Why don't girls like techno?
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
Wow that reporter. Hahahachava wrote:For the feminists still left in this thread. This will cure you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
• Music Page: http://www.facebook.com/Mattias.Fridell.Music
• Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/fridell
• Sample packs: http://mfsamples.bandcamp.com
Contention / 005
• Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/fridell
• Sample packs: http://mfsamples.bandcamp.com
Contention / 005
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
I did not see the video but guys, Jordan Peterson is a fucking idiot. He was an absolute nobody until he got Youtube famous. His knowledge of anything outside of clinical psychology, ie. literature, philosophy, history, theology etc. is downright embarrassing. I can speak for his knowledge in Philosophy, which is worse than that of many first year students because he basically refuses to read anything that isn't Nietzsche or Jung. He has absolutely no idea what marxism, postmodernism or feminism are because he has admitted to not reading ANYTHING from those fields in primary form which is inexcusable for any respectable academic. He almost always debates student and non-academics. He rarely ever debates credible academics. He rarely engages in debates in WRITTEN form, which is the primary form of communication for supposed intellectuals.
Some of the highlights of his stupidity:
- he claims any kind of art that has a political dimension is not art, but propaganda (from his reddit AMA)
- he claims that goedel's incompleteness theorem directly proves that there is a god (from his twitter)
- he capitalizes "Being" as a tribute to Heidegger in his book Maps Of Meaning (nevermind that german capitalizes all nouns and his Interpretation of Heidegger is just ludicrously wrong)
Some of the highlights of his stupidity:
- he claims any kind of art that has a political dimension is not art, but propaganda (from his reddit AMA)
- he claims that goedel's incompleteness theorem directly proves that there is a god (from his twitter)
- he capitalizes "Being" as a tribute to Heidegger in his book Maps Of Meaning (nevermind that german capitalizes all nouns and his Interpretation of Heidegger is just ludicrously wrong)
- [wesellboxes]
- Q33 NY
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:29 pm
- Contact:
- Lost to the Void
- subsekt
- Posts: 13518
- Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:31 pm
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
Styxxenhexxenhammertwat. That guy is such gonk.
Self claimed "occult authority".
Yet the occult community tore his ass up years back.
Didn't realise he was still around on YouTube....
Self claimed "occult authority".
Yet the occult community tore his ass up years back.
Didn't realise he was still around on YouTube....
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
JP never claimed himself as an expert on anything other than his field, and do not regard himself as an intellectual. But obviously he has read Foucault for instance. He might misinterpret Derrida, who knows. Nobody knows really what he was up to anyways.dubdub wrote:I did not see the video but guys, Jordan Peterson is a fucking idiot. He was an absolute nobody until he got Youtube famous. His knowledge of anything outside of clinical psychology, ie. literature, philosophy, history, theology etc. is downright embarrassing. I can speak for his knowledge in Philosophy, which is worse than that of many first year students because he basically refuses to read anything that isn't Nietzsche or Jung. He has absolutely no idea what marxism, postmodernism or feminism are because he has admitted to not reading ANYTHING from those fields in primary form which is inexcusable for any respectable academic. He almost always debates student and non-academics. He rarely ever debates credible academics. He rarely engages in debates in WRITTEN form, which is the primary form of communication for supposed intellectuals.
Some of the highlights of his stupidity:
- he claims any kind of art that has a political dimension is not art, but propaganda (from his reddit AMA)
- he claims that goedel's incompleteness theorem directly proves that there is a god (from his twitter)
- he capitalizes "Being" as a tribute to Heidegger in his book Maps Of Meaning (nevermind that german capitalizes all nouns and his Interpretation of Heidegger is just ludicrously wrong)
The reason for him not debating 'credible academics' is because they don't dare to. Ira Wells wrote a hitpiece in the Walrus (google it) and JP agreed to a debate but Wells backed out. Also he does in fact debate academics all the time, but yeah mostly on Youtube. Can't see what is so wrong about that. And he should be debating the editor of far left publishing house Zero Books soon, by the way.
- Art in the service of politics is propaganda, I totally agree on that notion.
- The Goedel thing was wierdly phrased and he might be on shaky ground here.
- I don't believe there's any reference to Heidegger in Maps of Meaning.
I don't at all agree with everything he says and those bullet points you pointed out was hardly the most egregious.
Anyways , watch the video.
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
Well, then why does he keep talking about all these things like he is an expert? Why does he have to bring up his ridiculous Nietzsche interpretation all the time? I'm fine with his silly clean your room self-help psychology crap but he keeps ranting about feminisn and marxism and postmodernism and religion all the fucking time. Of course you can't be an expert on everything but he actively tries to stay ignorant and refuses to learn anything that contradicts his viewpoint. I doubt he's actually read Foucault seriously. He has said that all his knowledge of postmodernism comes from this objectively awful, awful secondary literature book which name I forgot.chava wrote:JP never claimed himself as an expert on anything other than his field, and do not regard himself as an intellectual. But obviously he has read Foucault for instance.
Two reasons, first of all it's hard to come up with rigoros arguments spontaneously. Spoken discourse will never reach the level of intellectual rigor you can have in a written debate, where you can spend hours refining a single line of argument. Also, you can "win" a debate without being right. From what I've seen, as a psychologist Peterson is very good at manipulating and playing people in a live debate and using body language effectively. His debating style is also incredibly uncharitable for an academic, he debates more like one of these political talking heads. He also has a ton of practice in these kind of debates. I can see why people are afraid of debating him. That doesn't mean that he actually has the better arguments. We both could debate any random idiot on TV and we could be right about literally everything but we'd still get destroyed because they know how to run a live debate. With the pressure of a live debate, it's easy to wind up in contradictions and false line of arguments you'd never ever make in written form.chava wrote:Also he does in fact debate academics all the time, but yeah mostly on Youtube. Can't see what is so wrong about that.
That is an insane statement to make. Up until the 19th/20th century, most of the famous art we now have was comissioned by the aristocracy, early bourgeoisie or clergy, almost always to serve some kind of political purpose. Is Michelangelo's work not art? Not to mention all the great modern political art. By this account, Peterson's loved Dostoevsky isn't even art because he wrote some explicitely political books. Keep in mind this quote happened when talking about fucking Frozen. Apparently a vapid disney movie is evil feminist propaganda but explicitly political art is fine, as long as he likes it.chava wrote:Art in the service of politics is propaganda, I totally agree on that notion.
This is the Heidegger reference. I think it's from Maps of Meaning. Could be from elsewhere but that doesn't change the fact that it makes absolutely zero sense. Again, if he doesn't think that he is an expert, why does he have to quote Heidegger. https://i.redd.it/rdqtu6uc53b01.jpgchava wrote:I don't believe there's any reference to Heidegger in Maps of Meaning.
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
Doesn't matter really. Apparently he does clinical psychology good and talk mostly about observations (not necessarily his own). His own opinions may stink in some areas (he seem to quite like capitalist society) but not relevant here. I mean the fella believes in god and bashes atheists.dubdub wrote:I did not see the video but guys, Jordan Peterson is a fucking idiot. He was an absolute nobody until he got Youtube famous. His knowledge of anything outside of clinical psychology, ie. literature, philosophy, history, theology etc. is downright embarrassing. I can speak for his knowledge in Philosophy, which is worse than that of many first year students because he basically refuses to read anything that isn't Nietzsche or Jung. He has absolutely no idea what marxism, postmodernism or feminism are because he has admitted to not reading ANYTHING from those fields in primary form which is inexcusable for any respectable academic. He almost always debates student and non-academics. He rarely ever debates credible academics. He rarely engages in debates in WRITTEN form, which is the primary form of communication for supposed intellectuals.
Some of the highlights of his stupidity:
- he claims any kind of art that has a political dimension is not art, but propaganda (from his reddit AMA)
- he claims that goedel's incompleteness theorem directly proves that there is a god (from his twitter)
- he capitalizes "Being" as a tribute to Heidegger in his book Maps Of Meaning (nevermind that german capitalizes all nouns and his Interpretation of Heidegger is just ludicrously wrong)
• Music Page: http://www.facebook.com/Mattias.Fridell.Music
• Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/fridell
• Sample packs: http://mfsamples.bandcamp.com
Contention / 005
• Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/fridell
• Sample packs: http://mfsamples.bandcamp.com
Contention / 005
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
exactly.Mattias wrote: Doesn't matter really. Apparently he does clinical psychology good and talk mostly about observations (not necessarily his own). His own opinions may stink in some areas (he seem to quite like capitalist society) but not relevant here. I mean the fella believes in god and bashes atheists.
Why does everything have to be so black and white in this society ?
I mean, I'm pretty sure I would start laughing seriously if I see him going on about religion,
but that doesn't mean everything else he ever said is totally horrible and stupid.
I never heard of this guy before (nor do I really care), but I actually thought that video was quite funny, and I'm happy to see someone having the balls to talk about some of the observations he or others had, and being very eloquent about it as well. I haven't seen him twist his words in this video in any way, for example, though that interviewer was trying to put words into his mouth all the time.
I do agree with dubdub that a written debate is usually more well thought off than a spoken one,
but I really don't have the impression that what he says now doesn't make any sense just because it's only spoken word.
Sin cambios no hay mariposa
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
It's Stephen Hicks, who is an Randian/objectivist. He did read Foucault, though : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EmrMTR ... &t=0h46m0sdubdub wrote:
I doubt he's actually read Foucault seriously. He has said that all his knowledge of postmodernism comes from this objectively awful, awful secondary literature book which name I forgot.
Exactly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjnvtRg ... t=0h59m10sdubdub wrote: Also, you can "win" a debate without being right.
We wouldn't still be appreciating Michelangelo's works if you could reduce it to political propaganda. Soviet realist art hasn't really stood the test of time.dubdub wrote: Up until the 19th/20th century, most of the famous art we now have was comissioned by the aristocracy, early bourgeoisie or clergy, almost always to serve some kind of political purpose. Is Michelangelo's work not art? Not to mention all the great modern political art. By this account, Peterson's loved Dostoevsky isn't even art because he wrote some explicitely political books. Keep in mind this quote happened when talking about fucking Frozen. Apparently a vapid disney movie is evil feminist propaganda but explicitly political art is fine, as long as he likes it.
This is from his recent book. Mostly he uses Being as a concept to seperate from material / obejctive reality. But I can't argue whether he is completely wrong as phenomenology is definitely not an easy field. He discusses it all the time, though. And I would say if he was completely off the mark on this (and other points) he would have been taken out a long time ago. He has published Youtube videos way before he got in the mainstream spotlight.dubdub wrote: This is the Heidegger reference. I think it's from Maps of Meaning. Could be from elsewhere but that doesn't change the fact that it makes absolutely zero sense. Again, if he doesn't think that he is an expert, why does he have to quote Heidegger. https://i.redd.it/rdqtu6uc53b01.jpg
I feel I am derailing this thread with maximum force, sorry for the inconvenience.
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
Sure, but it's still art. Bad art is still art. If we had said that Frozen is bad art because it's political I don't think as many people would have objected. The problem is that he said that it isn't art at all because it's political. I don't think there's any kind of political art that can be stripped off all aesthetic value and reduced to pure politics. Even literal propaganda posters can be art, some people enjoy the aesthetic style of old propaganda posters in languages they can't even read and they may not even know the historical context, which means that there is quite literally an aesthetic value seperated from the political message in them.chava wrote:Soviet realist art hasn't really stood the test of time.
Which is the complete opposite of what phenomeology was trying to achieve. It was rallying against the subjectivization of metaphysics through the psychology craze of the 19th and early 20th century. But then again, Peterson is a psychologist so it's no wonder that he gets this wrong.chava wrote: This is from his recent book. Mostly he uses Being as a concept to seperate from material / obejctive reality. But I can't argue whether he is completely wrong as phenomenology is definitely not an easy field.
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
wow, for a guy you consider to be such an idiot, you do spend a lot of time analysing what he does and being triggered by it. why would you watch/read/listen to an analysis of a disney movie by a guy you don't think is credible? unless you're just responding to the one sentence reddit post i found by googling his name and frozen. from what i can see, he seems to have tens of hours of maps of meaning videos on youtube and the book is pretty long, have you consumed them all?dubdub wrote:Well, then why does he keep talking about all these things like he is an expert? Why does he have to bring up his ridiculous Nietzsche interpretation all the time? I'm fine with his silly clean your room self-help psychology crap but he keeps ranting about feminisn and marxism and postmodernism and religion all the fucking time. Of course you can't be an expert on everything but he actively tries to stay ignorant and refuses to learn anything that contradicts his viewpoint. I doubt he's actually read Foucault seriously. He has said that all his knowledge of postmodernism comes from this objectively awful, awful secondary literature book which name I forgot.chava wrote:JP never claimed himself as an expert on anything other than his field, and do not regard himself as an intellectual. But obviously he has read Foucault for instance.
Two reasons, first of all it's hard to come up with rigoros arguments spontaneously. Spoken discourse will never reach the level of intellectual rigor you can have in a written debate, where you can spend hours refining a single line of argument. Also, you can "win" a debate without being right. From what I've seen, as a psychologist Peterson is very good at manipulating and playing people in a live debate and using body language effectively. His debating style is also incredibly uncharitable for an academic, he debates more like one of these political talking heads. He also has a ton of practice in these kind of debates. I can see why people are afraid of debating him. That doesn't mean that he actually has the better arguments. We both could debate any random idiot on TV and we could be right about literally everything but we'd still get destroyed because they know how to run a live debate. With the pressure of a live debate, it's easy to wind up in contradictions and false line of arguments you'd never ever make in written form.chava wrote:Also he does in fact debate academics all the time, but yeah mostly on Youtube. Can't see what is so wrong about that.
That is an insane statement to make. Up until the 19th/20th century, most of the famous art we now have was comissioned by the aristocracy, early bourgeoisie or clergy, almost always to serve some kind of political purpose. Is Michelangelo's work not art? Not to mention all the great modern political art. By this account, Peterson's loved Dostoevsky isn't even art because he wrote some explicitely political books. Keep in mind this quote happened when talking about fucking Frozen. Apparently a vapid disney movie is evil feminist propaganda but explicitly political art is fine, as long as he likes it.chava wrote:Art in the service of politics is propaganda, I totally agree on that notion.
This is the Heidegger reference. I think it's from Maps of Meaning. Could be from elsewhere but that doesn't change the fact that it makes absolutely zero sense. Again, if he doesn't think that he is an expert, why does he have to quote Heidegger. https://i.redd.it/rdqtu6uc53b01.jpgchava wrote:I don't believe there's any reference to Heidegger in Maps of Meaning.
- [wesellboxes]
- Q33 NY
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:29 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
Never knew who this guy was either but a quick nose around YouTube and I see more than enough of the same old alt-shite pish propped up by the same old shills and bots in the comment section. The internet is just a fucking sewer these days.
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
If you actually listened to what he has to say, you would know that Jordan Peterson is the long needed antidote to the alt-right phenomenon.[wesellboxes] wrote:Never knew who this guy was either but a quick nose around YouTube and I see more than enough of the same old alt-shite pish propped up by the same old shills and bots in the comment section. The internet is just a fucking sewer these days.
- [wesellboxes]
- Q33 NY
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:29 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
If it looks like a tech-house DJ, plays at tech-house events and his fan base is 99% tech-house then.....chava wrote:If you actually listened to what he has to say, you would know that Jordan Peterson is the long needed antidote to the alt-right phenomenon.
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
According to reddit the amount of his fanbase that describes themselves as alt-right sits at around 2%, so your numbers are a little bit off.[wesellboxes] wrote:If it looks like a tech-house DJ, plays at tech-house events and his fan base is 99% tech-house then.....chava wrote:If you actually listened to what he has to say, you would know that Jordan Peterson is the long needed antidote to the alt-right phenomenon.
- [wesellboxes]
- Q33 NY
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:29 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
While Reddit, 4Chan and wherever the fuck else might have their minute differences, when you talk about "curing feminism" it's all the same ball park in the real world.chava wrote:According to reddit the amount of his fanbase that describes themselves as alt-right sits at around 2%, so your numbers are a little bit off.
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
Must feel secure to live in a black / white / yes / no type of world.
• Music Page: http://www.facebook.com/Mattias.Fridell.Music
• Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/fridell
• Sample packs: http://mfsamples.bandcamp.com
Contention / 005
• Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/fridell
• Sample packs: http://mfsamples.bandcamp.com
Contention / 005
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
It's probably THE main reason why we're coping with insecurity issues and shit...Mattias wrote:Must feel secure to live in a black / white / yes / no type of world.
I'll try and get myself completely Daltonistic, and live happily ever after !
Sin cambios no hay mariposa
- [wesellboxes]
- Q33 NY
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:29 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
That's not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth. PWNED!Mattias wrote:Must feel secure to live in a black / white / yes / no type of world.
(This how it works right?)
Re: Why don't girls like techno?
No idea. I usually tend to avoid that type of internet discussion[wesellboxes] wrote:
(This how it works right?)
• Music Page: http://www.facebook.com/Mattias.Fridell.Music
• Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/fridell
• Sample packs: http://mfsamples.bandcamp.com
Contention / 005
• Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/fridell
• Sample packs: http://mfsamples.bandcamp.com
Contention / 005