I just watched a Jordan Peterson video

Actually I could not make it through the whole thing. Wow! Is this guy a nutjob? or what? I think he has a screw loose. This was actually some of the scariest shit I have ever heard put into psychobabble.

More scary was the fact that all the comments were positive. Mine was not.



0 seconds ago

What identity should be and ought to be is a mindset that directly opposes the idea of faith being the courage to accept future possibilities with open arms. One cannot run around ‘should-ing’ and ‘ought to-ing’ about the world around them, and simultaneously be open to possibilities of the future.

He asserts that “Faith is courageous.” Applying ‘should’ and ‘ought to’ to the future is courageous? It is the best way to deal with the future? Really? I find it hard to believe that any psychotherapist would make such a statement.

Existence itself is good? This is indicative of a ridged model of black-and-white thinking. It assumes, ‘good exists.’ Good is not a thing. It is a label we attach to the world around us. When we like something we call it good. When we think something is useful or helpful to ourselves or others, we call it good. Existence is both good and bad and sometimes one person’s good is another person’s bad? This absolutist thinking, "Existence is good,’ is frankly, bizarre, when it comes from someone supposedly educated.

A vision? A vision in which we have the responsibility of making the vision a reality? I guess we are right back to Jordan’s ‘should’ and ‘ought to universe.’ Isn’t this a bit on the repressive side? A vision based on should and ought to. This is just a weird position. IMO

Identity is the proper union (no idea what proper means) of faith and responsibility. Responsibility to make the should and ought to manifest in the future. This man is sick! Can you not see how insane his message is? No wonder he needs training to keep his license. This ‘folks’ is whack-job bullshit.

I have not watched much of Jordan, but I am really unimpressed.


He’s been fighting the Ontario Regulatory body (for his profession) over his conduct.
Him, Tucker Carlson and Conrad Black just had a tour in Alberta with our Premier :face_vomiting:

I watched quite a few videos with Jordan Peterson after a friend suggested his message might interest me. Yeah, the first few videos I watched were quite interesting, although I felt his message was somewhat difficult to understand. After a while, I was annoyed by his obfuscation. And then I wrote him off because what at first seemed like a message was just hot air.


Lending academic “credibility” to a lot of rightwing piffle, to include the idea that most academia is corrupt and evil, with banal self help blather tossed in.

How could he not expect to be taken seriously? :roll_eyes:

1 Like

IMO, Peterson, as well as Ben Shapiro, are just bad tap dancers. On the surface, it’s snappy patter, but not terribly substantive when dissected.


Peterson is a favorite of the CHUDs. Even a cursory glance around this very forum will reveal that.

I am not familiar with that US slang term. A cursory net search does not give an unambiguous answer. So what does it mean?


Who can blame him since when he makes himself perfectly clear he just gets himself in trouble :slight_smile: Like with his stance against transgenders. He seems to largely have the support of christians by hating the same people they do, but he’s a slippery one when it comes to exactly what he believes per religion.

Chud Logic , an anti-reactionary Twitch Streamer & YouTuber! I specialise in finding lesser known Anti-SJW YouTubers to cover.

“Apparently he said or did something really stupid, the video has been removed but I found this…
Secondly, I streamed a response earlier to the allegations. I accepted fault & apologised where I had made mistakes and acted inappropriately, and pushed back on what I felt were unfair accusations. It’s just over an hour.” https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/kwpk01/controversy_and_accusations_surrounding_chud/\

He wa banned from Twich.


I’ve no interest in any of this petty BS.

In the context of film (a film named “CHUD”) is means “cannibalistic humanoid underground dweller”.

In US politics it is a bigot.

If you use the term Social Justice Warrior, you could be a CHUD.
If you think Critical Race Theory it taught to children, you’re probably a CHUD.
If you use the word “woke” as a derogatory term, you’re almost certainly a CHUD.
If you think there is a war on Christmas, you are definitely a CHUD.


Damn! I wasn’t even close. I found this: I will probably be useful in the future.

Reminds me of the time I was in Australia and I found a coin on the ground in front of a vendor. I put it on the counter, told him I found it on the ground, and he said ‘Goodonya.’ WTF? ‘Goodonya!’ ’ I have no idea what you are saying." The man slowed it down for me… “Good on you.” Oh! Learn something new every day. It’s a bit like real English when we say “Good for you.” LOL

When I checked out Urban Dictionary, it offered the following definition for “chud”:

“An utterly obnoxious and annoying person, whose personality is defined primarily by an enormous ego”.

Which pretty much fits Peterson, along with my own description from elsewhere of “mouth on a stick”.

EDIT: that bit about cannibal troglodytes … reminds me of the Morlocks from H. G. Wells’ The Time Machine. Peterson’s a bit too well-groomed and narcissistic for that role, if he was going to indulge in cannibalism, he’d prefer a lofty penthouse suite accompanied by other rich pseuds.

1 Like

I try to watch some content from religious people from time to time. He had one video where he had a guest talk about how Hitler managed to do what he did in a modern, theoretically moral society. The sounded like they were skeptical of all the normal reasons like Germany’s fall from grace in WWI and its economy. Their answer was demons. After his interviewee used the term demonic twice when describing the situation, I shut it off. This seemingly unmeasurable problem we don’t really understand must have a unmeasurable answer somebody made up a long time ago. I am amazed how society knows what logical fallacies are but don’t seem to know how they work.

Any way, I also recently saw a Richard Dawkins interview where he says he appreciates Peterson’s work in free speech for Canada but called his religious views utter bullshit. I don’t think Peterson is necessarily a dumb guy so it makes me wonder how a guy who questions things in society can’t seem to do the same for his own assumptions. I would argue self reflection is one of the most important things an intelligent person can do.

1 Like

I’ve watched Peterson. talk about therapy. Clinically he seems solid. I think it is his religious bullshit that has gotten him in trouble.


At least they didn’t lie and claim the Nazis were atheists, I’ve seen apologists use that lie countless times. I just posted this in another thread, but now it seems apropos here:

“Any human being who does not believe in God should be considered arrogant, megalomaniacal, and stupid and thus not suited for the SS.”[2] He did not allow atheists into the SS, arguing that their “refusal to acknowledge higher powers” would be a “potential source of indiscipline”.


If atheism is being decried by Heinrich Himmler, then that’s reassuring, but if he’s doing it because atheists might be indisciplined, and thus not blindly follow orders to commit atrocities, then I might have to get that framed and put it on the wall… :smirk: :innocent:


If they is Jordon Peterson, I think you might have spoke too soon!

1 Like

Got almost 6 minutes in, unbearable waffling word salad, then he finally started mentioning religion and heaven. His mannerisms and speech were eerily reminiscent of any snake oil salesman. I will try and preserver as the introduction described this as “his best speech ever”, so if this is as good as it gets, I can happily never listen to another one.

He’s giving a painfully trite and facile explanation of training a two year old now, I believe the correct acronym is KMN. Christ if this is his best speech ever, how painfully tedious are the others? After labouring the point that we learn as grow up he finally arrives at “the spirit of goodness itself” which surprise is traditionally associated with god. Utterly meaningless word salad.

Apparently if you understand that (?) then you also understand what constitutes “genuine human flourishing at the psychological level”, as @Cognostic says, the worst kind of psychobabble.

Western clinicians are at fault apparently, for suggesting mental health is subjective. Since we are not all the same, and can’t all cope in the same fashion, this seems unlikely, but he rounds this off with the pithy but vapid observation that we all know this is untrue as you can’t be happy if your wife is unhappy. How about my ex-wife, I’d be pretty happy to learn she was unhappy if I am being honest?

Ok so now I see where is he was going with this, he’s created a false equivalence fallacy, by asserting that the mental states of others we are close to affecting our own mental health, means our MH is not subjective. I think it more likely that a subjective mental health can’t exist in complete isolation from the mental health of those around us, he’s using a lot of words, to explain very little, and his conclusions are dubious at best, and likely irrational.

He’s now compounding his error with an analogous comparison with music, and if musical is not subjective then I’d be frankly stunned at this news, so a very poor analogy.

Ok 14:29, he finally makes his point albeit in a rambling disjointed fashion, that our lives can only have meaning through theistic religion, though even now he doesn’t say it outright, christ this guy loves the sound of his own voice.

Now he’s getting tearful, this is really painful to watch, he’s reaching the apotheosis of his preaching now, it’s all about god apparently, quelle surprise. So they’re not primitive superstitions (I don’t think he knows what either word means then) but are in fact “the most brilliant intuitions into the fundamental structure of reality, that have ever been offered”.

Is it churlish to point out that since no one can objectively evidence a deity, describing it as reality is pretty meaningless? Now he’s implying western religion has brought wealth and plenty to billions around the world, a very dubious assertion indeed.

“Everything will be fine if we struggle on upwards towards the city of god.” Hmm, again I can only express my extreme doubt at this unevidenced assertion. He’s hammering home that this is the truth, and not some primitive superstition, except the belief is both a primitive and superstitious one, by definition?

Ah another pearl of wisdom, we need to tilt the world towards heaven and away from Hell, I think I can feel it tilting if this wave of nausea is any indicator.

Now I don’t know this, but apparently “any attempt to circumvent the responsibility (of tilting the world towards heaven and away from Hell one assumes?) merely brings about some oscillating tension between absolute tyranny and utter slavery.” Well well, doesn’t his Christian religion endorse slavery though, and tyranny come to that, the deity depicted in the bible is an oppressively cruel tyrant?

Anyway I can now say I have seen his “best speech,”, and this negates the need to ever listen to him ever again, thankfully. As this one wasted a lot of words only to tell us we can’t be happy unless we believe in god. I am now investigating the Aztec deity of gluttony, in case I need a deity to be happy. Does anyone know how to measure happiness by the way, so I can properly test his claim? :face_with_raised_eyebrow: :smirk: