I appreciate you being specific. Can I condense that confusing post to: Hitler thinks Jews are equivalent to rats which need to be exterminated, and that's perceived as a defense of Hitler??
I think it depends. If you're trying to ask a question: "How was his statement a defense of Hitler?" If you're trying to make a point, say "His OCD explanation still relies on the assumption that Hitler viewed Jews as subhuman vermin needing to be exterminated. That's not really a defense of Hitler." Finally, if you want to confuse everyone and waste a lot of time and characters, you do what you did.
This still isn't clear. You're missing vital information. What's the question? What does Jordan Peterson say about the question? When you're talking about a person's position clearly state his or her position. THEN go into the interpretation of the position and then draw parallels to other things or defend the position. You're always skipping steps in your stream of consciousness posting.
That's good advice, but in this case it I was critiquing criticism of Peterson. That, in and of itself is convoluted to start with. And the original response quoted and linked the video was responding to, which answers some of the questions you asked. wes had a better resonse
This is good, you're a wordsmith. I don't think it captures everything I was saying, but it's much more concise and clear.
His OCD explanation still relies on the assumption that Hitler viewed Jews as subhuman vermin needing to be exterminated. That's not really a defense of Hitler.
It's very funny, I did enjoy it. It's clearly satire, but it's still funny. Imagine putting so much value in an online message board persona that when someone "owns" you, you delete your account. HA!
It might not be a technical defense of his position, but it’s still an attempt to rationalize and humanize Hitler and make him a more sympathetic figure...which is just as bad.
It's interesting that classifying Jews as sub-human vermin that need to be exterminated "humanizes" Hitler and makes him sympathetic. I don't think rationalize is the right word. It's an attempt to explain Hitler's behavior, but it's in no way a justification for it.
I don't think it's the right word because rationalization implies both an explanation and a justification of the behavior....like I said.
Except that's not the definition of rationalize. Rationalize means to do either, it does not have to be both. Seriously, learn the language or just shut the hell up
ok, I'll work on it. Thanks. I'd prefer to use a word that does not give the option of justification, because I do not see any justification in Peterson's explanation. So if you say it's a rationalization, you could, according to the definition, interpret that as a justification of the behavior.
Congrats to theriner69er on successfully executing the trademark tactic of Peterson and the anti intellectuals of his ilk. We are now focused on a tangent to the method of his ridiculous defense, instead of talking about what he was actually defending.
Next tactic - argue semantics. He was rationalizing why he was doing it. Difference without distinction, or at very least a small one.
You literally just said rationalize isn't the right word because you dont know the actual definition of rationalize
LOL Did you see how I bolded the word rationalizing in my response? It's almost like I was mocking him for using that word, and predicting that's what I'd say, as if he'd not seen our exchange.....
Explaining how you communicate because no one understands it is a sign of being a terrible communicator. You buy that book for high schoolers yet?
HA! Did you see it bolded? Did it go over your head and you are trying to, I dunno, rationalize your response? LOL It's ok, maybe we can both try harder.
I just dove in here. I've met wes tegg You want nothing to do with him He is smarter than you. and, your point sucks, so does Peterson.
It's almost like their complaints are about male power structures being weakened and nothing to do with sexual morality
I listened to the whole ep recently on Rubin's pod with him and Shapiro. Putting aside whatever you may think about the validity of his arguments/worldview, for the life of me I cannot figure out what he does that brings thousands of people to his speaking engagements. He's just a guy talking out of his ass about random shit. There are no "ah ha!" moments or anything "earth shattering" about any of his ramblings. This is all I can summarize after multiple attempts to engage him on various pods ...
Confirmation bias. Repressed whiny losers who feel like is unfair to them, now have someone that is confirming all their excuses in life. And he as a PhD a college professor so you know he's right!
I don't remember if it was from a tweet or a poster's original thought, but somebody said that people like Jordan Peterson because he's like what somebody who never took a philosophy course thinks a philosophy course would sound like.
Think of how many philosophy/psychology courses will now actually start sounding more like this due to the obscene amount of belief reinforcement occurring in the Peterson echo chamber.