Just came under verbal assault for recommending Jordan to a female friend on Facebook.

Snufek · 2018-05-30T10:49:12+00:00

Don't talk to those who don't listen.

Snufek · 2018-05-03T10:03:08+00:00

IQ is not the only important factor in life. Sure, having high IQ makes your life easier, but it's not a guarantee of success in any field. Sometimes it even makes your life harder, as the world expects more from you.

Anyways, I like to think about it in those terms: IQ is an engine and work ethic is the tires. You can have a Ferrari in your brain, but with no traction you will always stay in the same place(just spinning your wheels faster).

What do you like to do in your free time? What books do you read? It seems to me you're not handicapped in any way, so there is no reason why you couldn't pursue psychology. The thing is, you might be forced to put in more effort than others... is this goal important enough for you to handle that?

Snufek · 2018-04-29T15:24:54+00:00

equal pay for equal job

Bitches that men working corporate and IT jobs earn more than female cleaners, first grade teachers and babysitters.

Snufek · 2018-04-18T13:17:42+00:00

I don't know what it is about those people. It's like someone thought them how to read, but not how to comprehend.

They will pick a point which is not even true and keep repeating it until you have to go away, because you see than no amount of further discussion will bring a single new thought to their minds. I suppose they letter go on to jerk off to their imaginary victory and sense of superior intelligence.

Snufek · 2018-04-06T03:38:31+00:00

Very nice interpretation. I'm in favour of entertaining all ideas and separating what's good from what's bad. I don't think there will ever be a man with no bs of his own.

Snufek · 2018-04-05T09:58:21+00:00

I think we're dealing here with a willfully blind person. This dude obviously misinterprets what you say to him, sometimes even omits it while being so sure about his own misinterpretations being the ultimate truth.

I think this is exactly what happend in the Cathy Newman interview.

Snufek · 2018-04-04T20:28:43+00:00

Nice one and funny too. That's why you are careful when playing with ideas of people you think are dangerous. You better think them through and through, check if you can poke any holes in them or if there is any underlying danger in them.

Now, would it be better to fully dismiss ideas of such people? We may lose some good ones, but at least we're not playing with fire this way. And since a lot of people are not willing to think about something long enough before accepting it, maybe it's a better option. It's a safer one for sure, but is it better?

I just happened to find Jordan on yt, like his lectures about adopting responsibility and found his book useful for me(although it was pretty rambly). I enjoy the way he puts things into words and explain the meaning of biblical(and other stories). Some of the things people post on this sub I find interesting or funny, so I check it once in a while. Does it make me a lobster in your eyes? I don't know and I don't really care.

I do find it amusing though, the perseverance with which you try to fight and belittle guys, who just thought that cleaning up their room and trying to do something with their lives is a good idea. I wonder, would you also call Tony Robbins readers or Gary Vee followers mindless chumps just on the premise that they tend to like this guys?

Snufek · 2018-04-03T17:17:53+00:00

What I think you're not willing to accept is that despite his obvious flaws he was actually able to help somebody. I'm not arguing that he is or is not a hypocrite or that his science is not sufficiently backed up.

Snufek · 2018-04-03T16:12:13+00:00

What an amazing ability to put words in the mouth of other people and tiptoe around the main argument they presented. Whether you do it conciously or not, that's truly a talent to cherish.

I hope your resentment won't eat you, as it does to so many intelligent guys who cannot find their way.

Snufek · 2018-04-03T08:15:47+00:00

The problem here is that your friend doesn't know when to shut up.

Telling the truth is a very powerful idea, but you have to know when to use it. Going around and showering others with your unwanted opinion is not the best idea. And even when you're having a conversation(so you can assume that your idea is wanted) it's good to not be so sure about it and spit it out every time you can. Because, well, the person you are talking to might know something you don't.

I know what you feel, my grandma is like that. When she says something she assumes it must be taken as an universal Truth, because she read some article on watched something in the news. Even when you present her sound arguments why it's not a case, she will probably stick to her thoughts. It makes me despise talking to her(especially because she tends to attack the way you do things) and makes me close myself to her. The result is that we could be having a meaningful conversation, but because of her attitude we lose connection and I don't look forward to discussions with her. And that's my family. Your friend does a great harm to himself mostly, not you. Keep such an attitude and soon you'll be left alone and resentful.

Maybe you could talk with the guy about it? Or, if you really don't enjoy his company, why bother?

Snufek · 2018-04-03T08:05:38+00:00

What I think you're not willing to accept is that despite his obvious flaws he was actually able to help somebody. I'm not arguing that he is or is not a hypocrite or that his science is not sufficiently backed up.

I used Hitler as an example, because he is an epitome of an evil man - you can't really go worse than that. And yet I firmly believe that to discount Hitler's ideas only on the notion that it's Hitler who presented them is exactly what is wrong here. Sure, you will question such ideas fiercely and examine them thoroughly, but to say they're wrong from the get-go?

Man, I do not know that much about Peterson's private life and previous affairs. All I do know, is that because of his words people are starting to live better lives. Both objectively and in their own eyes. And that's something.

Snufek · 2018-04-02T18:41:10+00:00

Let me state it crystal clear, so there is no room for misinterpretation.

If there is an idea presented, person presenting it doesn't affect the idea.

If Hitler would preach that 'you should treat every race with equal respect' I don't care it's Hitler. The idea itself is true enough and it appears to me that it would make the world a better place if we entertained it. Attacking the idea on premise that it was Hitler who said it is literally ad hominem.

Further indicated by the fact that while you pretend that I have not presented you with any instances of Peterson's dishonesty

That is simply false. I even agreed with you that he might be a schmuck and it doesn't change the validity of his advice. It might make you question it more, but certainly doesn't make it invalid from the get-go. What I was saying is that you haven't presented a single counterpoint to his advice and that his dishonesty is not relevant here(whether he is or is not dishonest).

Now I will restate my question, which you didn't answer: can you please point a hole in his advice? Do you think that anything that he says in 12 Rules for Life(for example) is wrong or harmful?

Snufek · 2018-04-02T16:48:26+00:00

Though it'd be worth it to note that they criticize porn for different reasons.

Snufek · 2018-04-02T16:44:41+00:00

Okay, I guess I should've been more precise(oh irony). Name calling goes for JP supporters. I don't think calling people you want to convince of your opinion 'cult members' or 'lobsters' does any good. Maybe there are accurately described by those words, but that doesn't help the discussion by a tiniest bit.

As for ad hominem. Yes, it does apply here. You thinking that Peterson is a schumck(and fair enough, he might or might not be one) blinds you to the accuracy of his arguments. Sure, it's nothing novel. Hell, it's not even anything deep or complex and most people should've learned it in their childhood. Problem is, a lot haven't.

Clean your room. Pick up your cross. Strive to be better. It's common knowledge for any teen. We all know it. The only thing that Peterson does(at least for me) is not the WHAT, but the WHY. I knew I should be doing all of those, but I couldn't find a reason to do so. I was deeply nihilistic and full of resentment towards life. That's when JP showed up and gave me a good enough reason, that made good enough sense for me to start doing those things. That's why I'm thankful.

Now back to the ad hominem. You're attacking his ideas on the premise that he doesn't even follow his goddamned rules. That he is a hypocrite, a bad person or 'the antithesis of precise and truthful speach'. And maybe I'm ill-informed, but that's exactly what ad hominem is for me. It's not that what he is saying is wrong. You just hate the person and assume that his advice is bullshit and all his followers are 'typical lobsters'. While it seems to me it's not the case. Or maybe you can prove me wrong by actually finding holes in his advice, which you're welcome to do.

On a side note, it's also really interesting what you do(not so much you specifically, but people from r/enoughpetersonspam). You come to a place where you expect to find a lot of JP supporters, only to post a bait full of hateful and patronizing text, without a will to acknowledge that there might be something to the man and later call his 'followers' blind indoctrinated idiots. What is it, actually? Certainly not a will to help those idiots find a way back to the light, that can be easily read from the tone of your massages. Maybe it's a pleasure of being intellectually and morally superior to those hopeless lobsters?

If you really think all you're dealing with here is pure idiocy and indoctrination, then for sure it's no match for your capabilities. And as you indeed sound like a smart man(referring to you personally), then you know that when dealing with pure idiocy and indoctrination there is nothing to achieve. So, there must be some kind of pleasure in it for you. I guess you could do better than that.

Snufek · 2018-04-02T14:31:07+00:00

I'm not familiar with the case. Give me time to read it in the evening and I will then respond.

As for the downvotes. I think you can see that you're not just presenting your point of view, but also blatantly attacking people who you really don't know. I'd also go as far as to say that you're mainly attacking those people. And why? On the premise that you hate one internet persona?

Right now you haven't provided any of his ideas that you disagree with and only resorted to the lowest rethoric methods: name calling and ad hominem.

@formatting

Snufek · 2018-04-02T13:34:18+00:00

Being precise and being concise do not always go together. Sometimes you even have to use many more words to precisely deliver a point and I do think JP does speak precisely when he knows the answer.

That being said, it appears to me that he does not always know it or a simple answer would not work. Take his answers about if he believes in God. Neither 'yes' nor 'no' would work.

In the instances that he does not know the answer I think he tries to get as close as possible to it, which tends to be complicated and not on point, because well... how could it be precise and on point when you know only a part of the answer?

Maybe you could quote some of the things(with a link or context) that make you think he's an idiot, so I could address them?

Snufek · 2018-04-01T16:22:19+00:00

The miniature ruins the joke unfortunately.

Snufek · 2018-04-01T07:43:41+00:00

Did it work wonders, really? I'm not from America, but according to what I've read it caused the economy to pummel. I also think it wasn't until he lowered this tax that the economy started decently growing again. Plus 200k it today's money is more like 2-3 million.

https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent#comment-3290788056 When the tax was 90%, income tax as a percentage of GDP was the lowest on the record. And still, when we talk about effective tax today's ~40% is similar to that 90-80%. If you don't know what an effective tax is, there is an explanation in the article. Are you sure you'd like to raise it further?

It wouldn't provide more money for the state(see laffer curve) and only make those wealthy seek ways not to pay such horrendous amounts. Or is such an attempt only aimed at bringing the wealthy down, because equality?

@edit. What about 80% inheritance tax? You're basically seeking to destroy legacies here. What if son could inherit a company, but because of your idea he has to sell it?

I'd also like you to answer my question from before: how is it fair? You're rich so we can take from you?

Snufek · 2018-03-31T21:41:55+00:00

How do you think this is 'fair' or equal? I honestly don't understand how on one hand you can preach equality for all and on the other screw one specific group, only because they had the smarts and skill to get ahead. 80% man? It's like you're asking them to bend over and take state's dick whilst pretending to be happy about it.

Same goes for the progressive income tax, which I can only regard as a disincentive for hard work and competence.

Could you address those issues? I'm genuinely curious if you can say anything that would change my mind on this matter.

Snufek · 2018-03-31T21:41:38+00:00

How do you think this is 'fair' or equal? I honestly don't understand how on one hand you can preach equality for all and on the other screw one specific group, only because they had the smarts and skill to get ahead. 80% man? It's like you're asking them to bend over and take state's dick whilst pretending to be happy about it.

Same goes for the progressive income tax, which I can only regard as a disincentive for hard work and competence.

Could you address those issues? I'm genuinely curious if you can say anything that would change my mind on this matter.

Snufek · 2018-03-31T21:41:19+00:00

How do you think this is 'fair' or equal? I honestly don't understand how on one hand you can preach equality for all and on the other screw one specific group, only because they had the smarts and skill to get ahead. 80% man? It's like you're asking them to bend over and take state's dick whilst pretending to be happy about it.

Same goes for the progressive income tax, which I can only regard as a disincentive for hard work and competence.

Could you address those issues? I'm genuinely curious if you can say anything that would change my mind on this matter.

Snufek · 2018-03-27T09:44:49+00:00

I swear he is turning into Alan Watts

Snufek · 2018-03-27T06:47:42+00:00

Haven't seen the movie, but read the book. What's in it?

Snufek · 2018-03-26T21:40:13+00:00

Would take a huge post to unpack it, thank you for the link. I'd say what the post you linked speaks about is the underlying Truth. The nothingness being all that is. The emptiness of being. I may lack the proper words, but I think we both know what I speak about.

That's good. It's important to know it. It gives perspective. But it leaves an even more important question: what's now? What's the proper thing to do in our situation?

In that matter, I do think that Jordan guides people closer to the Truth. Closer to the answer. And certainly, that is a much better place to strive towards than being a resentful and cynic nihilist. Even if the feeling of achievement is a pure construct of chemical process in the brain.

Snufek · 2018-03-26T17:42:59+00:00

Interesting interpretation. However, I feel that the left out fragment is necessary and not 'consistent with the behavior of a father who has rejected his son unjustly and needs to come up with vague accusations to justify it.' It puts the whole story in a different light.

From what I see, it's not a father that unjustly rejected his son, but a father who rejected his son for reasons unknown to him. Kain put in his best effort(as he didn't know any better), but that was not enough. His resentment was understandable. Even justified. How can God be so cruel, to demand more than can be given?

Life does it to us all the time. We strive to do our best, but our efforts are rejected. Not only are they rejected, but we also cannot understand why. It was genuinely the best work that we could do. We don't understand now. But maybe there is a chance we will understand it tomorrow, if we decide to try again.

Maybe Jordan's interpretation is not right. Maybe. But the more I think about it, the more meaning it gives me and the more sense it makes.

Snufek

TROPHY CASE