ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, October 06, 2018

Jordan Peterson kneecaps his defenders

Peterson's cultists really are desperate. It was a joke. He's being sarcastic. I think he's waxing ironic. he has to be joking. He's drunk tweeting. I'm hoping @jordanbpeterson is drunk posting tonight. Did he really mean it?

And my favorite: It's the scurvy talking.

But no, Crazy Christ wasn't "being sarcastic" when he suggested that Kavanaugh step down if confirmed.
Jordan B Peterson@jordanbpeterson
If confirmed Kavanaugh should step down.

Jordan B Peterson@jordanbpeterson
I'm not certain that is the right move. It's very complex. But he would have his name cleared, and a figure who might be less divisive might be put forward.
This episode has not only demonstrated that Jordan Peterson is NOT on our side, it has shown that a) his defenders are clueless cultists who simply refuse to accept the truth about him, and, b) Jordan Peterson is a complete ignoramus when it comes to American politics.

First, Supreme Court Justice-to-be Kavanaugh would not have his name cleared. Just ask Robert Bork or Richard Nixon. Second, the God-Emperor Donald Trump would not respond by putting forward someone less divisive, he would absolutely name someone he could trust not to betray him by stepping down after all the hard work was done, someone who is a fire-breather that would make Kavanaugh look like a cuddly teddy bear in comparison.

Which is to say, someone considerably MORE divisive.

I am genuinely curious to see what sort of excuse the Jordanetics cultists will provide next for their hero. Especially since he is such a shameless and transparent liar.
I have a habit of not preparing my talks until really the last minute, and I mean that's not exactly true, because I've been thinking about what I'm going to talk to you about tonight for a very long time, but I, I really only got the title for this talk firmly in place about half an hour ago. And, and one of the things I like to do when I'm speaking to people is to tell them what I'm thinking about, not what I've already thought about, you know, and certainly not what I know, but what I'm thinking about, what I'm trying to figure out.
It's strange, then, that he so often happens to say the same things over and over and over again. Does he never manage to figure anything out? Notice again how he advertises when he's about to lie. Many people, me included, repeat words or even stutter, but I've noticed that Peterson tends to primarily do it when he's about to say something he knows to be false.

I will admit that I found Stefan's puzzled reaction to Peterson's original tweet to be mildly amusing. Surely there must be some kind of context in which the Crazy Christ didn't actually mean what he quite clearly wrote!
@StefanMolyneux
I find this bafflingly incomprehensible. Appease disproven accusers? Can anyone help me with context?

@ButMuhRussia
Vox told you, Stefan. You just didn't listen.

@CovfefusMaximus
Context: Peterson is a fraud, exposed by Vox Day months ago

@ProgenyOfEurope
Context: he is an intellectual fraud.
Just to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with Stefan. He owes me nothing and we get along fine. He's neither the first nor last intelligent individual to be taken in by Peterson's bafflegarble. As far as I can tell, Milo is about the only one to have seen through Peterson as quickly as I did, even though he was considerably more polite about it. Although it would appear Mike Cernovich has now too:

Professor Peterson: Have you resigned your position in an effort to appease the hate mob that targeted you? That would clear your name, yes?

Labels:

110 Comments:

Blogger tuberman October 06, 2018 8:15 AM  

Most of the people here got it when you brought out his fraud on the Jewish IQ at the beginning, then we explored him deeply and found many BS points. He is/was just a more stealthy Ben Shapiro. Making the point to those who do not get it, is part of the Culture Wars, and necessary.

Blogger Shane Sullivan October 06, 2018 8:22 AM  

Now I completely understand why you prefer transcripts instead of the video they originated from; they effectively cut through all the stage theatrics and charisma that someone like Jordan Peterson uses to blind his audience from the fact that he's speaking nonsense. While I was never a cultist, I did enjoy his talks, but now it's hard to take him seriously.

Blogger The Kurgan October 06, 2018 8:24 AM  

I think it’s quite interesting how a literal would-be pagan shaman with delusions of divinity is able to become a tenured professor.

Blogger paranoid October 06, 2018 8:26 AM  

Peterson isn’t that terrible as you paint him. From time to time he has interesting insights: E. g.

he noted that some primates(all of them? Only gorillas? Don’t remember) make war between themselves and how this fact was hidden from the public by anthropologists(Jane Goodall I think) cause it undermined dominant egalitarian narrative.

Sometimes he drops such things which clearly cross overton window and could be the reason why he is hated by leftists, and also why his fans get the impression he is some kind of ally. Of course he isn’t one – he belongs to the liberal centre-left – he acts as one, he defines himself as somebody of the left, and his ideas mostly are of liberal centre-left. Might be the same case as with Allan Bloom – one of the superheroes of conservatives – he also wasn’t conservative, he also explictly said he was on the left(or that he was liberal) and he is treated like conservative anyway.

Quite similar to people like Pinker, Fukuyama, Lilla in short folks who are very interested in maintaining status quo till the end of time(Liberal Democracy is crowning achievement of „humanity” to them after all).

His fans are altogether different story. They have gigantic problems accepting that Peterson is in fact enemy no lesser than SJW and his objectives are much closer to SJW’s than those on the Right.

Blogger Johnny October 06, 2018 8:26 AM  

>>If confirmed Kavanaugh should step down.

Some adults if stress hard enough, say severe pain or fear, will retreat to childhood. The classic is to cry out "Mother!" Maybe that is what the clean your room stuff is about. Peterson wants parental approval and a clean room is one way to get it.

It would fit in well that he has difficulty handling a divisive political environment, thus his comment on Kavanaugh. Ease the pain of disapproval with surrender. Perhaps is not so much political leaning but personality. He wants Kavanaugh to do what he would do, retreat from the fight.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 06, 2018 8:31 AM  

Yeah the twitter threads are interesting. CC Lobstaman is just another broken man, it's what happens when you don't contest the Left on the moral level of conflict. If he were asked about the pronouns now he would deliver 10,000 words of his famous bafflegarb and call it intellectual. That means loser

Blogger VD October 06, 2018 8:37 AM  

Peterson isn’t that terrible as you paint him.

I would argue that he's considerably worse. Enemies who insinuate themselves inside and lower resistance are more dangerous than those that inspire it.

And remember, he had those dreams for months... and only shared two of them. He's crazier than we can possibly know.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer October 06, 2018 8:40 AM  

The tweet is literally crazy talk.

Blogger Silly but True October 06, 2018 8:45 AM  

No, no, no.

It wasn’t a gorilla war.

It was a guerrilla war between chimpanzees.

Blogger Otto Lamp October 06, 2018 8:47 AM  

Peterson is getting ripped a new one on these Twitter threads--by his fans.

Blogger Rocklea Marina October 06, 2018 8:55 AM  

And after he resigns, he can go to the movies with them.

Blogger Alex The Great October 06, 2018 9:06 AM  

I hate him and all of his smug “intellectual dark web” allies. I have more respect for people who are clear enemies than those who pretend to be my friend.

He’s a nerd and a coward who got picked on, therefore clung to academia in order to gain authority and respect. He never actually addressed the fact that he’s a traumatised pussy seeking power and control via leftist infrastructure.

Side note: The Kermit the Frog voice isn’t ‘his voice’ ... it’s a symptom of lack of masculine base projection that is the result of improper breathing. He speaks from his head rather than his diaphragm. This is a terrible example for boys in itself.

Blogger Silent Draco October 06, 2018 9:07 AM  

And as the prosecutor will ask, "'Dr.' Peterson, have you stopped eating your cousin, yes or no?"

I'd ignored him, until Vox raised the red flags. Started reading, but stopped around point 3 when the Evil One began to leak through. Went back to re-read "Lord f the Flies" instead. Father of Lies has many b%stard stepchildren.

Blogger Alex The Great October 06, 2018 9:11 AM  

*bass

Blogger Silent Draco October 06, 2018 9:21 AM  

Alex, you were correct the first time. It's sound projection from the base of the diaphragm. Use the abdominal muscles and diaphragm to push large volumes of air up, then modulate with the larynx down and throat open. Shoulders back and chest out,etc. For grown men, this produces bass range notes - rounded, deep, and carrying. Basses do have a head voice, like other vocal parts

Old joke: What's a male trio? A: Three basses and a tenor.

Peterson is speaking from a restricted tenor range, and squeaks into head voice. I've head a number of tenors (should have been trained better!) do the same, and sound simply awful. Men without chests can't get the voice out. In this case, may be the stress of producing a known lie.

Blogger MJ Meyers October 06, 2018 9:21 AM  

Amazing how this Kavanaugh confirmation process has actually benefited the political Right. Even Cernovich has walked back his prediction that Dems would take the House.

The Rasumussen poll was the nail in the coffin. "An angry Judge Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee late last week: “This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy. Most voters think he’s right. Even Democrats are conflicted. … Even among Democrats whose senators have been leading the charge against the nominee, 40% agree, and only slightly more (43%) disagree, but 17% are undecided." http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2018/most_agree_with_kavanaugh_s_harsh_criticism_of_confirmation_process


Bonus: We've exposed a mole! Is JP finished after this? Probably not. SJWs aren't the only ones that double down. Cultists do to (there was a scientific study on this I've heard about). But I'm curious if JP will take a Patreon hit. I have no idea what he was doing with all that Patreon dough anyway.

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2018 9:24 AM  

Stefan is a good guy, but I have noticed that he tends to give everyone, even lying leftists, the benefit of the doubt. That's dumb...

Blogger Looking Glass October 06, 2018 9:27 AM  

Are we sure it isn't the scurvy talking most of the time?

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums October 06, 2018 9:28 AM  

As a long time listener of Stefan I can confidently say he is in a downspiral right now.

His call-in shows compared to what they once were are a joke. He mocks his callers and ends the call each time he's losing.

His YouTube channel is failing with his videos averaging less than 10% of his subscriber baseb

His forum is a wasteland of nothingness and heavily moderated.

I sent emails, made threads, and made YT comments to see what is going on. Zero response. However if I shitpost throwaway comments with no substance he actually replies with "Not an argument, kid".

Again, I've been an avid listener for years but I had to quit. He's been at the front of the culture war for years but he's seriously lagging behind now.

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2018 9:30 AM  

@16 Even Democrats are conflicted. … Even among Democrats whose senators have been leading the charge against the nominee, 40% agree, and only slightly more (43%) disagree, but 17% are undecided." http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2018/most_agree_with

Maybe the American suicide movement isn't as strong as the media portrays it...

Blogger Resident Moron™ October 06, 2018 9:31 AM  

"putting forward someone less divisive"

There isn't anyone less divisive for the globalist traitors of the left, except one of them. Anyone and everyone to their right will be gaslighted, smeared, slandered, and assaulted.

All of this nonsense is an attempt to evade acknowledging the true nature of our enemies, to keep pretending there's some kind of loyal opposition when they long ago gave up any loyalty except to their own power.

Blogger Dave October 06, 2018 9:31 AM  

tuberman wrote:Most of the people here got it when you brought out his fraud on the Jewish IQ at the beginning, then we explored him deeply and found many BS points. He is/was just a more stealthy Ben Shapiro. Making the point to those who do not get it, is part of the Culture Wars, and necessary.

No, most of the people here did not get it at that time. Vox has often stated roughly 80% of the Dread Ilk/Ilk sided with JBP at the onset of Vox's assault on Jordanetics which resulted from the Peterson responded to the IQ affair.

Blogger Resident Moron™ October 06, 2018 9:34 AM  

Stefan is a physical and rhetorical pacifist.

He thinks you can reason with people intent on enslaving and/or killing you.

Blogger Dave October 06, 2018 9:35 AM  

which resulted from the *manner in which* Peterson responded to the IQ affair.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums October 06, 2018 9:41 AM  

"Peterson isn’t that terrible as you paint him. From time to time he has interesting insights:"

False. The things Peterson says have negative value. The things others say and Peterson parrots do have value. Never mistake the two.

Example:
He had a debate with Sam Harris and used an argument made by Jay Dyer to make his case. Jay Dyer himself said not only did he misunderstand his argument but he also didn't credit him and has proof of this.

Blogger VFM #7191 October 06, 2018 9:41 AM  

paranoid wrote:Peterson isn’t that terrible as you paint him. From time to time he has interesting insights: E. g

Which would be fine if he wasn't treated like a cult figure genius, especially by clueless right-wingers. Camille Paglia is a much more intellectually interesting person than is Peterson, with the added bonus that she isn't batshit insane (as far as I know), and I enjoy hearing/reading what she has to say from time to time. But I'm under no illusion that she is a woman of the right or that her insights are a life-changing phenomenon worthy of blind obedience to every contradictory word and never ending adulation.

Conservatives really are suckers for charismatic hustlers. They especially fall hard for nonwhites and 'reformed leftists'. So starved are these people for any kind of leftist social credit, they fall head over heels for any fraud or scam artist that throws them a bone. See Jordan Peterson. See just about any "Hollywood conservative" not named James Woods. See Candace Owens and practically every black speaker at CPAC.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 06, 2018 9:47 AM  

He tweeted just the opposite in July, saying if you surrender to appease one mob, it will just make a bigger mob come along to attack you next.

I don't know the context, though. I'm sure there are subtle differences that I couldn't understand.

Blogger tuberman October 06, 2018 10:00 AM  

22. Dave

Maybe it's just that several of the people on here actually posting got it...the ones I respect the most, and two of my friends in daily life immediately got it, along with exploring this Peterson guy further at that time. I should have said, that the people I respect the most were on to him already.

There are certain people who raise red flags, but I'm not quite sure about, and all academics/professors are included in that area for me, until they consistently show otherwise.

JP's "credentials" as a Professor, strangely, is likely part of his popularity. I have a grain of salt approach to these types.

Blogger Lucius Cincinnatus October 06, 2018 10:13 AM  

Jordan Peterson always struck me as a archetypal Canadian weenie. I only watched the original video clip where he talked with the SJWs. Nothing he had to say was notably insightful or particularly wise.

Glad to see the VD saw him as more than someone just to dismiss, but to expose as an incoherent lunatic.

Blogger doctrev October 06, 2018 10:14 AM  

I'd love to believe Jordan Peterson's many psychological issues are driving his obviously foolish rejection of a major conservative issue. But the simple explanation is his paymasters- the real ones- told him this was the party line. Most FoxNews personalities, including Benny Shapiro, supported Ms. Ford intensely. I think Hannity refused because it would detonate his talk radio audience. Under such pressure, of course JBP would fold.

The moneymen don't care if JBP loses 3/4 of his audience and certainly don't care if he looks crazy: there are many, many more fraudservatives ready to step up as intellectuals. At least his defenders can be dispatched even more easily: being cuckier than Susan Collins is not a good look on a man.

Blogger doctrev October 06, 2018 10:16 AM  

I am, however, truly alarmed at how many "conservatives" will keep following an Antichrist figure even after he advocates giving in to Satan. I thought they'd have a bit more brain than that.

Blogger Matrick October 06, 2018 10:24 AM  

Someone less divisive means a pick the leftists won't throw a tantrum over. It's always about ceding ground to the left.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira October 06, 2018 10:38 AM  

Peterson must have something in his closet related to these types of allegations, except they are probably true about Peterson.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora October 06, 2018 10:40 AM  

@19

I first noticed cracks when Stefan challenged James Damore on the claim that leftists score higher in empathy on those personality tests but he let it slide when Peterson made the same claim in two different interviews with Stefan, one of which was before he had Damore on as a guest. I don't know whether he didn't want to challenge someone he could lose to thereby losing face or if he just wanted to curry favor with a big name who was getting a lot of donations. When he kept repeating the 115 Ashkenazi IQ stat I realized he was saying certain things to appear less racist because he was starting to get mainstream attention due to his association with JBP.

Blogger Student in Blue October 06, 2018 10:44 AM  

@4. paranoid
Peterson isn’t that terrible as you paint him. From time to time he has interesting insights

Having interesting insights doesn't make someone less of an enemy, or less of a terrible person.

Pretty sure I could get some interesting insights from Stalin's memoirs, after all.

Blogger The Masked Menace October 06, 2018 10:44 AM  

I confess. I was on the Peterson train several months ago. Though the ride was bumpy and the car swayed erratically I was excited. The train was full of enthusiastic travelers. However as time passed I noticed the train never arrived anywhere and when I gazed upon the landscape outside the car window the train seemed to eerily transverse the same exact scene over and over again. I grew concerned and recall thinking does anyone else on this train notice this peculiarity?

I questioned myself. No, I must be wrong. The train must arrive somewhere at sometime. So I patiently sat back, relaxed and opened a newspaper to pass the time. As I perused the paper I came across a small enlightening article tucked away in the left hand corner of page 17 penned by Vox Day confirming my suspicions. The train never arrives.

Thank you for getting me off the train.

Blogger OGRE October 06, 2018 10:46 AM  

@19 Wuzzums Fuzzums

Stefan has and has always had serious problems with his 'philosophy.' His UPB line of arguments are comically bad, and his recent Art of the Argument book is just plain embarrassing. How anybody could take him seriously after reading just the first chapter of that book is beyond me. He has one video titled "dishonest conversation with a creationist" from just a couple years ago where he employs all the usual skeptic/atheist tricks in a debate on evolution, then tries to paint the caller as dishonest and rude; even his own followers called him out on that one.

I'm not even holding the whole DeFOO or dont hit your kids stuff against him. Even without that hes a sophist of the first order.

Blogger Dave October 06, 2018 11:14 AM  

The God Emperor with an early start on this historic Saturday in October.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
28m28 minutes ago

Women for Kavanaugh, and many others who support this very good man, are gathering all over Capital Hill in preparation for a 3-5 P.M. VOTE. It is a beautiful thing to see - and they are not paid professional protesters who are handed expensive signs. Big day for America!

Blogger VFM #7191 October 06, 2018 11:15 AM  

doctrev wrote:I am, however, truly alarmed at how many "conservatives" will keep following an Antichrist figure even after he advocates giving in to Satan. I thought they'd have a bit more brain than that.

Conservatives are incredibly stupid and have a self-righteous addiction to losing. It's why I haven't identified myself as a conservative in years.

Blogger Miguel October 06, 2018 11:25 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Miguel October 06, 2018 11:26 AM  

Vox, I know you do it for the love of truth, but I must say that as inteligent he may be - and Stefan is bright - he was more or less bound by "classical liberalism" as you are by the Truth.

Non-Christian Stefan's position gets weaker (and the Christian one stronger) when the only true enemies of pedo-satanic globalists tend to be Christian Nationalists. It makes non-Christians un-ease and they hate that. The sane can be said of the Zman (another smart chap).

We await what Paul Watson - another "classical liberal" - will say of the one he said was a "threat" to the Establishment (Jordan Peterson).

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2018 11:35 AM  

@36 But the train is fine...

Blogger L' Aristokrato October 06, 2018 11:35 AM  

"It's very complex" and the like is Peterson's go-to reply/excuse for when he's about to regurgitate meaningless word-salad jargon, or when he's caught saying something stupid.

Blogger Damelon Brinn October 06, 2018 11:42 AM  

Most FoxNews personalities, including Benny Shapiro, supported Ms. Ford intensely.

Everyone who repeated the "credible" narrative is suspect. That was an ugly sleight-of-hand. Credible doesn't mean truthful or trustworthy. It only means believeable, which can be equally true of an actor playing a part that you *know* is fictional. When someone seems credible, that doesn't indicate truth. It only indicates that you've engaged emotionally with the person/character. It meant she didn't seem like she was lying, but that's no basis for determining truth, especially when you haven't even heard the other side yet.

They used that word to sidestep the question of truth entirely, so Ford's lack of evidence didn't matter. That's how we got the ridiculous situation of people saying Kav didn't do it but she was credible. Then came the switch: if you felt like she was credible, you have to treat him like she was truthful.

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2018 11:45 AM  

"Most FoxNews personalities, including Benny Shapiro, supported Ms. Ford intensely. I think Hannity refused because it would detonate his talk radio audience. Under such pressure, of course JBP would fold."

All these "personalities" gambled on the usual Republican folderoo, and now they are paying the price with at least some of their followers...Kavanaugh is the gift that keeps on giving..

Blogger Randomatos October 06, 2018 11:47 AM  

Stefan Molyneux is pro-civilization, seeking truth, and has done more good for the right than any of the anklebiters denouncing him here. Jordaneticus Peterspawn is a crazy leftist who wants to enjoy the benefits of Christiandom without accepting Christ.

Blogger Avalanche October 06, 2018 11:48 AM  

@5 "Ease the pain of disapproval with surrender. Perhaps is not so much political leaning but personality."

I.e., The abject hopeless submission of a child to a pedo, because the child has no chance in hell of fighting back. (See, Milo.) I wonder, also, about WHO was a malign male adult figure in Peterson's childhood.

Also: To be LOVED, you must go along. If you do not go along, you prove you are not worthy of being loved. Obviously, this is a pathological sense -- and a child vulnerable to a pedo is very often (pathologically) desperate for love or just acceptance.

Blogger James Dixon October 06, 2018 11:56 AM  

> he noted that some primates(all of them? Only gorillas? Don’t remember) make war between themselves and how this fact was hidden from the public by anthropologists(Jane Goodall I think) cause it undermined dominant egalitarian narrative.

Jane Goodall did nothing of the kind. That wasn't her area of research, but she never hid the fact that primate tribes go to war with each other. She even documented it in her notes: https://infogalactic.com/info/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

> Sometimes he drops such things which clearly cross overton window ...

You've heard the line about a stopped clock being right twice a day haven't you?

> Stefan is a good guy, but I have noticed that he tends to give everyone, even lying leftists, the benefit of the doubt. That's dumb...

Yes, it is. But it's a human failing. People don't like thinking the worst about other people.

> There isn't anyone less divisive for the globalist traitors of the left, except one of them.

Exactly.

> I thought they'd have a bit more brain than that.

As far as I know, no one has ever gone broke because they underestimated the intelligence of the population. The gullibility, yes, but not the intelligence.

Blogger VD October 06, 2018 11:58 AM  

Stefan Molyneux is pro-civilization, seeking truth, and has done more good for the right than any of the anklebiters denouncing him here.

Who is denouncing him? Substantive criticism is not denunciation. And I'm not even criticizing him.

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2018 12:05 PM  

@26 Conservatives really are suckers for charismatic hustlers. They especially fall hard for nonwhites and 'reformed leftists'. So starved are these people for any kind of leftist social credit, they fall head over heels for any fraud or scam artist that throws them a bone. See Jordan Peterson. See just about any "Hollywood conservative" not named James Woods. See Candace Owens and practically every black speaker at CPAC.

Absolutely. Additionally, I have observed that Conservatives, including some thinkers I respect, are desperate for some semblance of respectability...Which they think they will get by finding some elements of the leftist Narrative that they can agree with, e.g. the "greatness" of the US military...But in fact the Narrative is a seamless web of lies, distortion, and corruption, while the Left doesn't tolerate even the slightest deviation from its every changing doctrine.
Thinkers like VD have broken free of this trap, are "enlightened" as the Buddhists would say, and understand that the whole framework of lies has to be destroyed.

Blogger Gregory the Great October 06, 2018 12:15 PM  

Intelligent individuals (like Molyneux) should be able to change their perceptions and opinions when contradictions in their logic are pointed out or when new facts are presented to them. I doubt if he would dare to say "not an argument" to what you, Vox, disect re Peterson.

Blogger Cloom Glue October 06, 2018 12:18 PM  

leftists score higher in empathy on those personality tests but he let it slide when Peterson made the same claim

Much of psychology is not repeatable science, as we learned.

Also, psychology is likely not measuring empathy but something else, like sympathy, dependent on the survey questions or experiment; eg. biased by the ethics, politics of the researcher.

Blogger Jack Amok October 06, 2018 12:23 PM  

Peterson is getting ripped a new one on these Twitter threads--by his fans.

That's because he's betrayed them. His popularity with his hard core fans is that he's probably the first man with any sort of authority (in his case, a professor) who didn't apologize for having a Y chromosome. That made him a champion to them.

Well, he just apologized for it. No more champion...

Blogger SmockMan October 06, 2018 12:23 PM  

Peterson fans next excuse will be that he is still upset over NAFTA. GIVE HIM TIME!

Blogger RusticFederalist October 06, 2018 12:25 PM  

Jordanetics logic:
1.) resign your victory to prove you won fairly.
2.) let other men have your wife to prove how secure and confident you are.

I read what VD previously said about Canada not being a nation, and so I read their history. If Canada was a person it would have had an abusive childhood. Everything the Founding Fathers predicted about a subjugating colonial administration came true in Canada. The place was a dump of ethnicities, lorded over by a corrupt government that sought to play one group against another, while diminishing both. Now Canada is acting out like a bad twenty year old, making suicidal and reckless decisions. America is the neighbor giving them money. If America could get itself right, it should embargo Canada, except for Canadian communities that reject the loonie government.

In the spirit of the Articles of Continental Association, and Confederation, as well as the 1894 Canadian Agreement I think the Breaking of Canada can be done.

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2018 12:27 PM  

"leftists score higher in empathy on those personality tests but he let it slide when Peterson made the same claim"

No way. Leftists hate people, they are wedded to the notion of a perfect humanity, achieved by wholesale massacre when necessary, which it always is..."Empathy" is being strongly affected by other people's feelings and emotions..Empaths couldn't conceive of the kind of cruelty that the Kavanaugh family was subjected to..

Blogger Matthew McDaniel October 06, 2018 12:30 PM  

Maybe he stopped taking his pills. Has anyone done an inspection of his room for tidiness?

Blogger Matt Sellitto October 06, 2018 12:39 PM  

"Crazy Christ", I can't help laughing out loud every time I read that.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums October 06, 2018 12:39 PM  

OGRE wrote:Stefan has and has always had serious problems with his 'philosophy.' His UPB line of arguments are comically bad, and his recent Art of the Argument book is just plain embarrassing. How anybody could take him seriously after reading just the first chapter of that book is beyond me. He has one video titled "dishonest conversation with a creationist" from just a couple years ago where he employs all the usual skeptic/atheist tricks in a debate on evolution, then tries to paint the caller as dishonest and rude; even his own followers called him out on that one.

I'm not even holding the whole DeFOO or dont hit your kids stuff against him. Even without that hes a sophist of the first order.


Not an argument, kiddo.

UPB is rock solid so far. Art of the Argument is great but unfortunately rhetoric is what wins most debates. DeFOO-ing is an accepted phychological treatment strategy. If he were a sophist he would've had 10x the subscriber base. I know you never listened to him because people who bring insults veiled as criticism always reference some YouTube vid of his. The call-ins are the meat of his works. His YT vids is Stefan Molyneux Lite, they are there as bait. This is why his core audience is starting to fall by the wayside, his focus on his YT is a recent thing and his call-in shows have dropped from 3 a week to 1.

Blogger Matt Sellitto October 06, 2018 12:40 PM  

Is this the beginning signs of JP's complete public self-implosion? Hmmm.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch October 06, 2018 12:41 PM  

Jordan Peterson in drag. No joke, guys.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/6wamly/when_you_slay_the_runway_instead_of_slaying_the/

Blogger Cecil Henry October 06, 2018 12:56 PM  


@55

Canada, like the US, did not become a 'dump of ethnicities' until the 1980 onwards when non-White immigration was and multiculturalism (the thing meant to justify and assauge the invasion).


Now indeed, especially the obscenity of Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, it is a dump of ethnicities: overcrowded, unaffordable, and nobody can stand each other, but its paved over with smiles and virtue signalling (and poverty induced taxation!). Its hell.


They truly are a dump of ethnicities and the government want MORE. A LOT more.


We now have politicians repeatedly insist the Canada is a nation of (non-White) immigrants and that the truest Canadians are those who immigrated here, not those of long heritage.


Because the immigrants 'chose Canada', while you native plebs were just born here.

What the immigrants 'chose' is an established nation built by Whites with free everything and a higher standard of living subsidized by the generations of Whites who built and maintain it.

Some 'choice'. Only the Whites who built it don't get a choice, just threats if they don't smile and say they loooove it.

Indeed Faith Goldy, running for mayor of Toronto in 3rd place, can't even get on debates and is being illegally censoring by media elites in a political campaign.


That's Canada now.



1. Let in millions of immigrants, forcing up property prices so homes and children are unaffordable

2. Raise taxes to fund healthcare, housing, and schools for said immigrants

Repeat endlessly

Blogger Bultz October 06, 2018 1:12 PM  

He's trying to find a pallatable narrative to push that basically says the same thing. He'll start to negatively highlight things that suit this frame of "should have gone for less controversy, it's impacting on this now" and "he doesn't deserve the abuse he is getting, but this is the price he paid for remaining in power"

Blogger Othello October 06, 2018 1:19 PM  

Canucks.

Blogger Stannous Baratheon October 06, 2018 1:23 PM  

A good friend of mine was making this same argument the other night, that because of how heated and divisive things had become in the hearings, Judge Kavanaugh could no longer be counted upon to be objective and so wasn’t a proper candidate any more.

Of course the logic is weak: because Democrats tried a witch hunt, now Kavanaugh dislikes them, hence he shouldn’t be on the court. If that were the standard no judge would ever be confirmed again most likely. I think it’s just intellectual squirming from people who think they mean well but haven’t yet had a red pill moment and so think there is a middle ground somewhere to be found.

I’ll always have a soft spot for JBP because of his Cathy Newman interview. Watching that (when I knew nothing of JBP) was a powerful experience for me, because I saw that there was an intellectually sound counter argument to some of that nonsense (“In order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive”). But I also knew from the start that JBP would go nowhere, because he’s a materialist and hence cannot see the world as it truly is.

Hasn’t he said many many times that he’s “not a conservative”? I’m not sure where the debate about that comes from.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother October 06, 2018 1:39 PM  

I enjoyed the Cathy Newman episode, but aside from that JBP has always struck me as a kind of mincing pinko intellectual faggot.

He's from Eastern Canada, I mean seriously!

Blogger DouglasEdward October 06, 2018 1:52 PM  

@Stg58/Animal Mother

Actually JP is from Fairview, Alberta in Western Canada, he was childhood friends with Rachel Notley the now NDP (Socialist) Premier of Alberta and was a member of that party in his youth.

Blogger RobertT October 06, 2018 1:53 PM  

Yep. You've got to give VD proper credit for exposing Peterson.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother October 06, 2018 1:57 PM  

That's too bad, Douglas. Alberta people are much different.

Blogger InformationMerchant October 06, 2018 2:04 PM  

@46 Stefan is one of the right's greatest builders, that doesn't mean he should never get called out for making bad decisions. When he has come up lately, it has largely been from guys that followed him for years and some discovered Vox through him. People want him to do well.

Consider his guests pre and post Unite the Right I.

Even lately, ignoring frequent guests such as Candice Owens and Dinesh D'Souza. He had a guest tell announce that "every penis is perfect", he had another guest declare he is a conservative and wants to "conserve Beethoven."

This is a guy that has talked to Jared Taylor, Colin Flaherty and other people about the difference between black crime and white crime. He still talks about race and IQ. He doesn't exactly ignore the topic, he just doesn't open himself up to guilt by association.

Stef doesn't build infrastructure but he builds people, if he stops building good people, the right loses out massively. He is important.

Blogger RobertT October 06, 2018 2:08 PM  

I guess i missed all the good Stefan Molyneux did for the right.

Blogger RusticFederalist October 06, 2018 2:13 PM  

Cecil Henry wrote:

@55

Canada, like the US, did not become a 'dump of ethnicities' until the 1980 onwards when non-White immigration was and multiculturalism (the thing meant to justify and assauge the invasion).

I think you're using that to mean non-European people. I include European people with that term, and specifically it is who I meant has been abused. One of their suicidal overreactions to the abuse is bringing in non-Europeans.

Blogger Randomatos October 06, 2018 2:17 PM  

Ogre, not you. You've always been pro-civ.

Blogger Randomatos October 06, 2018 2:23 PM  

You might want to review his Youtube videos during the lead-up to the 2016 election.

Blogger Stan Dane October 06, 2018 2:27 PM  

VD, your insight and instincts are remarkable. You have a brilliant mind.
I got where I did in life—pretty far for a high school graduate—by figuring out who was really good and then watching them closely to see what I could learn and copy from them. You have helped to sharpen my thinking for years. Old dogs like me can still learn new tricks.
And the fact that you are an unapologetic Christian is icing on the cake.

Blogger RobertT October 06, 2018 2:33 PM  

The only blogger that deserves the accolade of doing a lot of good for the right is VD. He played a major role in forming the Alt Right philosophy, and quite frankly saved the movement from people like Spencer. He's a genuine thought leader. Plus he's pretty much expert on a lot of topics, and he's been in this fight for a long time.

Blogger Randomatos October 06, 2018 2:43 PM  

Besides, you're more of a "decapitate and add to skull throne" Dark Lord.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother October 06, 2018 2:44 PM  

RobertT,

That's why we've all stuck around here for so long.

Blogger GAHCindy October 06, 2018 3:35 PM  


Resident Moron™October 06, 2018 9:34 AM
Stefan is a physical and rhetorical pacifist.

He thinks you can reason with people intent on enslaving and/or killing you."

It's worse than that. He thinks you can reason with toddlers.

Blogger Up from the pond October 06, 2018 3:35 PM  

VFM #7191 wrote:Conservatives really are suckers [...]. So starved are these people for any kind of leftist social credit, they fall head over heels for any fraud or scam artist that throws them a bone. See Jordan Peterson.

Or maybe there are more people on the payroll than we think. How many intelligence agencies are there in the U.S. alone? Seventeen, or is it up to eighteen now?

Ask a conservative who lives in Northern Virginia what he thinks about President Trump.

Mark Twain called it having "corn pone opinions." Whatever puts food on the plate, that's what most people root for. The cook could be Pol Pot with typhus and they wouldn't care.

My point is that a lot of people (including conservatives) work for the government and know which side their bread is buttered on. They must support the post-WW2 liberalist narrative. Or at least not deviate from it. To them, whooping for controlled charlatans is no other than professional courtesy.

Blogger tublecane October 06, 2018 3:41 PM  

Say Trump did put forward someone less divisive. He or she would magically become divisive, just like Kavanaugh did. Kavanaugh caused an uproar immediately, but only because the balance of the court is at stake and Trump picked him. Otherwise he was a mainstream conservative Bushie. Not someone over whom the left would normally go nuts.

As for clearing his name, I don't know how someone of Peterson's intelligence could possibly believe that. If Kavanaugh joins the court his name will forever be at least a little sullied, unless our victory is complete and we write the history. If he drops out, it will be broken.

I suppose it could be possible Peterson thinks the accusations thrown at Kavanaugh are so nakedly partisan and the left will have such little need of them afterwards that they'll drop the attempted rape thing like a hot potato upon his slinking into the shadows. But I find that impossible to believe.

Blogger Haxo Angmark October 06, 2018 3:42 PM  

JP's remark re Kavanaugh was a bit of script-reading. Thus, his patreon lucre will continue.

Blogger CYGNUS FACETIOUS October 06, 2018 3:50 PM  

VD wrote:I would argue that he's considerably worse. Enemies who insinuate themselves inside and lower resistance are more dangerous than those that inspire it.
Tumors can be excised,-- there is no debriding chronic auto-immune cancers.

Wuzzums Fuzzums wrote:He's been at the front of the culture war for years but he's seriously lagging behind now.
Sad, he hit his stride from Trayvon to POTUS' election. A Hoppe-an turn might help.

VFM #7191 wrote:Conservatives really are suckers for charismatic hustlers. They especially fall hard for nonwhites and 'reformed leftists'.
Legacy of the 19th-early 20th century revival movements, and their progenitors who participated in them. Peterson's projection gynmastics could produce something illuminating in an exegesis of There Will Be Blood and Jungian 'Trickster' archetype with the antagonist in that film. Peterson's virality owes something to the echoes of this in Christian America.

Student in Blue wrote:Having interesting insights doesn't make someone less of an enemy, or less of a terrible person.
Slavoj Zizek actually got the Trump > Hillary arguments right as can be done from the serious intellectual Left, and has mountains of material serviceable in the Alinksian "Hold them to their own standard." His unrepentant latter day, less than ironic Stalinism makes him dangerous and an enemy nonetheless. At least he is honest, as against Jordanetic snakes in the Garden.

Blogger tublecane October 06, 2018 3:51 PM  

@44- The problem with those who find Ford credible is that they're being credulous. That is, overeager to be persuaded, lacking common skepticism.

Blogger VFM #7634 October 06, 2018 4:01 PM  

"If Kavanaugh joins the court his name will forever be at least a little sullied, unless our victory is complete and we write the history. If he drops out, it will be broken."

@tublecane
Or to put it more succinctly, Clarence Thomas versus Robert Bork.

Blogger Dirk Manly October 06, 2018 4:01 PM  

@4

"Peterson isn’t that terrible as you paint him. From time to time he has interesting insights"

Mao Tse-Tung (aka Mao Ze Dong) had interesting insights, too (e.g. "political power comes out of the barrel of a gun")... so what? That doesn't make him an ally. It just makes him an insightful enemy.

Blogger Dan Karelian October 06, 2018 4:08 PM  

Molyneux has been very helpful in exposing many people's childhood traumas and evil parenting.

That said he is more of a people person and I don't think that philosophy is his strong suit. Missing the hints on JBP is not surprising really.
I would look to Jay Dyer or Chris Langan for a more substantiative take on philosophy.
Just take a look at Molyneux's proofs for his secular ethics system "Universally Preferable Behaviour" and see if you can spot the midwittery.
http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf

Example of a proof:
Since the scientific method requires empirical corroboration, we must also look to reality to confirm our hypothesis – and here the validity of universally preferable behaviour is fully supported. Every sane human being believes in moral rules of some kind. There is some disagreement about what constitutes moral rules, but everyone is certain that moral rules are valid – just as many scientists disagree, but all scientists accept the validity of the scientific method itself. One can argue that the Earth is round and not flat – which is analogous to changing the definition of morality – but one cannot argue that the Earth does not exist at all – which is like arguing that there is no such thing as universally preferable behaviour.

1. For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported by empirical observation.

2. If the concept of “universally preferable behaviour” is valid, then mankind should believe in universally preferable behaviour.

3. All men believe in universally preferable behaviour.

4. Therefore empirical evidence exists to support the validity of universally preferable behaviour –and the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is not valid.

Blogger Gregory the Great October 06, 2018 5:08 PM  

Did he really write "all men believe in UPB"?
Where is the evidence for that?

Blogger VFM #7191 October 06, 2018 5:25 PM  

Up from the pond wrote:VFM #7191 wrote:Conservatives really are suckers [...]. So starved are these people for any kind of leftist social credit, they fall head over heels for any fraud or scam artist that throws them a bone. See Jordan Peterson.

My point is that a lot of people (including conservatives) work for the government and know which side their bread is buttered on. They must support the post-WW2 liberalist narrative. Or at least not deviate from it. To them, whooping for controlled charlatans is no other than professional courtesy.


I'm not talking about Capitol Hill policy wonks or politicians. It goes without saying they are bought off.

I was talking about your bog standard conservative NPC. It's not necessarily even their fault -- like VD has said, civic nationalism is all most of them know. But nevertheless, they have bought into the scam of modern liberalism and the rotten egalitarian morality it is founded on and thus they must act their designated role as the principled loser in the play of liberal progress.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums October 06, 2018 5:58 PM  

Dan Karelian wrote:I would look to Jay Dyer or Chris Langan for a more substantiative take on philosophy.

Just take a look at Molyneux's proofs for his secular ethics system "Universally Preferable Behaviour" and see if you can spot the midwittery.


Stefan's arguments that prove UPB are the same arguments used by Jay Dyer to prove God in his debate on Warski Live with JF. I've been trying to get Stefan into a debate with him but he just ignores him. Jay Dyer has been trying for years now to talk to Stefan but again, he's ignoring him too. I stopped listening to Stefan because I realized he's just a big fish in a small pond and worse of all he's comfortable with it. Still waiting for him to make the jump, though.

But regarding UPB, Stefan corrected his wordings in his book many times and said that it needs an edit. However his core argument still stands. If you argue against UPB you're admitting you believe in universally preferable behavior. You cannot escape this fact because saying "there's no such thing as UPB" is just another form of saying "there's no such thing as a general statement".

Blogger Gregory the Great October 06, 2018 6:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger VD October 06, 2018 7:20 PM  

If you argue against UPB you're admitting you believe in universally preferable behavior.

Then it is a tautology, meaningless and irrelevant. Are you really that philosophically unsophisticated?

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums October 06, 2018 8:36 PM  

VD wrote:Then it is a tautology, meaningless and irrelevant. Are you really that philosophically unsophisticated?

I might be but isn't the phrase "there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior" an universal preference in of itself?

This is the core argument and Stefan goes into further detail how if you define immorality as being any preference which cannot logically be universalized then you reach the conclusion that stealing, raping, murdering, etc are immoral acts. Keep in mind that the subtitle is "A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" so it's basically a post hoc rationalization of the NAP.

The UPB book deals with what is an immoral act, and never mentions anything about what is a moral act. The premise is that people are moral up to the point they engage in a non-UPB (immoral) act. Stefan doesn't define the opposite of a non-UPB act as "moral". He splits that category of UPB acts into virtuous (helping people) or neutral (jogging).

I wanted to copy-paste direct quotes from the free book so I don't misspeak but the links don't work. The only links that work on his free section of his site are Amazon links which is a bit peculiar.

Blogger OGRE October 06, 2018 9:08 PM  

@59 Wuzzum Fuzzumz

Not an argument, kiddo

don't. Just don't.

I'm in no mood to tear apart UPB today, and its been done plenty well by others. But anybody with even a cursory knowledge of Western philosophy immediately recognizes UPB as just a watered down version of Kant's Categorical Imperative. If Stefan had been gracious enough to state as much I'd give it a bit more respect, but dumbing down one of the most famous philosophical ideas in history and claiming it as one's own creation can hardly be described as ethical behaviour--much less universally preferred behaviour.

I will however demonstrate the utter idiocy found in Art of the Argument—which was published just last year—and which is filled with blatant categorical errors that are obvious to even the newest students of logic. On second thought, having reread the first couple chapters, I'm not; I can't even do it. Its that bad. I'm not even trying to be hyperbolic here, but it literally hurts to read it.

In the beginning of the book he attempts to go over basic concepts of logic; deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, validity and soundness. And he gets them all wrong. These aren't even things up for debate, these are basic fundamental aspects of logic and he mucks it all up from the get go. He misdefines things such as deductive reasoning, he confuses validity and soundness (and for some reason uses the term 'logical' instead of 'valid'), he gives examples that disprove the very point he is trying to make. He defines deductive reasoning as “the process of extracting general rules from specific obserations, and then applying them to new empirical information.” What?? Thats exactly what deduction is not, thats a much better explanation of inductive reasoning (and better still of abductive reasoning, which I'll forgive Stefan for glossing over.) He says “deductive reasoning is empirical, while inductive reasoning is mathematical.” These are just some very basic examples from early on in this book. And while I'd definitely overlook these kinds of mistakes in a forum chat or casual conversation, this is intended to be a textbook on logical reasoning. (And in Stefan's grandoise style it is intended to be the final word on the foundation of rational thought.) Yet another gem as I close the book: “If we cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is,' this means that we can derive an 'ought' from an 'is,' which is we ought not to try it.” Sorry, I can't take anymore today.

I'd also point out how anti-family the Defooing stuff is. Stefan needs to reconcile this if he wants to be a true proponent of Western Civilization, as the family unit is foundational to its survival. And for us Christians, defooing and never striking your children are both anti-biblical concepts.

I've watched plenty of Stefan's videos. I think Stefan is a very good interviewer and an excellent presenter, but his call in shows are pure cringe. I'll give the link to the “dishonest conversation with a creationist” as an example. Remember this is just a couple years ago:

https://youtu.be/-WW8wmCN8UA

I'll give Stefan credit for his staunch anti-globalist position. But most of Stefans philosophical ideas are woefully indadequate and very dangerous. I find the parallels between him and Juden Peterstein to be strikingly similar, and both men are pointing people toward the same desctructive ends.

Blogger OGRE October 06, 2018 9:11 PM  

Randomatos wrote:Ogre, not you. You've always been pro-civ.

I'm pro-Christ, pro-family, pro-Western Civilization. In that order.

Blogger tublecane October 07, 2018 12:28 AM  

@93- "isn't the phrase 'there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior' a universal preference in of itself?'"

No. It may be universal, but it's not a matter of preference. It's a matter of fact. Also, it has nothing to do with behavior.

Blogger Gregory the Great October 07, 2018 3:32 AM  

Molyneux has two blind spots:
A. God
B. The nature of evil.
The logical problems with his universally preferable behaviour result from these blind spots. He cannot see that evil people will not accept this as their behavioural model. And he cannot see that without God there is no real reason to stick to something just because other people might prefer it. Whilst I am at it: “General statements” are a purely logical category that can be expressed in mathematical terms whilst “all men believe in universally preferable behavior” - whilst being a general statement - cannot be expressed in mathematical terms if only because it contains two inexact and unverifiable terms: “believe” and “preferable”. Also this general statement is automatically invalidated if one finds just one man who does not believe in it. Whilst the general statement "There is no such thing as UPB" is automatically validated if you find just one man who does not fit the category.
Apart from that Molyneux seems to see evil parenting as the root of all evil. This sounds almost like the Marxist dogma of consciousness being defined by matter (matter over mind). The devil laughs out loud at this, glad that the otherworldliness of his machinations remains unrecognized.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums October 07, 2018 3:56 AM  

OGRE wrote:But anybody with even a cursory knowledge of Western philosophy immediately recognizes UPB as just a watered down version of Kant's Categorical Imperative. If Stefan had been gracious enough to state as much I'd give it a bit more respect



He seems to be having a problem with the servers so his old stuff is not available but the YT version is still out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AppKo99ovGI

So Stefan did clearly addresses Kant in relation to UPB therefore you now cornered yourself in having to give Stefan "a bit more respect". The difference between Kant's Universal Law and Universally Preferable Behavior is right there in the titles: "law" vs. "preferable". One defines morality (ethical) as something you must act on in order to achieve, the other defines immorality as something you must act on in order to achieve.

Regarding Art of The Argument. You are correct in your your statement about him using categories wrong but he does this all the time. He uses his own definitions and does not rely on rules imposed by others as evidenced by him defining "deductive reasoning" from the get-go. You may disagree with the definition but he's only wrong if he uses "deductive reasoning" later on as "deductive reasoning" is defined in the classical sense. Basically what I'm saying is that Stefan's definition is valid in the context of his book. Again, I'm using "valid" as its general sense and not in the sense it is used in logic. If he pulls off a switcheroo later on that I missed I'll admit I'm wrong.

OGRE wrote:Yet another gem as I close the book: “If we cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is,' this means that we can derive an 'ought' from an 'is,' which is we ought not to try it.” Sorry, I can't take anymore today.

He's saying that "you cannot get an ought from an is" is another way of saying "you should not say you can get an ought from an is" which is another way of saying "you ought always consider the fact that you cannot get an ought from an is" which is an ought from an is.

OGRE wrote:I've watched plenty of Stefan's videos. I think Stefan is a very good interviewer and an excellent presenter, but his call in shows are pure cringe. I'll give the link to the “dishonest conversation with a creationist” as an example. Remember this is just a couple years ago:

https://youtu.be/-WW8wmCN8UA


Yeah, I rewatched that and it's an abysmal showing by Stefan. He also poisons the well by titling that as "A Dishonest Conversation With a Creationist". There are 2 other recent conversations I can recall which annoyed the hell out of me. One with a christian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8_lfPyerVc and one with a determinist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFY45K_2YSw

In the determinist one Stefan is doing to the guy what I argued you were doing to Stefan in his book Art of The Argument. The guy's arguments were valid because he defined his terms yet Stefan kept interrupting and "countering" with what he thought the guy's terms ought to mean. Very naughty.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums October 07, 2018 3:59 AM  

tublecane wrote:No. It may be universal, but it's not a matter of preference. It's a matter of fact.

Do you behave as if facts trump preferences all the time? Can you think of an example where someone would choose a preference over a fact?

Blogger Tupla-J October 07, 2018 4:21 AM  

Stefan also apparently killed off his forums a couple of days ago. I thought they were merely down, but the main site doesn't even list them anymore.

Not a big loss. It was a thoroughly underwhelming forum.

Blogger mike October 07, 2018 4:25 AM  

What Jewish IQ? Can you quickly summarize? Thanks!

Blogger Gregory the Great October 07, 2018 5:40 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Gregory the Great October 07, 2018 6:45 AM  

Stefan is very good at analyzing and explaining in detail every occasion that "SJWs lie" and through this a very valuable debunker of the mass media narrative. Once you have realised, however, that "SJWs always lie", you do not need his analyses of all the individual occasions of them lying that much any more.

Blogger VD October 07, 2018 9:03 AM  

You are correct in your your statement about him using categories wrong but he does this all the time. He uses his own definitions and does not rely on rules imposed by others as evidenced by him defining "deductive reasoning" from the get-go.

That's not a mark in his favor. You cannot re-define existing words and concepts. If you need a new concept, then create a neologism for it. An inability to correctly use existing concepts and definitions is usually the result of a failure to correctly understand them.

Blogger tublecane October 07, 2018 9:37 AM  

@99- Either I don't understand your questions or they are irrelevant.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 07, 2018 10:30 AM  

Redefining terms is dishonest. Redefining common and well-understood terms in philosophy is lying.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums October 07, 2018 4:18 PM  

tublecane wrote:@99- Either I don't understand your questions or they are irrelevant.

They're yes or no questions meant to point out you are engaging in UPB.

Are facts universal? Yes.
Can I choose not to follow facts? Yes, because following facts is a preference.
Can following facts be universalized? Of course.
Can not-following facts be universalized? No, because then there's the fact that nobody follows facts which invalidates the rule.
You making a rebuttal by claiming something is a fact, whatever it may be, is presupposing I should follow facts always i.e. you believe following facts should be an universally preferred behavior.
If there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior then you admit that you prefer I should follow facts sometimes, which gives me a clear escape route out of your rebuttal, which makes your whole reply pointless.

Blogger OGRE October 07, 2018 6:51 PM  

@98 Wuzzum Fuzzums

Stefan isn't 'redefining' words to better suit his purposes. Hes not saying “I have a better definition here.” And at no point does he give the universally accepted understanding of these words, which would be the honest approach if one is taking that route. Hes simply displaying that he has at best a tenuous understanding of these rather straightforward, basic, fundamental concepts. Its the same as if one were to write a book on mathematics, hype it up as the ultimate work on mathematics, and then go and define 'addition' as 'removing one number from another.'

And yes, he does mix up the application of his own terms. He gives one example of bad deductive reasoning as follows: 1. Kind people are socialists. 2. Bob is a kind person. 3. Therefore, Bob is a socialist. But that is in fact an argument with a valid form and an example of a correct application of deductive reasoning. We could attack the argument as unsound in that the premises may be false, but its a valid argument form. And to compound the problem, he gives several more examples of arguments with valid forms...in a section titled “Examples of Bad Deductive Reasoning.”

I understood what he was trying to say with the “ought from an is” statement. But this is where his entire philosophical system breaks down, because he makes these giant leaps from descriptive to normative. The problem is of course that its a non-sequitor; it simply doesn't follow. And nowhere does Stefan attempt to show why it should follow, he simply makes a grand assertion and follows it up with overly theatrical language. Same issue applies to the UPB arguments. Just because (if P then Q) is a true proposition it does not on its own imply that one has a moral obligation to bring about P. Stefan never gets around to telling us why factually 'preferable' behaviour is morally 'good,' or even why the consequence of preferable behaviour is good, and thats a pretty fatal flaw for any ethical system. Its consequentialism without any justification or value given for the consequence. A needs to eat to survive, so its 'preferable' for A to eat. So what? Why is it a morally good thing for A to survive?

Same applies to the 'ought from an is' statement. You go from “you can't get an ought from an is” to “you should not say you can get an ought from an is.” It doesn't follow. My saying P is true is not the same as me telling you not to say that P is false; I'm just saying P is true. Stefan has to rely on some other rule to make that jump, and he doesn't; he just makes the unsupported assertion.

And to be perfectly blunt, Stefan is purposefully convulating the normative with the descriptive to make his arguments, both here and for UPB, and I find it to be extremely dishonest and off putting. Combine that with his obvious failure to do any basic background research—not even bothering to glance at infogalactic's entry on logic, much less read a book on it—and this book is an utter catastrophe. I cannot fully express how much I despise this book.

I don't doubt your sincerity and desire to learn about philosophy. But Stefan isn't where you'll find any genuine answers, and the tools he presents with which to do the actual work are all bent and broken.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums October 07, 2018 7:47 PM  

OGRE wrote:Same issue applies to the UPB arguments. Just because (if P then Q) is a true proposition it does not on its own imply that one has a moral obligation to bring about P. Stefan never gets around to telling us why factually 'preferable' behaviour is morally 'good,' or even why the consequence of preferable behaviour is good, and thats a pretty fatal flaw for any ethical system.

You're not reading what I'm writing. I have addressed this exact point in post @93. If you think it's some sort of moral framework I doubt you read past the subtitle. Again, the title is "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics".

OGRE wrote:And yes, he does mix up the application of his own terms. He gives one example of bad deductive reasoning as follows: 1. Kind people are socialists. 2. Bob is a kind person. 3. Therefore, Bob is a socialist. But that is in fact an argument with a valid form and an example of a correct application of deductive reasoning. We could attack the argument as unsound in that the premises may be false, but its a valid argument form. And to compound the problem, he gives several more examples of arguments with valid forms...in a section titled “Examples of Bad Deductive Reasoning.”

That is not a contradiction of his own definition of deductive reasoning. You are using your own terms to judge his. We already have had this conversation. I concede that he's not using established definitions but that doesn't matter in this particular context. I do remember instances in which he castigates listeners for using their own definitions and not using the dictionary ones. An example is him talking to that determinist in that video I linked. So yeah, I reject your particular example but I concede that there are examples.

OGRE wrote:I cannot fully express how much I despise this book.

Now I wanna see you and Molyneux go at it IBS style.


Blogger InformationMerchant October 08, 2018 1:53 AM  

Hoppe's argument from argument is a better version of what UBP is trying to do regarding morality.

You can't argue with Hoppe without accepting his premise, so if he brings up argument from argument you either have to accept it or hit him in the face if you want to disagree. Technically you could replace might is right with any other arbitrary way of settling the disagreement, but you can't even explain without accepting his premise.

Hoppe doesn't have to make any claims about the morality of not hitting someone in the face in that situation.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts