???

3 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

you're just mad cuz you haven't decolonized your praxis yet and aren't even incel.  Protletariat scum!  

Indecolonized my butt all over motos idea of what communism is!

Lol.....

 

Only a Country Like Canada Could Produce a Guy Like Jordan Peterson

TORONTO — There is a certain image that Canada projects to the world, one that is particularly compelling to Americans. It’s the image of Canada as a tolerant, progressive, kind and humanitarian nation, populated by mild-mannered and polite people. The idea of Canada the Good — a Scandinavian-style socialist democracy, with the added bonus of multicultural harmony — is an attractive one, helpful in providing Canadians with some kind of national identity, and left-leaning Americans with a handy rhetorical device for political arguments: Look at what’s possible, right next door!

But it’s worth remembering that this image of Canada, currently personified by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is a relatively recent construction, largely put forth by Mr. Trudeau’s father, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Before that — and for most of the intervening years, between Trudeaus — the public face of Canada has looked a lot like, well, Jordan Peterson. Mr. Peterson is the University of Toronto psychologist who leveraged his defiant stance in 2016 against a human rights bill concerning gender expression to become, arguably, the country’s most famous academic ever.

Canada is home to many more Jordan Petersons than Justin Trudeaus. Mr. Peterson is — to use one of his favorite terms — something of a national archetype, the default setting of the Canadian male: a dull but stern dad, who, under a facade of apparent normalcy and common sense, conceals a reserve of barely contained hostility toward anyone who might rock the boat. To these types, those who make a fuss are bothersome and ignorant at best, and probably dangerous and destructive too.

This is a mind-set with deep historical roots in the Great White North. There is, for example, no national mythology surrounding the idea of Canadian independence; that’s because try as our forefathers might, it’s not easy to construct an inspiring story out of representatives traveling to London to request greater autonomy while remaining within the British empire. This is how “peace, order and good government” came to be the Canadian answer to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Canadians may flirt with the occasional dynamic leader, but they never go too far. Our current prime minister came into office following the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose beige public persona lent a sense of dull inevitability to his technocratic and paternalistic tenure. Charisma is suspect here, and when Mr. Peterson uses that word to describe Mr. Trudeau, it’s not a compliment.

Suspect, too, is any whiff of revolutionary spirit. Pierre Trudeau might have technically been a liberal, but he was the kind of liberal who declared martial law in 1970 when a bumbling handful of Quebec separatists were deemed enough of a threat to justify suspending civil liberties en masse. This skittish overreaction to a perceived threat to social order repeated itself in 2010, when the entire downtown core of Toronto went on police lockdown because of protests at the G-20 summit conference, protests that resulted in the largest mass arrests in Canadian history.

Our politics reflect our sense of unease with anything radical. Liberals who think of Canada as a lefty haven should look to our most recent federal election: the New Democratic Party, ostensibly the major party farthest to the left, ran its last campaign on a platform of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. Not even the Green Party dares to suggest divesting from Alberta’s oil sands. As for Justin Trudeau, his dreamy-boyfriend brand suggests a departure from Conservative government policies that he has yet to deliver: On every issue, from peacekeeping to pipelines, carbon targets to Indigenous relations, Mr. Trudeau has largely continued the policies set by his predecessor. Even our pop culture reflects our national preference for stasis: Drake, the Torontonian rap superstar, is probably best known for introducing ennui to hip-hop.

Canadian conservatism is not brash. It is not belligerent, it is not loud. It is not Fox News. But our most popular columnists all deliver the same message: Things are the way they are for a reason. Those who agitate for change are stepping out of line.

Which brings us back to Jordan Peterson. Consider his book’s sixth “rule for life”: “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.” The message: Until you’ve cleaned your room and achieved perfect personal order, how dare you assume you have any business diagnosing the world’s problems, much less trying to fix them?

 

He reserves particular ire for young activists. “I tell 18-year-olds: Six years ago you were 12 — what the hell do you know? You haven’t done anything,” he says. “You don’t have a degree, you haven’t finished your courses, you don’t know how to read, you can’t think, you can’t speak.”

“It’s just not right,” he says, “to tell people in that situation that they should go out and change the socioeconomic structure of the culture!”

Delivered as a fiery sermon, this impassioned plea for humility and self-improvement gets laughs from Peterson fans. But in practice, it’s actually an argument for submission to the status quo that would have prevented any number of people, from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Emma González, from ever speaking up.

Americans are raised to believe that individuals, even flawed ones, can indeed change the world, and sometimes should. Canadians, for all that we’ve managed to construct a society that Americans sometimes envy, lack this ethic. The resulting mind-set, disdainful of idealism and suspicious of ego, is one we are now, evidently, exporting.

To his growing fan base of disaffected men in America and around the world, Jordan Peterson is considered a heroic figure of historical importance, the man who finally said “Enough!” to political correctness run amok, to mobs of rabid Social Justice Warriors, to an ideologically driven “leftist-Marxist” movement hellbent on destroying Western civilization itself.

It is worth remembering that Mr. Peterson can be more accurately described as a previously obscure Canadian academic who believed, erroneously, that he would soon be forced by law to use gender-neutral pronouns and who refused to bow to that hypothetical demand. The proposed human rights policy that made Mr. Peterson famous is now Canadian law, and no instance of “compelled speech” has occurred as a result of it or resulted in criminal charges, as Mr. Peterson feared. On the issue of legal requirements for pronoun use, things remain the way Mr. Peterson wanted them — the same.

Mr. Peterson was taking a stand not against power in that instance but on behalf of it. His acolytes, some of whom might consider themselves to be walking in the tradition of rugged American individualism, should note that they are in fact taking marching orders — “Rules for Life,” no less — from a line-toeing Canadian, preaching a philosophy not of American defiance but of Canadian deference.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/opinion/jordan-peterson-canadian-deference.html

 

You know moto is butthurt when he actually read all that wow

Just now, Rod Johnson said:

You know moto is butthurt when he actually read all that wow

I read fast. 

That piece actually gave me some good insight into Canadian behavior.

1 minute ago, Rod Johnson said:

You know moto is butthurt when he actually read all that wow

Ah....he posted 3 or 4 articles exposing Peterson as a complete fraud using pseudoscience to peddle his bullshit. Nobody with a brain buys it 

2 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Ah....he posted 3 or 4 articles exposing Peterson as a complete fraud using pseudoscience to peddle his bullshit. Nobody with a brain buys it 

Then tell us who with a fucking brain is on point with Motos world view, and what the likelihood of it happening is?  Yeah sorry foamy boy.

2 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

Then tell us who with a fucking brain is on point with Motos world view, and what the likelihood of it happening is?  Yeah sorry foamy boy.

Me !!!!!!!1111

13 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

you're just mad cuz you haven't decolonized your praxis yet and aren't even incel.  Proletariat scum!  

Are you misusing these terms on purpose or?

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

Then tell us who with a fucking brain is on point with Motos world view, and what the likelihood of it happening is?  Yeah sorry foamy boy.

You have a foamy butthole.

False dichotomy. People can believe Peterson is a charlatan and also disagree with my worldview. 

U can b 2 things...

11 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Ah....he posted 3 or 4 articles exposing Peterson as a complete fraud using pseudoscience to peddle his bullshit. Nobody with a brain buys it 

Then refute his facts. Step 1 you can’t 

16 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

I read fast. 

That piece actually gave me some good insight into Canadian behavior.

You haven’t learned shit a bit Canadian behaviour until you been fucked up on the prairies 

52 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

I noticed that.  Other than some obscure dude from the northern lower posting up his spank bank of anti Peterson memes, already locked and loaded, there is no one yet I've seen out debate the guy in person.  Pretty sure, actual guy>made up memes

Matt Dillahunty reduces him to a babbling metaphysics mess.

Neal

Another bloody good one from Canadian courts:

[19]        I will deal next with Dr. Peterson’s report entitled “Multiple rater response to play assessment description From Kawartha Family Court Assessment Service Report”.  It is dated May 4, 2009.  This is perhaps the most interesting of all of the reports that counsel for the respondent wishes the court to consider.  It comes as close to “junk science” as anything that I have ever been asked to consider.  Dr. Peterson’s evidence was that he did not consider himself to be an objective observer, if only because he only saw the respondent.  Therefore, he took excerpts from the Kawartha Family Court Assessment Service Report dealing with the observations of the play sessions with the children and each parent.  He then designed a questionnaire to explore the actions of the parents therein.  He then sent all that to what he describes as “22 colleagues, psychologists, social and child care workers”.  We know nothing of their experience.  Five persons responded to his questionnaire.  The following is Dr. Peterson’s description of those five:

Three of these were psychologists.  Two were developmental clinical psychologists.  One was a former professor who had done gestalt therapy.  One was a child welfare worker with a degree in social work.  Once was a private neuropsychological rehabilitator with a bachelor’s degree in psychology and extensive experience dealing with children with severe behavioural difficulties.

[20]       Even if Dr. Peterson testified as to why he choose those 22 people or what he understood to be the qualifications of those who responded, we would have no first-hand knowledge of any qualification that any of them might have to give evidence regarding custody and access assessments, or as to observations of the parties during the play sessions which would factor into such an assessment.  It is astonishing in my opinion that Dr. Peterson would feel that this was good science.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii80104/2009canlii80104.html?autocompleteStr=Sordi&autocompletePos=3&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAIUGV0ZXJzb24AAAAAAQ&offset=0

7 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Matt Dillahunty reduces him to a babbling metaphysics mess.

Neal

Haven't watched it yet, AvE and spreadsheets for work got the best of me.  Can't win them call, I guess.

Moto digging as deep as he is to discredit him means he is probably a pretty decent and smart guy.  Makes me like him a lot more.

2 minutes ago, racinfarmer said:

Haven't watched it yet, AvE and spreadsheets for work got the best of me.  Can't win them call, I guess.

Moto digging as deep as he is to discredit him means he is probably a pretty decent and smart guy.  Makes me like him a lot more.

So you must love Hillary then

Oops

3 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

So you must love Hillary then

Oops

I dislike career politicians in general.  What a sad existence.  

IZ UR RUME KLEAN???!

DONT EVER TALK 2 ME OR MY SON AGAIN!

 

Ok this is the best one from The Superior Court of Ontario yet. Link above. Lmao.

 

The apparent but unfounded arrogance of Dr. Peterson found throughout this report [and for that matter in some of the other reports] is troubling and give rise to the question of whether his reports are not biased in more than one fashion.  That there can be more than one type of bias when it comes to experts is explored by Professor David Paciocco in his article “Taking a ‘Goudge’ out of Bluster and Blarney: an ‘Evidence-Based Approach’ to Expert Testimony”.[9]  On page 18 of his paper, Professor Paciocco lists and defines many possible types of bias, including: lack of independence bias; adversarial bias; selection bias; team bias; professional interest bias; association bias; and noble cause distortion bias.  I venture the opinion that Dr. Peterson suffers from at least two, if not three, of those.

45 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

DONT EVER TALK 2 ME OR MY SON AGAIN!

 

Shapiro is intelligent as well. I don’t agree with everything he says, but generally he educates himself quite well on the topic at hand 

6 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Ok this is the best one from The Superior Court of Ontario yet. Link above. Lmao.

 

The apparent but unfounded arrogance of Dr. Peterson found throughout this report [and for that matter in some of the other reports] is troubling and give rise to the question of whether his reports are not biased in more than one fashion.  That there can be more than one type of bias when it comes to experts is explored by Professor David Paciocco in his article “Taking a ‘Goudge’ out of Bluster and Blarney: an ‘Evidence-Based Approach’ to Expert Testimony”.[9]  On page 18 of his paper, Professor Paciocco lists and defines many possible types of bias, including: lack of independence bias; adversarial bias; selection bias; team bias; professional interest bias; association bias; and noble cause distortion bias.  I venture the opinion that Dr. Peterson suffers from at least two, if not three, of those.

Wtf is the superior court of Ontario  

also, Ontario is one of the most extreme authoritarian provinces