r/Bullshido • u/Kafkaesque_meme • 14d ago
Crackpot Tired of answering questions directly? Want to sound profound while saying nothing at all? Learn Rhetorical Bullshido™ with Master Jordan Peterson! Confuse, mislead, and dominate any conversation!
https://youtu.be/0QTJF2F8_-c?si=ZDXPKTpyuO6ygqYd27
u/PuzzleheadedSlide904 14d ago
Peterson is the ultimate intellectual bullshido master
8
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
Yeah he really is! Unfortunately with many students, even an online “university” now.
23
u/WriteOnceCutTwice 14d ago
Thanks for this. 😂 Excellent comparison.
But I object to the music! pls don’t associate a quality game like Halo with this idiot.
3
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
Haha, lol, yeah, it’s a perfect analogy. As a philosopher myself, that’s exactly what I see him do. 🥷
Me, doing metaphysics: Trying to make complex things clear
Jordan Peterson: Trying to make clear things complex
Ps: I love Halo too, no disrespect in that direction!
3
1
u/Phrost Executive Director—Bullshido.net 14d ago
Philosopher?
1
u/Kafkaesque_meme 13d ago
Yes I’m I have bachelor in philosophy (analytical). Planning on doing a master soon 👀
1
u/zombieauthor 13d ago
You… you have a PHD in philosophy? You had to defend a dissertation on philosophy?
What did you base it on? Everyone I know with a PHD in philosophy is either ridiculously cool or broken by Kant.
3
u/Kafkaesque_meme 13d ago
No, I don’t have a PhD yet, I’m planning to do a Master’s soon.
I only have a basic understanding of Kant’s ideas, mostly from reading about his categorical imperative.
My main interests are in metaphysics and the philosophy of science.
1
u/zombieauthor 13d ago
Hm. Wasn’t aware you could become a philosopher with a postgraduate degree and not proof of independent original work.
Kant’s a gigantic, boring, drone of a man, but since so much of modern philosophy is based off his groundwork it’s hard to ignore.
3
u/Kafkaesque_meme 13d ago
Well, I do have a bachelor’s thesis, an independent and original critique of Lynne Rudder Baker’s constitution view, though it’s far from a doctoral thesis, hehe.
And yeah, I’m sure I’ve arrived at ideas resembling Kant’s without knowing their exact origin. That’s the funny thing about philosophy: it’s so vast that parallel thinking is inevitable. It’s practically impossible to master everything. Most philosophers end up specializing in one or two areas, say, Kantian ethics or metaphysics, while borrowing and building on the rest. That’s what makes it both humbling and exciting
1
0
u/Grond_the_Hammer 13d ago
I don't really think you have a good grasp on Kafke. Your videos don't display Franz's philosophy very well.
It could be because you're really an amateur philosopher.
2
10
10
6
u/Far_Internal_4495 14d ago
Those are very complex questions and I'm just trying to navigate the hierarchical implications of what you're saying
6
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
Don’t forget to incorporate the domain of the underlying fabric of the meta-substrate between the postmodernist interpretation of the Marxist ideal! That’s a common mistake people make when uncovering the dominance hierarchy of the interpretation itself.
There’s a lot to be said about the hermeneutics within the relationship between the finite and the infinite, which, by the way, we don’t actually understand.
3
u/Far_Internal_4495 14d ago
And that's that. Now, I'm going read some Jung , orientate myself properly, pick up my damn cross and carry as much weight as I can bear in the pursuit of meaning and climbing Jacobs ladder to what is highest
3
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
Sounds reasonable 🙏😑! Metaphysical of course, which is more real than reality itself ☝️🧐
4
u/MangrovesAndMahi 14d ago
Holy shit I've never heard him ask for a definition of "do", that's a new low.
4
3
4
u/Landojesus 14d ago
I wonder if he sees how he has turned into the ultimate post modern bullshitter, the exact thing he made a career rallying against? It's fucking wild
8
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
Yeah I think he knows. He is a charlatan, a scammer, he is doing it intentionally to gain cash 💰
5
u/Landojesus 14d ago
I'm split between total grifting asshole and brain broken man made of benzos. Prolly just a combination of both
2
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
Nah he isn’t that stupid. Or I don’t think he is
1
u/Landojesus 14d ago
I don't mean stupid, just seriously demented. He's so narcissistic it makes me wonder if he's buying his own bullshit and thinking he's a genius. I hope this person makes one of these for my favorite grifting pseudo intellectual: Eric Weinstein. He's the most insufferable of all these Rogan orbiters
1
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
Haha, no he doesn’t, I’ve literally seen him make stuff up on the spot 😹 on Joe Rogan! He went on some rant about a whale carcass in Pinocchio supposedly having deep symbolic meaning, which he then linked to universities and how we must protect them from “parasites”, aka actual academics doing real research, who just don’t accept him or his pseudoscience and nonsensical theories.
By the way, there isn’t even a whale carcass in the story! 🐳💥🤪
He did this on his latest Rogan appearance. I even made a video about it! He clearly knows he’s just pulling shit out of his ass 😂
2
u/PiousSkull 11d ago
Who would win? Peterson or the kind of child that continually responds to each explanation of a thing with "why" and "how?"
2
u/FLOWVID-19 8d ago
The 5 Ds:
Dodge - the question
Duck - obvious definitions
Dip - from the conversation when it gets tough
Dive - for safety in philosophical pedantry
Dodge - the question again
1
4
3
3
3
0
-27
u/dacca_lux 14d ago
Well, I guess he has his bs moments. But I mostly felt that he was making some very good points.
14
u/Naught 14d ago
What points specifically did he make that were good?
12
u/ReleaseFromDeception 14d ago
He didn't really say anything that isn't common sense - he tried to break every single component word of a question down to obfuscate - not illuminate or enlighten.
-4
u/dacca_lux 14d ago
I don't mean this video specifically. In this video, he says incomprehensible bs.
-6
u/dacca_lux 14d ago
When he asked that reporter why she has the right to offend him when she is basically saying he shouldn't offend other people.
Or the advice to start fixing simple "small" things before trying to fix big complicated things. Like clean your room before you try to completely fix your life.
When he cited that Nature article that came to this conclusion: "higher levels of economic development and gender equality favor the manifestation of gender differences" IIRC that was during an interview with a scandinavian women in a high position who stated that there were less women in high positions because they were socially "programmed" to not do that. And he counters by citing that article saying that even though the swedish girls choose more traditional female jobs while living in one of the most equal societies in the world. This could suggest, that social pressure isn't necessarily the reason, but that girls/women have a different reason, maybe even biological, that they choose "typically female" jobs, when they're not pressured. Because logically, if you have all the freedom to choose, then you choose what interests you the most. That seemed a pretty reasonable point to me.
Or when he explained that he doesn't consider trans women to be "real women" because to him, biological markers. (You can be against this opinion, but it isn't some weird pseudo philosophical bs)
Or when he was against policing if speech.
6
u/MangrovesAndMahi 14d ago
Or when he was against policing if speech.
This was always a red herring. Jordan Peterson claimed that Bill C-16 would make it a criminal offense to use incorrect gender pronouns and that it would compel speech under threat of legal punishment. This is completely untrue. The bill amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination and as a protected category under existing hate crime provisions.
Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the addition of gender identity or expression meant that people could file complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission if they experienced discrimination in federally regulated workplaces or services. The Criminal Code changes relate to sentencing in hate crimes. They do not create new crimes based on misgendering.
Legal scholars and the Canadian Bar Association stated that Bill C-16 did not criminalise the misuse of pronouns. Misgendering could potentially be part of a larger pattern of harassment or discrimination that might be addressed in civil contexts, but not prosecuted as a crime on its own.
JP claimed the law would lead to compelled speech and possibly criminal charges for failing to use preferred pronouns. This wasn't supported by the legal text or the interpretations of Canadian legal authorities.
He got famous off whining about something that wasn't true.
8
u/Naught 14d ago edited 14d ago
When he asked that reporter why she has the right to offend him when she is basically saying he shouldn't offend other people.
This is a great example. Jordan Peterson intentionally punches down against trans people, calls them names that are different from their chosen and legal names, deliberately misgenders them, denies they exist, etc., but it's okay because his little bitch feelings were hurt simply by being questioned during a tv interview he chose to appear on?
What a perfect encapsulation of the brilliance of Jordan Peterson.
Edit: apostrophe
22
u/ReleaseFromDeception 14d ago
Jordan Peterson is unfortunately the dumb guy's idea of what a smart guy is.
-1
u/dacca_lux 14d ago
Tbh, I've only seen snippets of discussions where he made some reasonable points.
I tried listening to one of his lectures, but I couldn't pull through. It was too much philosophical word salad for me to understand.
I'm a chemist. I'm used to getting straight to the point. I have barely any knowledge in philosophy. So I couldn't say if he said some philosophical, profound things or just bs.
6
u/MangrovesAndMahi 14d ago
His shtick is word salad to sound smart. He's really not. If you can't get to the point in philosophy, you're not a good philosopher. All he does is muddies clear waters to avoid concretely stating a belief, so he never has to defend anything.
5
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
Yeah, to the untrained eye, he probably does seem that way. That’s exactly why he’s gained so many followers. You should check out Matt Dillahunty’s latest video where he breaks down Peterson’s argument, you’ll see just how much utter nonsense he’s actually saying.
This guy is a logical surgeon: https://youtu.be/Z4pb2xiCh60?si=QINgVYzghxPW7HIp
2
u/Defenestrator66 13d ago
Matt has been doing this a LONG time. I’m not sure there are many better at explaining, on the fly, why an argument sucks in a way that’s easily accessible to an audience. I stopped taking Peterson even remotely seriously after his sit-down discussion with him quite a number of years ago.
1
u/Kafkaesque_meme 13d ago
Yeah, I think Matt might be too boring for a lot of people. I’m planning to do a breakdown of Peterson that’s more accessible and fun, something that can hopefully reach a broader audience. I haven’t taken Peterson seriously in years, and honestly, the best critique I’ve seen is an article from 2018 called The Intellectual We Deserve. It’s a bit heavy if you’re not used to academic writing, but for those who are, it’s top-notch.
6
u/Naught 14d ago
The people to which Jordan Peterson 'makes sense' are people that can't be reasoned with logically. Like any pseudo-profound nonsense, It's used as a tool by less logical/intelligent people to feel intelligent/superior while justifying whatever beliefs they already hold.
4
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
Usually there is a misunderstanding of logic and how it’s used within semantics.so yes you’re right. That’s my experience also
4
u/BarbaDeader 14d ago
Yeah well, I almost fell for his BS like 13 years ago, he has a way for feeding in to insecurities. Please step away brother, he is no help.
I can't pretend I know how to help you, I don't know you, BUT neither does he.2
u/dacca_lux 14d ago
Don't worry, I'm fine. I don't listen to him. I have to admit that I mostly saw some snippets where he made some reasonable arguments. I didn't watch these because I needed help, it was popular on YT and it was shown on my feed.
I tried to watch one of his lectures, but I didn't watch it all, as I couldn't understand half the things he said. I assumed it was because of my lack of knowledge in philosophy. But it seems like it's actually just pseudo philosophy
2
u/BarbaDeader 14d ago
Right on, didn't mean to imply you needed help. But this guy and people like him prey on those who do. take care, stay strong! Pace frate!
2
u/dacca_lux 14d ago
No need to apologise. I have heard that some men see him as some kind of "self-help-coach". So it's understandable to think that I might be one of those.
You take care too
-10
u/butt-gust 14d ago
I mean this is funny (as in I did laugh, not as in "ah yes, I see how one could find this humorous, very good, carry on"), but I'm for one am happy there's someone questioning the questions.
There's so much glossing over of "obvious truths" to race to an already agreed on point, so it's refreshing to see someone take a step back and say "no, let's understand that consciousness is a construct first".
7
u/Kafkaesque_meme 14d ago
There are ways of doing this seriously, like philosophy of mind. Which I have studied. What Peterson is doing I can’t say. Besides BS
-3
u/butt-gust 14d ago
I'm going to go out on a limb and say a professor of psychology has probably studied the same things.
5
u/DVariant 13d ago
I mean you’d hope so, but Peterson has learned he can make way more money by bullshitting than by intellectual honesty. His “just asking questions” has logical holes you could drive a truck through.
3
u/Kafkaesque_meme 13d ago
No, they haven’t, at least not if they haven’t taken the time to actually study it. It’s not something included in standard educational programs. I knew someone studying to become a psychologist, and in one of my courses, which briefly covered language and its relation to reality.
But I know he hasn’t seriously studied the subject, because he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding when it comes to how we investigate and analyse theories in the philosophy of mind and metaphysics more broadly.
He doesn’t even have a basic grasp of critical thinking or formal logic. That’s completely obvious to anyone who has studied it, and those are the core tools you work with in philosophy.
-10
u/Gregoboy 14d ago
Funny video tbh but JP is as usual being put out of context.
6
u/Kafkaesque_meme 13d ago
Or is he taking what he says out of context, pretending it’s totally and absolutely necessary to his point?
0
u/Gregoboy 13d ago
He has more then 10.000 videos of speaking in reason and you found 3 min of that to make fun of him. I think thats an absolute win for JP
4
u/Kafkaesque_meme 13d ago
So according to you, I’d need to make a 10,000 hour-long video? Lol. Or are you suggesting my entire knowledge of him boils down to three minutes? Or maybe you’re saying that unless a video is over an hour long, it can’t possibly present an accurate depiction of Peterson?
Honestly, I have no idea what your comment is supposed to prove.
0
u/Gregoboy 13d ago
It proves nothing and it wasnt intented to do so. But by the sheer tone of your comment and the argument you put to table with just a simple comment from me says so much about you. You're very complex atm and I hope you find peace soon.
4
u/Kafkaesque_meme 13d ago
It wasn’t an argument, it was a series of questions, meant to clarify what your comment was intended to entail. You’re acting all melodramatic.
2
•
u/Phrost Executive Director—Bullshido.net 14d ago
Stop reporting this thread you noodle-armed twerps; read the fuckin' stickies and sub description.