This was posted 3 years 4 months 28 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

[Preorder] Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson - $23.00 + $5.90 Shipping @ MightyApe

29210
[Preorder] Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson - $23.00 + $5.90 Shipping @ MightyApe
Go to Deal
djthornton on 28/11/2020 - 13:28 mightyape.com.au (1199 clicks)
Last edited 28/11/2020 - 19:45

Ooooh controversial deal. Do you love equality, diversity, and inclusion? Hate the patriarchy? Think the gender pay gap is unfair and not a product of natural differences between men and women? Agree with new atheism (like Sam Harris) on the foundation of morals? Then you should probably look for another book- here, try this one instead - https://www.booktopia.com.au/a-left-that-dares-to-speak-its-…

If the above doesn't describe you, read on- thanks for making it this far! Love him or hate him JBP has certainly made a huge impact on our culture and the lives of many individuals. This book- "Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life" is a follow-up to his best seller, "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos". This is pretty good for preorder price, comes to $28.90 after shipping so if you've been keeping your eye on any toys/games for Christmas, it's a good idea to bundle for the shipping price.

For reference Dymocks and QBD have a pre-order price (for the paperback version) of $35 and Booktopia has it listed for $31.75 all not including shipping. Book Depository has it for $31.33 including shipping but it's still $2.43 more expensive than this unless you wait for the next great Book Depository cashback deal. Current cashback at CR is 1.4% for existing customers, 8% for new customers - so even if you're a new customer you'll end up 17.4c ahead going via mighty ape and paying for shipping.

Hope this helps someone, maybe more than just financially.

Books & Magazines Book

Related Stores

Mighty Ape Australia
Mighty Ape Australia

closed Comments

      • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 14:34
        +21

        Shows what you know! Nowhere in the definition of science does it say that you have to prove things with numbers. That would be quantitative data analytics. That's one way of doing things, and we use that in social science too (i.e. how many times did someone sit in this part of a park vs this other part, what are the differences in temperature, light etc that might be the reason for that?), but qualitative data analysis is equally valid.

        Social science has theories and hypotheses and uses evidence to prove them wrong or write and reveal things about how society works. If that's not science I'm not sure what is?

        edit: noted your comment about not having done stats or anything???!!! My social science degree required two stats subjects actually lmao. But yeah carry on and go off on stuff you know nothing about.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 15:42
          +2

          "Wrong or write"? Which university graduated that?

          • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 15:43
            +6

            @[Deactivated]: Lmao being mildly dyslexic doesn't prove me wrong it just proves I'm a bad editor.

        • skinnywombat on 28/11/2020 - 16:11
          +1

          Social science is weak. Worth pursuing, but limited. The power of prediction is the true measure. Once you get into psychology and beyond, there are too many variables. Data becomes dodgy. Qualitative data analysis is story telling.

          • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 16:16
            +2

            @skinnywombat: What a ridiculous thing to say. The fact that social science is less able to make predictions reflects on the complexity of society, not its lack of usefulness as a discipline. Behavioural economics, psychology, urban planning - these are all things that don't have "right" or "wrong". People like you find them useless or "weak" because you lack the patience to deal with them.

            Engineering, IT, maths, physics, chemist, these areas of study are far more easy to be proven wrong in (some are still very difficult to be proven right though). That means that knowledge gleaned from them can be used in a more certain way. That doesn't mean they are more or less useful. It's just the nature of the beast.

            • skinnywombat on 28/11/2020 - 16:43
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: I’m not sure we disagree on a lot, maybe just the connotation of words, which sort of goes to my point. I said social science is worth pursuing; when I say it is weak, I mean in terms of predictive power. It is more difficult than hard sciences. Because it’s more difficult we end up with the 12 economists in a room, 12 different opinions joke. And that makes decisions based on social science rather than hard science more difficult.
              Any language beyond mathematics is just metaphor.

            • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 17:00

              @[Deactivated]: If psychology is a science, why can't you use it to convince doubters?

      • jjcf on 28/11/2020 - 14:38
        +8

        Such a trite, first year IT undergrad opinion.

      • zilver on 28/11/2020 - 14:44
        +8

        There is literally an entire field devoted to this (sociology of social science) lmao

        • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 14:57
          -1

          sociology of social science, wow such an important field.

          I hear basket weaving is enrolling for next year as well

          • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 15:12
            +8

            @[Deactivated]: Figures that you would respond to this comment with another idiotic comment and completely ignore mine which made you look like a fool.

          • zilver on 28/11/2020 - 20:18

            @[Deactivated]: probably all you could be eligible for ….

    • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 15:21
      +3

      That’s all good and well, but he has debated hundreds of people and they are mostly filmed and not a single damn one wasn’t left with egg on their face. Maybe he just needs to encounter someone with ‘social science’ behind them…. LOL

      • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 15:26
        +4

        That's more a feature of his style of debating and the fact that his thinking is very concrete. Reasonable people are able to accept that they are wrong or that they might not know the full picture. Having seen Peterson "debating" it's clear that he is not such a person. There's no point debating people like him. It's like debating with Trump. They could be saying the sky is blue, or they could be saying it's rainbow and sparkly - whether they are right or wrong is inconsequential because you can't argue with them.

        • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 15:42
          +2

          It's like debating with Trump. They could be saying the sky is blue, or they could be saying it's rainbow and sparkly - whether they are right or wrong is inconsequential because you can't argue with them.

          This is a weird comparison since Trump and Peterson are pretty much complete opposites of each other. Trump is good at reading people and relies on his personality to bully his opponents. Watch any of his Apprentice shows, interviews or the Presindential debates, it's the same pattern.

          Peterson on the other hand is on the spectrum, so doesn't read people or use personality, he brute forces you with data, and opponents find themselves floundering in the sea of data he throws at them. He is extremely knowledgeable and sharp as a tack. Any response you have, he has the data to counter it and regular humans can't deal with that. I used to work with a guy like him and it was like a nerd superpower. You don't have to agree with his world view, but there's no denying his ability.

    • qvinto on 28/11/2020 - 16:02
      +4

      Certain field of social science can have weak academic and scientific standards and be filled with conjecture and limited practical or scientific utility/generalisability.

      As an example have a read through theses which were awarded a Phd. Compare the scientific rigour of this to a thesis from a hard science field. There is a whole filed of social science dedicated to studying supposed nuances of sexual expression in roller derby (?) . In my opinion this is mostly pointless intellectual posturing and graphomania and should not be classified as science, yet if you criticise it you can be easily labelled as a transphobe, sexist or anti feminist

      https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/366…

      http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/2327/

      http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/22182/

      https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object…

      • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 16:10
        +1

        What a strange thing to make a point of.

        The articles you shared are clearly cultural studies rather than social science. That's a different field and it is far more about discussing theories of knowledge and culture creation than society itself. A few PhDs about roller derby is a pretty useless argument in suggesting social science lacks rigour.

        They may still be useful in creating a knowledge base about how a certain part of society approaches xyz, but using them to say social science has less rigour than hard science is stupid.

        • qvinto on 28/11/2020 - 16:16
          +3

          They are all within a sub field of what is considered social science. They are all awarded a Phd which implies classification as scientific work. Some are awarded by the faculty of social science at the respective university.

          This was just one example out of many of dubious work in the broad field of social science. That is not to say the whole field is scientifically dubious, but it does have a problem with work of dubious scientific value. It is an example of why people can be critical of social science

        • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 16:17

          The articles you shared are clearly cultural studies rather than social science.

          No true Scotsman?

    • ForkSnorter on 28/11/2020 - 16:04
      +8

      @jrowls. Abolutely agree with you. There are self-help books that are 100% evidence based. Thinking Fast and Slow, which you cited, is one. Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert, is another. 59 seconds, by Richard Wiseman is yet another.

      Peterson’s 12 Rules for life was not such a book. It was more of a “Let’s carefully select only the parts of the evidence that align with the narratives I already believe in, throw away the rest of the evidence, and interpret the sh#t out of those carefully selected fragments of evidence to make it look like they strongly support my arguments” kind of book. Peterson’s debates and videos take a similar approach.

      Unfortunately the purely evidence based books don’t sell anywhere near as many as Peterson because they don’t have 5 years of YouTube propaganda backing them.

  • Pacify on 28/11/2020 - 14:27
    +18

    eww lol

    Realistically JP should be paying us $20 to read his dribble

  • bizarredeal on 28/11/2020 - 14:27
    +11

    Not a fan of this guys writing. He is an angry person. Anyway he made it big enough to write a book..

  • seamonkey on 28/11/2020 - 14:29
    +11

    Need a book for a family member for Christmas. Jordan Peterson or Pete Evans?

    • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 14:31
      +16

      Depends, are they a woman who hates themselves and the world or a man who hates themselves and the world? If woman, Pete. If man, Peterson.

      They'll be spouting nonsense on FB in no time either way.

      • seamonkey on 28/11/2020 - 16:55
        +3

        Look. This is getting complicated now. They were born a man, but transitioned and now identify as a woman. They hated themselves and the world as a man AND as a woman. Sigh I'm getting both books.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 28/11/2020 - 16:56

        This comment is problematic because it fails to acknowledge all genders.

        • Blitzfx on 28/11/2020 - 17:48

          They're a [sexual orientation]-phobe!

  • FlatulentFrank on 28/11/2020 - 14:31
    +19

    Improper use of negs incoming!

    For those who oppose Jordan, that's fine! Move on, no-one cares about your abrasive take on the man. For those looking for a book that may help them in their own issues/lives - it's a solid deal.

    Some of the comments about Jordans recent experience/close shave with death are absolutely deplorable, and should be reported

    No one should take glee from someone's poor health, you can disagree with the content without taking yourself to such a low level. Says more about you than the content creator you have such disdain for. Your hot take on the content creator isn't welcomed and maybe suited to forums or whatever echo chamber you reside in.

    • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 15:46
      +3

      Some people are creators and some are destructors. Peterson haters are the same who would happily burn buildings in a riot because of reasons. The ironic part is that he writes about exactly this personality trait in his first book, and here they are actually proving his hypothesis correct…

    • Vote for Pedro on 28/11/2020 - 15:51
      +11

      Same people that laughed and nodded in agreement with alan jones talking about putting julia Gillard in a chaff bag or shoving a sock down jacintas throat are now crying ‘dont be mean to jordan you big leftie meanies’

      • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 16:20
        +2

        Same people that laughed and nodded in agreement with…

        The exact same people? Or was this your attempt at false equivalence?

        • Vote for Pedro on 28/11/2020 - 16:26
          +6

          I love how right wing/alt right love to attack lefties with terms like ‘snowflake’ when they call things out for being offensive. Put the shoe on the other foot though…

          • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 16:28
            +1

            @Vote for Pedro:

            I love how right wing/alt right love to attack lefties with terms like ‘snowflake’ when they call things out for being offensive. Put the shoe on the other foot though…

            But the exact same people? I'm interested how you know that it's the same people?
            Or was this your attempt at false equivalence?

      • FlatulentFrank on 28/11/2020 - 16:50
        +1

        Same people that laughed and nodded in agreement with alan jones

        Are you kidding me? Your logic is deeply flawed and I fear your too blinded by your own ignorance to understand that. Best of luck with your crippling inability to apply a credible reference point towards an opinion.

        The incredible thing here is people like your kind self assume many things that have no foundation which is incredibly disappointing.

        • Vote for Pedro on 28/11/2020 - 17:02
          +7

          Peterson is a culture warrior trying to get you to believe marxists have infiltrated the corridors of government. He’s found a willing audience in those that believe the deep state is involved in ‘oppression of the (usually white male) privileged’

          He was probably most honest talking with Rogan when he basically said he makes money (about $80k a month) no matter how the discussion goes.

          Interested to know how Peterson makes this offensive link https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/95544052457539174…

  • labyrinthinecities on 28/11/2020 - 14:36
    +6

    Yo OP your link to Zizek's book has an extra letter at the end which breaks the link.

    ….Also Peterson is apparently a decent neuro-psych academic but I have no respect for him as a philosopher. Dude rocked up to a debate with (profanity) (notorious university dumpster racoon cursed by a witch to become a human) Zizek having read just The Communist Manifesto…. And he didn't even bother to read it properly, as far as I can tell. I've read essays by undergrads which paid more attention to the source material… Seriously… What an intellectual hack…

    (Also I haven't read any of Zizek's work, but isn't he supposed to be like, a third positionist Lacanian as well as self-identifying as a communist? Like I'm pretty sure I've heard people talk about how his work relies heavily on Hegel and Lacan)

    • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 14:39
      +6

      This is why I say Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about. He may be a good psychologist but he clearly has a very concrete way of thinking and believes that his opinions apply to everything equally.

    • djthornton on 28/11/2020 - 14:52
      +1

      Ah thanks for pointing this out re the link!!

  • zilver on 28/11/2020 - 14:42
    +5

    Did he even write this book? Isn't this supposedly just ghostwritten now …

  • Deals For Days on 28/11/2020 - 14:47
    +7

    A second book? How did he manage to write this whilst in a hospital in Russia is my question.

    If you want to improve your life seek help from a professional, not this grifter. Politics aside his psychological advice is run of the mill self help, and is certainly not worth paying for when you can watch his YouTube videos for free anyway.

    • FlatulentFrank on 28/11/2020 - 14:54
      +3

      The tangible proof of lives that his improved is impossible to ignore. I'm glad that you can suggest his YouTube content for others though! Some great videos on his channel.

      There's multiple self help writers that have similar grating opinions, seems his mass exposure receives more criticism than the real monsters/grifters out there.

  • Ononono on 28/11/2020 - 14:48
    +3

    When did he write it? I thought his brain was fried from drugs

  • CalmLemons on 28/11/2020 - 14:52
    +11

    99% of comments from people who read the summary and youtube outrage videos

    1% from the people who have actually read the book.

    As they say, read WIDELY, then take up an opinion.

    • popjam on 28/11/2020 - 14:56
      +3

      What did you get out of the book?

      • TheRealCJ on 28/11/2020 - 15:18
        +2

        That anyone who disagrees is a hysterical idiot who doesn’t read, apparently

      • CalmLemons on 28/11/2020 - 15:23
        +10

        The book offers a perspective. I do a lot with management consulting and performance training. For me it reinforced the view that as a person we not only have to do the right thing, but we have a moral obligation to make something of ourselves in the world and contribute back to society. You can't just stroll around being a free for all fkwit, you NEED to make something of yourself so grow up.

        Many people, in particular men, are not as lucky to realise their 'purpose' or 'goals' (I'm using these VERY loosely), and a lot of it is due to the sheer lack of guidance available in the current structure of society. If you refer back a few hundred years, you would have the blacksmith training the apprentice, or the father training his son/daughter in his trade. in these scenarios, you had a default means of direction, instead of being directionless in the 'you are free to do whatever you want'.
        The issue with doing whatever you want, is that you don't know what to do.
        People by nature don't want the responsibility that they would take, if 100% of their direction was up to them. It's easier for people to be told what to do, mostly, in a job context, then be left standing their figuring out what they want to do. by all means if you know what you want to do, you're one of the lucky ones, but for a lot of people, it' just ooooh aaaahhh maybe I'll do this. Furthermore, and unrelated, if you're talking about the masculine, you have this balance of no have to balance my work for my family, but what can happen a lot of the times is that a person who has a purpose ends up sacrificing that for their family life and may end up equality unhappy and end up blaming the family commitment for not focusing/achieving their desired goals - ranted off a bit here.

        (replying to TheRealCJ below sorry)

        The book doesn't say you need to agree.

        The issue comes, when people who don't agree with the perspective or the things that the books say, start saying if you agree with anything with the book, you are a heretic.

        Goes back the hypocritical fact, lots of freedom of speech, as long as your world views are the same as mine.

        The % of haters and hypocrites is always the same. The lazy ones who don't do any work and just stay on the side lines commenting and then complain why they aren't successful. Books and resources are there for you to read, like actually read, and then you should go read other perspectives until you have a decent resource point/collection of perspectives. From there, you should use your own educated judgement.

        Just remember, regardless of what Jordan says, regardless of whether he became addicted to benzos, the guy was making six figures a year from his Patreon and makes a shit load more than most people on ozbargain from his book.

        Results, talk.

        • Autonomic on 28/11/2020 - 16:16
          +10

          Just remember, regardless of what Jordan says, regardless of whether he became addicted to benzos, the guy was making six figures a year from his Patreon and makes a shit load more than most people on ozbargain from his book.

          Pete Evans makes bank. Guess it's time to buy some $15k anti coronavirus light machines and tear down some 5G towers.

          • odysseus on 28/11/2020 - 16:24
            +4

            @Autonomic: Love the "the only thing that counts is making money" argument.

            Such a winner. Especially in a topic like philosophy.

    • Pacify on 28/11/2020 - 15:35
      +4

      Who on earth would willingly read something Jordan freaking Peterson has written, mind about paying for it lmao

      • So lo on 28/11/2020 - 16:16
        +7

        How would you know if any of the arguments held value to anyone if you didn't read them?

        How do you know what is worth reading before you read it?

        • railspider on 28/11/2020 - 17:35
          +4

          I should probably read Mein Kampf too and see if Hitler had any good points

          • So lo on 28/11/2020 - 17:55
            +4

            @railspider: Its widely attributed that Hitler agreed with the idea of a small, cheap car.

            By your reasoning, small cheap cars are inherently bad, because Hitler thinks they are good.

            Please rethink your logic.

            • railspider on 28/11/2020 - 18:19
              -2

              @So lo: You JP fans twist your arguments more than a duck's dick

              • CalmLemons on 28/11/2020 - 22:36
                +4

                @railspider: Because when JP fans pull people up on strawman arguments the people who can't read get upset.

                Yes, I know you're about to google 'strawman argument'

  • Gardenia on 28/11/2020 - 14:53
    +7

    shit I forgot to make my bed today

  • Autonomic on 28/11/2020 - 14:55
    +2

    Do you love equality, diversity, and inclusion? […]Then you should probably look for another book- here, try this one instead

    Sorry, what? This book is only for racists?

  • martismo on 28/11/2020 - 15:00
    -7

    Modern day Nazi sympathiser.

    • meowbert on 28/11/2020 - 15:02
      +6

      Proof or it didn't happen. This guy probably has thousands of hours recorded on youtube, show me the bit where he says that.

        • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 15:49

          I have to pay a dollar to read this, do you have a free version?

          • So lo on 28/11/2020 - 16:21
            +1

            @1st-Amendment: Right click/Hold, Open in Private Window, normally helps bypass pay walls for sites that give you a free article.

            Why have journalists/editors not learnt from Wikipedia? This one states that a series of JP's claims are BS. They refute them with claims of their own, but no links to independent third party sources, despite this being the Internet. To me, now its just a game of he said, she said.

        • meowbert on 28/11/2020 - 21:52
          +2

          So I've read the article, many of the citations given to him talking favorably about Hitler lead to… nothing.

          Here are some of the links in the article:
          "gotta hand it to Hitler" links to https://twitter.com/dril/status/831805955402776576?lang=en
          Which is a completely unrelated tweet.

          "You have to admire Hitler! […] Because he was an organizational genius!" links to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44f3mxcsI50&t=941s
          Where… he doesn't say that.

          The ones which do work are him talking generally about Hitler from a psychoanalysis perspective. Even if taken on their word (despite lack of evidence) it also continually takes lazy bad faith characterisations.

          This article reminds me of why no-one trusts news anymore - it's easy to let BS out of a bottle but hard to put back in.

    • MattyD on 28/11/2020 - 15:14
      +6

      Your opinion of the author/content does not constitute a valid neg. Please read ozbargain voting guidelines before negging, and state a valid reason from the list provided.

      • Pufff on 28/11/2020 - 17:38
        +2

        isn't it clear the product doesn't work?
        look at the author couldn't be clearer.

        • MattyD on 29/11/2020 - 00:19
          +4

          It's a book. The spine is glued sufficiently and the pages are turnable. There are zero reports of this item spontaneously combusting. Thank you for your superfluous rejoinder but the invalid neg has been revoked.

          • Pufff on 29/11/2020 - 00:27

            @MattyD: You've got it already have you?
            I didn't neg it anyway.
            99% of people who talk about it won't buy it anyway.

  • chasingstoke on 28/11/2020 - 15:01
    -7

    This guy doesn't really do it for me

    • FlatulentFrank on 28/11/2020 - 15:06
      +14

      It's a bargain website with an offer for a book. Not a 'did you like the content - if not neg'

      If that's the way we're running with things. Domino's offers would be negged to death by those who don't enjoy their pizzas

  • TheZohan on 28/11/2020 - 15:03
    +13

    It's always hilarious how triggered the "tolerant" are by a book deal.

    • akib on 28/11/2020 - 15:07
      +3

      Yeah not sure why all the negs. It's a decent price for those looking to buy it, which is what this site is all about. I don't think his writings are particularly good or helpful, but that doesn't justify a neg.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 15:33
        +14

        Lads. The post has four negs. There are maybe half a dozen deadshit posts here that have been negged.

        But feel free to go off about ~the tolerant left~ anyway.

        • TheZohan on 28/11/2020 - 15:41
          +1

          Who mentioned the "left"?

          • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 15:42
            +13

            @TheZohan: Nice try, mate. Anyone who knows anything about politics in the age of the internet knows that dogwhistle.

            • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 15:52
              +2

              @[Deactivated]: In the age of the Internet, dogwhistle now means 'I can't find anything wrong with what you said, but I'm sure that you are Hitler'…

    • StalkingIbis on 28/11/2020 - 17:00
      +2

      Hey, show some sympathy. Some employees at penguin cried because of this.

  • deaders on 28/11/2020 - 15:05
    +13

    If only he'd stood up straight and cleaned his room he wouldn't have ended up in a benzo addicted coma in Russia. If you take life advice from this guy you need professional help.

    • So lo on 28/11/2020 - 16:25
      +1

      In this really (profanity) up reality, isn't he actually reaffirming his argument that life is a struggle, by struggling at life?

      It's not like he goes around saying life is easy everyone, then fails at it anyways. 🤷‍♂️

  • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 15:11
    +11

    Some people here are soooo judgemental. The common consensus is he can’t give advice because he had a drug problem….. hahahaha, what!? He still possesses the knowledge and like him or not has helped countless people. You are all way too bitter to not at least acknowledge that he has saved many lives and inspired countless others. All fine to disagree with him. But to call him far-right or a racist or whateverism just really shows your lack of common sense.

  • pheasant_plucker on 28/11/2020 - 15:14
    +12

    So here’s how it works:

    *Follow 12 rules
    *Get bullied by daughter until you eat nothing but meat
    *Get hooked on benzos and almost die
    *Get institutionalised in Russia
    *Remain in rehab for months at a time
    *??????????
    *Release 12 NEW rules because you’re such a stellar role model.

    Hard pass

  • mgexiled on 28/11/2020 - 15:34
    +3

    wow a lot of angry people in the comments hey? Thanks for the post OP, I'll be sure to grab this one! I'll put it next to my copies of Maps of Meaning, 12 Rules for Life, The Righteous Mind, The Strange Death of Europe and The Parasitic Mind.

  • SaddenAscentAspirin on 28/11/2020 - 15:36
    +4

    This guy is a joke.

    • r3volt on 28/11/2020 - 15:45

      Just like you

  • Juddwah on 28/11/2020 - 15:38
    +1

    great post, ordered.

  • zombrex on 28/11/2020 - 15:41
    +16

    Imagine being so brainwashed by the mainstream media and echo chambers like reddit and twitter you genuinely believe someone who advocates for personality responsibility, hard work over idleness and personal freedom over government compelled control is somehow problematic, racist, sexist and all the other baseless slurs you can come up with.
    What this man advocates if for all people regardless or race, gender and any other insignificant differences you can come up with.
    I have no doubt those down voting have not once listened or read any of his ideas in detail and instead are attacking because they are brainless followers of media influences.

    • ForkSnorter on 28/11/2020 - 21:21
      +5

      You are creating straw man arguments. A straw man argument is where you misrepresent the arguments of people who disagree with you, so that you can dismiss them more easily without having to contend with their actual argument. A straw man argument is where you claim (without evidence) that people who disagree with you are brainwashed. A straw man argument is where you generalise, and claim (without evidence) that everyone who disagrees with you is the same, so you don’t have to contend with a variety of different view points and arguments. A straw man argument is where you lump hundreds of different newspapers and news media under the childish term “mainstream media” so that you don’t have to contend with all the evidence and sources that form the basis of legitimate journalism. A straw man argument is where you claim people who dislike Peterson are “brainless” so that you don’t have to address their individual concerns or arguments because, quite frankly, you probably couldn’t, given the unsupported generalisations you’ve come up with so far.

      • duffydavid on 29/11/2020 - 00:14
        +1

        Weird that he hasn't replied. Also if this deal can teach us anything it's that clearly ozbargain is a rare non echo chamber. I haven't seen this many strawmen and out right falsehoods since the black lives matter PS4 theme.

  • VBHB on 28/11/2020 - 15:42
    +1

    This and Andy Ngo's Antifa book will go down nicely!

  • Spamazon on 28/11/2020 - 15:42
    +9

    Rule #1 2.0 dont get hooked on benzos

    • Carrian on 28/11/2020 - 15:45
      +1

      Comment of the thread

  • Boogerman on 28/11/2020 - 15:44
    +15

    Jordon Peterson is an ‘intellectual’ for more simplistic thinking people.
    Comedian Jim Jefferies made a fool of him in an interview with some pretty simple logic (about gays & wedding cakes in the USA)
    Sam Harris ran intellectual rings around Peterson in a live forum debate (on YouTube - about the existence of god IIRC). More critical thinking people can pick up on the finer/granular logical fallacies of Peterson
    A lot of the time Peterson just goes on a Gish gallop diatribe

    • 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2020 - 15:55
      +6

      You don't like him so he loses every debate, we know your type, Peterson even mentions you in his book lol…

      • abuch47 on 28/11/2020 - 16:15
        +1

        gOtChA

      • Boogerman on 28/11/2020 - 16:21
        +3

        I’ll bet my right nut that you predominantly vote for conservative parties

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join