|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 17, 2023 6:11:03 GMT
It's funny isn't it - the people who have actually listened to Tate, have a very different opinion of him than the people who haven't listened to him. Who'd have thunk it! Jordan Peterson seems to be down with him, personally i think he relies, much too much, on possessions and allowing them to define him. I really do not like hearing women called bitches and how he tries to rationalise screwing around , because it’s a function. One day he will realise that cars, jewellery and the rest, do not hug you, comfort you or give anything but transient happiness I don’t care for Andrew Tate at all, I do like Dr Peterson. Andrew Tate is a very low resolution version of masculinity which mostly is to promote his course and products to young men who can’t get girlfriends. It’s important to think of why Tate exists and why he’s been succesful. You’ve got a generation of young men raised by mothers, without good male role models and that’s what he’s playing in to. This is a backlash essentially to progressive ideas which label a man’s masculinity as toxic, and Tate really has defined a real definition of what toxic means. It’s very much “If you want toxic, here you go” Whenever societies have lost young men without purpose, and without fathers, they are always ripe for an extreme movement to sweep them up and that’s kind of what’s happening with Tate. We need to think hard about how we are shaping the lives and minds of young men. Very easy to dismiss this with a waving hand of misogyny, and it IS misogyny, make no doubt, but that doesn’t solve the problem. Much of what Tate espouses can be seen as positive in terms of being disciplined, being critical and honest but the goals are the issue. Tate’s objectives are the manifestation of narcissism. Jordan Peterson’s view is that responsibility and meaning are the goals to which one would aim, and that’s something much healthier and beneficial to all. The underpinning idea is the same as was depicted in the 90s in Fight Club - a sterile, consumerist lifestyle is terrible for young men, who need discipline and purpose to stop them losing their marbles and going awry. Peterson solves this by showing a route to self reliance and responsibility whereas Tate addresses the issue by showing the route to fulfilment of grandiose narcisstic fantasy. There is a big difference between the two but they are playing to the same problem and the same audience.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Jul 17, 2023 6:40:04 GMT
Even more utter nonsense. Most academia is a load of b*llocks, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's evil, but the majority of it is absolute garbage. Islamophobia is a word generally used by cowards to manipulate morons. Generally the same cowards and morons who shout the loudest about LGBTQ+×÷% nonsense too. Complete oxymorons. I believe White privilege is a myth. Just common sense will pretty much tell you that. Nothing to do with being 'Right' or 'Left'. The 'Right' & 'Left' tittle tattle is so boring. I see your true colours (excuse the lazy pun) are on display Gastafari If common sense and calling out bullshit and the boring 'Right' v 'Left' tittle tattle is showing my true colours, then Right On, man
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 17, 2023 6:52:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Jul 17, 2023 6:52:14 GMT
I see your true colours (excuse the lazy pun) are on display Gastafari If common sense and calling out bullshit and the boring 'Right' v 'Left' tittle tattle is showing my true colours, then Right On, man Yep. Exactly the critique that should be applied to Peterson's inane ramblings
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jul 17, 2023 7:27:58 GMT
If common sense and calling out bullshit and the boring 'Right' v 'Left' tittle tattle is showing my true colours, then Right On, man Yep. Exactly the critique that should be applied to Peterson's inane ramblings But it isn’t inane ramblings. Some could be dismissed as not believable or incorrect from a religious viewpoint but that’s nothing new. That has gone on for centuries and will continue for centuries. Whilst some of the things he says appeal to the right not all of his views are, most of them are fairly centrist. As for the accusation of him being alt right, well, that’s just laughable. He doesn’t promote in anyway any form of radical fundamentalist ideals that promote a supremacist stance.
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 17, 2023 10:12:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Jul 17, 2023 10:12:24 GMT
Jordan Peterson seems to be down with him, personally i think he relies, much too much, on possessions and allowing them to define him. I really do not like hearing women called bitches and how he tries to rationalise screwing around , because it’s a function. One day he will realise that cars, jewellery and the rest, do not hug you, comfort you or give anything but transient happiness I don’t care for Andrew Tate at all, I do like Dr Peterson. Andrew Tate is a very low resolution version of masculinity which mostly is to promote his course and products to young men who can’t get girlfriends. It’s important to think of why Tate exists and why he’s been succesful. You’ve got a generation of young men raised by mothers, without good male role models and that’s what he’s playing in to. This is a backlash essentially to progressive ideas which label a man’s masculinity as toxic, and Tate really has defined a real definition of what toxic means. It’s very much “If you want toxic, here you go” Whenever societies have lost young men without purpose, and without fathers, they are always ripe for an extreme movement to sweep them up and that’s kind of what’s happening with Tate. We need to think hard about how we are shaping the lives and minds of young men. Very easy to dismiss this with a waving hand of misogyny, and it IS misogyny, make no doubt, but that doesn’t solve the problem. Much of what Tate espouses can be seen as positive in terms of being disciplined, being critical and honest but the goals are the issue. Tate’s objectives are the manifestation of narcissism. Jordan Peterson’s view is that responsibility and meaning are the goals to which one would aim, and that’s something much healthier and beneficial to all. The underpinning idea is the same as was depicted in the 90s in Fight Club - a sterile, consumerist lifestyle is terrible for young men, who need discipline and purpose to stop them losing their marbles and going awry. Peterson solves this by showing a route to self reliance and responsibility whereas Tate addresses the issue by showing the route to fulfilment of grandiose narcisstic fantasy. There is a big difference between the two but they are playing to the same problem and the same audience. Agreed, but not your analysis of the causal factors, and of course Peterson's depiction
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Jul 17, 2023 10:16:59 GMT
I don’t care for Andrew Tate at all, I do like Dr Peterson. Andrew Tate is a very low resolution version of masculinity which mostly is to promote his course and products to young men who can’t get girlfriends. It’s important to think of why Tate exists and why he’s been succesful. You’ve got a generation of young men raised by mothers, without good male role models and that’s what he’s playing in to. This is a backlash essentially to progressive ideas which label a man’s masculinity as toxic, and Tate really has defined a real definition of what toxic means. It’s very much “If you want toxic, here you go” Whenever societies have lost young men without purpose, and without fathers, they are always ripe for an extreme movement to sweep them up and that’s kind of what’s happening with Tate. We need to think hard about how we are shaping the lives and minds of young men. Very easy to dismiss this with a waving hand of misogyny, and it IS misogyny, make no doubt, but that doesn’t solve the problem. Much of what Tate espouses can be seen as positive in terms of being disciplined, being critical and honest but the goals are the issue. Tate’s objectives are the manifestation of narcissism. Jordan Peterson’s view is that responsibility and meaning are the goals to which one would aim, and that’s something much healthier and beneficial to all. The underpinning idea is the same as was depicted in the 90s in Fight Club - a sterile, consumerist lifestyle is terrible for young men, who need discipline and purpose to stop them losing their marbles and going awry. Peterson solves this by showing a route to self reliance and responsibility whereas Tate addresses the issue by showing the route to fulfilment of grandiose narcisstic fantasy. There is a big difference between the two but they are playing to the same problem and the same audience. Agreed, but not your analysis of the causal factors, and of course Peterson's depiction Isnt it rather ironic that people who come to have a go at JB about a tweet then spend the next week discussing the very subjects that he drew their attention to? How is it that you guys can discuss these things in depth and yet our manager cannot tweet a single line without getting criticised?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 10:25:32 GMT
Agreed, but not your analysis of the causal factors, and of course Peterson's depiction Isnt it rather ironic that people who come to have a go at JB about a tweet then spend the next week discussing the very subjects that he drew their attention to? How is it that you guys can discuss these things in depth and yet our manager cannot tweet a single line without getting criticised? I would have thought that was blindingly obvious. Firstly, people aren't posting a single line. So they are adding more information about what they do/don't agree with. The fact it was a single line was the most problematic element. Secondly, this forum has far less reach and none of the people posting on it are the figurehead for our football club. You simply MUST be able I see the difference?
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jul 17, 2023 10:26:10 GMT
Yep. Exactly the critique that should be applied to Peterson's inane ramblings But it isn’t inane ramblings. Some could be dismissed as not believable or incorrect from a religious viewpoint but that’s nothing new. That has gone on for centuries and will continue for centuries. Whilst some of the things he says appeal to the right not all of his views are, most of them are fairly centrist. As for the accusation of him being alt right, well, that’s just laughable. He doesn’t promote in anyway any form of radical fundamentalist ideals that promote a supremacist stance. Not just from the narrow prism of a religious viewpoint. But more generally from the viewpoint predicated upon evidence. Whilst we might all agree there is an issue, see Gulf of Aden's post above Peterson tends to critique in sound bites and suggests guru like solutions which involve a financial reward for himself. This requires sheep like adulation to work for him and if anyone tries to counter him he counters with derogatory language. As one of the contributor's to the article I quoted above suggested, it's BS covered with a veneer of academic respectability. Which makes me smile when one of our own, Gastafari in this case, who admires Peterson (I believe) states that Academia are BS, when that is exactly Peterson's background. Anyway we digress to deeply but for context, I do wonder if the mindset that allows blind allegiance to people like Barton, despite all the evidence, in our co fans of the club is exactly the same as those that seek refuge in the ramblings of Peterson and Tate. And why Barton finds those to interesting. Not you 1981, before you start shouting at me, I do recognise that you have a more nuanced viewpoint.
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 17, 2023 10:28:19 GMT
via mobile
Congas likes this
Post by oldie on Jul 17, 2023 10:28:19 GMT
Agreed, but not your analysis of the causal factors, and of course Peterson's depiction Isnt it rather ironic that people who come to have a go at JB about a tweet then spend the next week discussing the very subjects that he drew their attention to? How is it that you guys can discuss these things in depth and yet our manager cannot tweet a single line without getting criticised? Well, because Barton made zero attempt to discuss anything. Just to probably offend you further, I would suggest because he is not capable. .....runs for cover 🫢
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 17, 2023 10:29:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Jul 17, 2023 10:29:05 GMT
Isnt it rather ironic that people who come to have a go at JB about a tweet then spend the next week discussing the very subjects that he drew their attention to? How is it that you guys can discuss these things in depth and yet our manager cannot tweet a single line without getting criticised? I would have thought that was blindingly obvious. Firstly, people aren't posting a single line. So they are adding more information about what they do/don't agree with. The fact it was a single line was the most problematic element. Secondly, this forum has far less reach and none of the people posting on it are the figurehead for our football club. You simply MUST be able I see the difference? It appears not.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Jul 17, 2023 10:45:24 GMT
But it isn’t inane ramblings. Some could be dismissed as not believable or incorrect from a religious viewpoint but that’s nothing new. That has gone on for centuries and will continue for centuries. Whilst some of the things he says appeal to the right not all of his views are, most of them are fairly centrist. As for the accusation of him being alt right, well, that’s just laughable. He doesn’t promote in anyway any form of radical fundamentalist ideals that promote a supremacist stance. Not just from the narrow prism of a religious viewpoint. But more generally from the viewpoint predicated upon evidence. Whilst we might all agree there is an issue, see Gulf of Aden's post above Peterson tends to critique in sound bites and suggests guru like solutions which involve a financial reward for himself. This requires sheep like adulation to work for him and if anyone tries to counter him he counters with derogatory language. As one of the contributor's to the article I quoted above suggested, it's BS covered with a veneer of academic respectability. Which makes me smile when one of our own, Gastafari in this case, who admires Peterson (I believe) states that Academia are BS, when that is exactly Peterson's background. Anyway we digress to deeply but for context, I do wonder if the mindset that allows blind allegiance to people like Barton, despite all the evidence, in our co fans of the club is exactly the same as those that seek refuge in the ramblings of Peterson and Tate. And why Barton finds those to interesting. Not you 1981, before you start shouting at me, I do recognise that you have a more nuanced viewpoint. Where have I stated that I admire Peterson?
Just yet another wild assumption from yourself there, Oldie.
I may agree with some views of his, I was replying to these quotes "the notion that most academia is corrupt and evil" and , "Islamophobia is “a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons”. White privilege is “a Marxist lie”. Believing that gender identity is subjective is “as bad as claiming that the world is flat”. Which is what you posted in regards to criticising Peterson.
That in no way means I admire him.
You seem to be confusing yourself.
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 17, 2023 11:47:55 GMT
Post by gashead1981 on Jul 17, 2023 11:47:55 GMT
Agreed, but not your analysis of the causal factors, and of course Peterson's depiction Isnt it rather ironic that people who come to have a go at JB about a tweet then spend the next week discussing the very subjects that he drew their attention to? How is it that you guys can discuss these things in depth and yet our manager cannot tweet a single line without getting criticised? Not really, because no one here is endorsing Tate, from what I have read at least. That was the problem with Bartons tweet, it seemed as if to be supporting or endorsing Tate's tweet. Barton has 2.8m followers and is also one of, if not the face of our football club, which has a large male audience with a large percentage of teen/young adult age who can be most influenced by this stuff. As I said earlier, having seen a few bits of Tate's stuff previously, it was the most rational he has ever sounded, probably because the interviewer seems to be a bit of a fanboy and wasnt asking him anything which put him on the defensive, his interview with the BBC was the polar opposite of that, for example. I wouldnt think it was hard to know the difference?
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jul 17, 2023 11:48:24 GMT
Not just from the narrow prism of a religious viewpoint. But more generally from the viewpoint predicated upon evidence. Whilst we might all agree there is an issue, see Gulf of Aden's post above Peterson tends to critique in sound bites and suggests guru like solutions which involve a financial reward for himself. This requires sheep like adulation to work for him and if anyone tries to counter him he counters with derogatory language. As one of the contributor's to the article I quoted above suggested, it's BS covered with a veneer of academic respectability. Which makes me smile when one of our own, Gastafari in this case, who admires Peterson (I believe) states that Academia are BS, when that is exactly Peterson's background. Anyway we digress to deeply but for context, I do wonder if the mindset that allows blind allegiance to people like Barton, despite all the evidence, in our co fans of the club is exactly the same as those that seek refuge in the ramblings of Peterson and Tate. And why Barton finds those to interesting. Not you 1981, before you start shouting at me, I do recognise that you have a more nuanced viewpoint. Where have I stated that I admire Peterson?
Just yet another wild assumption from yourself there, Oldie.
I may agree with some views of his, I was replying to these quotes "the notion that most academia is corrupt and evil" and , "Islamophobia is “a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons”. White privilege is “a Marxist lie”. Believing that gender identity is subjective is “as bad as claiming that the world is flat”. Which is what you posted in regards to criticising Peterson.
That in know way means I admire him.
You seem to be confusing yourself.
An assumption on my part. My apologies
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jul 17, 2023 12:01:45 GMT
But it isn’t inane ramblings. Some could be dismissed as not believable or incorrect from a religious viewpoint but that’s nothing new. That has gone on for centuries and will continue for centuries. Whilst some of the things he says appeal to the right not all of his views are, most of them are fairly centrist. As for the accusation of him being alt right, well, that’s just laughable. He doesn’t promote in anyway any form of radical fundamentalist ideals that promote a supremacist stance. Not just from the narrow prism of a religious viewpoint. But more generally from the viewpoint predicated upon evidence. Whilst we might all agree there is an issue, see Gulf of Aden's post above Peterson tends to critique in sound bites and suggests guru like solutions which involve a financial reward for himself. This requires sheep like adulation to work for him and if anyone tries to counter him he counters with derogatory language. As one of the contributor's to the article I quoted above suggested, it's BS covered with a veneer of academic respectability.
Again, usually when Peterson is interviewed or is part of a Q&A he usually uses more words than most or than is needed to fully explain himself. That doesnt sound like a sound bite critique to me. I've not seen Peterson respond with any derogatory language, I have seen him refuse to answer a question if the question is misleading or disrespectful. Which makes me smile when one of our own, Gastafari in this case, who admires Peterson (I believe) states that Academia are BS, when that is exactly Peterson's background.
I dont hold that view on academia personally. I am far from an academic, which is why I appreciate the views of people who are and are able to communicate that to mere mortal like me to comprehend or understand. Anyway we digress to deeply but for context, I do wonder if the mindset that allows blind allegiance to people like Barton, despite all the evidence, in our co fans of the club is exactly the same as those that seek refuge in the ramblings of Peterson and Tate. And why Barton finds those to interesting. Not you 1981, before you start shouting at me, I do recognise that you have a more nuanced viewpoint.I think the ones that do have blind faith in Barton just dont care enough about what he is like as a person or what his beliefs are. They will support him because he is manager of our club. I have seen and heard Barton get pelters from the Blackthorn end when he was manager of Fleetwood for being the very person that he is in charge of us! It's a fickle business at times! There may be a number who will look at what Barton is like and want to emulate him somehow, which is why the retweeting of someone like Tate, as one example, is quite frankly dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Jul 17, 2023 14:12:01 GMT
Congratulations on Googling some people who don’t like him. Not sure what point you are making but good effort nonetheless! 👍🏻 But you asked me what Paterson's standpoint was? And you’ve quoted a specific part of someone else’s post with 5 other peoples view on Peterson. So that doesn’t answer my question and doesn’t really tell anyone anything other than you’ve been able to Google some stuff. None of your own critique at all just pointless quotes that demonstrate nothing! Very odd!
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jul 17, 2023 14:18:34 GMT
Jordan Peterson seems to be down with him, personally i think he relies, much too much, on possessions and allowing them to define him. I really do not like hearing women called bitches and how he tries to rationalise screwing around , because it’s a function. One day he will realise that cars, jewellery and the rest, do not hug you, comfort you or give anything but transient happiness I don’t care for Andrew Tate at all, I do like Dr Peterson. Andrew Tate is a very low resolution version of masculinity which mostly is to promote his course and products to young men who can’t get girlfriends. It’s important to think of why Tate exists and why he’s been succesful. You’ve got a generation of young men raised by mothers, without good male role models and that’s what he’s playing in to. This is a backlash essentially to progressive ideas which label a man’s masculinity as toxic, and Tate really has defined a real definition of what toxic means. It’s very much “If you want toxic, here you go” Whenever societies have lost young men without purpose, and without fathers, they are always ripe for an extreme movement to sweep them up and that’s kind of what’s happening with Tate. We need to think hard about how we are shaping the lives and minds of young men. Very easy to dismiss this with a waving hand of misogyny, and it IS misogyny, make no doubt, but that doesn’t solve the problem. Much of what Tate espouses can be seen as positive in terms of being disciplined, being critical and honest but the goals are the issue. Tate’s objectives are the manifestation of narcissism. Jordan Peterson’s view is that responsibility and meaning are the goals to which one would aim, and that’s something much healthier and beneficial to all. The underpinning idea is the same as was depicted in the 90s in Fight Club - a sterile, consumerist lifestyle is terrible for young men, who need discipline and purpose to stop them losing their marbles and going awry. Peterson solves this by showing a route to self reliance and responsibility whereas Tate addresses the issue by showing the route to fulfilment of grandiose narcisstic fantasy. There is a big difference between the two but they are playing to the same problem and the same audience. Finally a well thought out and reasoned post on this. I totally agree with almost everything you've written. I don't agree with everything Peterson says but he definitely is interesting. I recently listened to a podcast about Pedos called Hunting Warhead. It was super interesting but that doesn't make me a pervert. It goes without saying I don't like Barton at all but we don't know if Barton found Tate interesting because he agrees with him or if it gave him a "lightbulb" moment where he went "ah, so that's why so many blokes are into this". Would help if there was more context to Bartons remark, but without it its unfair to either defend or condem him. Was probably a bit stupid of him to have mentioned it though. More unnecessary noise.
|
|
|
Post by purdownpoacher1 on Jul 17, 2023 14:54:49 GMT
Oh I just can’t wait for the season to begin , bring on the ⚽️!!!!!!! 🤗🤗🤗 Utg 💙
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 15:57:58 GMT
Oh I just can’t wait for the season to begin , bring on the ⚽️!!!!!!! 🤗🤗🤗 Utg 💙 Smashed Five zip at Pompey and normal service can then resume!
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 17, 2023 18:53:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Jul 17, 2023 18:53:22 GMT
Oh I just can’t wait for the season to begin , bring on the ⚽️!!!!!!! 🤗🤗🤗 Utg 💙 How deep is that sand, out of interest?
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 17, 2023 19:01:33 GMT
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 17, 2023 19:01:33 GMT
Slightly off topic but sticking to Twitter has anybody else noticed the stick Rickie Lambert is getting for the nonsense he's been tweeting recently, including talking to water to clean it (honest!), not sure what's happened to him but he seems to have lost the plot big time.
|
|