rebuttal to peterson’ fake-truth

rebuttal to Peterson’s redefinition;;;;====

I recently managed to word a rebuttal to Peterson's redefinition of truth, in a way that I think really outlines the core problem with it, it seems that Peterson claims the following (duh troof=Petersonian truth, troo=true in Petersonian sense):

- All claims have a property called duh troof
- The means of measuring duh troof of a claim, is to observe whether holding that belief eventually kills the believer of that claim, or leads to the end of the believer's lineage; if it does, the claim is not troo.

It seems to me, that from this it necessarily follows:
- Duh troof of a claim can never be verified, even hypothetically, by anyone, because the mere fact that there exists a sentience to do the verifying at all, means that the claim is still in a state of being undefined in terms of duh troof.

To take this to the extreme, one can always say in response to a Petersonian, whatever his sentence may be, that he is assuming things are troo. The fact of the matter is that every possible conceivable claim could theoretically render you an evolutionary dead end, if you're willing to come up with a sufficiently creative and possibly silly story, including but not limited to:

- That the past is a reasonable template for predicting future events
- Gender is a binary
- Religion is good
- Don't be bitter and resentful
- You should clean your room
- Calling that guy bucko is a good idea
- Buy my book, maps of scheming
- Stand up straight with your shoulders straight
- Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
- Buy my $2000 rug, it's called meaning of Jungian Pseudoscience
- Pursue what is meaningful, not expedient
 -Tell the truth, or at least don't lie (Peterson acknowledges that it's ok to lie in service of troof, like a jihadi, in his video on white lies)
- Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street
- Donate to my Patreon
- If it doesn't serve life, it's not troo

One can go on endlessly with this, but the best part is that ALL POSSIBLE CLAIMS cannot be demonstrated as troo, and ALL POSSIBLE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM, also cannot be demonstrated as troo, hence one can't even actually make a case for preferring one to the other for any reason other than "just cuz", because all possible reasons that are provided cannot be demonstrated to be troo or more troo than any reasons for believing the opposite.

Peterson's Ideology is inadequate for the purposes of making any statements AT ALL.

In conclusion Peterson chops a mean word salad, and uses as much time and Forer effect (especially Forer effect) as possible, to say nothing, since everything he says and can possibly say is always in a state of "troo=y/n?", just as much as anything anyone else says. In fact he cannot even demonstrate that postmodernism isn't troo, as it has not yet killed us.

Peterson's Ideology is literally less useful than saying nothing at all, because at least saying nothing at all doesn't waste additional calories.

Saying the holocaust was a “diversion of resources” from the war effort fails to understand why the Nazis were waging war to begin with. The war wasn’t purely a territorial conquest, but was rather the full scale implementation of Nazi ideology which was based on Germanic supremacy and the ruthless annihilation of the “enemies” of the German people. In that context, eliminating Jews, gypsies, communists, and homosexuals was an essential part of the greater war aim of a German ruled European empire based on Nazi ideology. Hitler was a poor decision maker mainly because he bought into his own bullshit about the superiority of the German military as an extension of the superiority of the German race. That doesn’t mean he was committed to “chaos”, it means he was committed to irrational beliefs which proved as self destructive as they were destructive to others.

You should do a video on why you think there are so many leftie JP zealots who behave like Trump supporters. I’m disturbed by the number of progressive men who support him, because he sure sounds like a conservative to me, with all his Bible-thumping and atheist-bashing, not to mention his belief that the patriarchy is a myth and the gender pay gap doesn’t exist for the reasons that everyone believes. Some of his clinical advise as a therapist sounds reasonable, but when he gets into culture, he’s arrogant, patronizing, and intolerant. (I have this fantasy of a debate between him and Christopher Hitchens–RIP–where the latter rips him a new poop shoot.) His homespun, fuzzy exterior belies an opportunist who’s raking in millions from his starry-eyed disciples. He’s his own cash cow; his own cottage industry. I have to hand it to him–he’s mastered the art of finding the vacuum that was looking for a demagogue.

Lobster Boy get cooked.
Saying the holocaust was a “diversion of resources” from the war effort fails to understand why the Nazis were waging war to begin with. The war wasn’t purely a territorial conquest, but was rather the full scale implementation of Nazi ideology which was based on Germanic supremacy and the ruthless annihilation of the “enemies” of the German people. In that context, eliminating Jews, gypsies, communists, and homosexuals was an essential part of the greater war aim of a German ruled European empire based on Nazi ideology. Hitler was a poor decision maker mainly because he bought into his own bullshit about the superiority of the German military as an extension of the superiority of the German race. That doesn’t mean he was committed to “chaos”, it means he was committed to irrational beliefs which proved as self destructive as they were destructive to others.
“Saying the holocaust was a “diversion of resources” from the war effort fails to understand why the Nazis were waging war to begin with.”- wrong statment, because germany would probably have resource losses, if it would keep this people alive, because the shortages in food was the constant threat to the 3 Reich, and in this context liquidation of “superfluous humans” would save big ammount of food. So “holocaust” was, you can even say, economical necesity for the 3rd Reich, not just action for ideology. Only thing that you could say is that “superfluous humans” were chosen on the basis of ideology. And the whole point about “implementation of Nazi ideology” is wrong. Where in “Nazi ideology” you prohibited to use jews(etc) as slave labour to kill them later(btw Nazis literaly made thing like this, up untill certain point)? How the hell it controdict what Peterson said and the point he made? It the same statement just said in different language. “Hitler was a poor decision maker mainly because he bought into his own bullshit about the superiority of the German military as an extension of the superiority of the German race. That doesn’t mean he was committed to “chaos”, it means he was committed to irrational beliefs which proved as self destructive as they were destructive to others.” – statement have lack of context(about Adolf being the bad decision maker), and again do not contradict Peterson in essence, you just use word irrational as synonym to bad in area of ideas where Peterson just use word chaos. Sorry for my poor emglish if it was so.
You might be interested in a great book about the intelligence network that was created between Britain and the USA in the early to mid 30’s. The book is called Intrepid by William Stephenson. This ideological war is explained in depth in his book. Intrepid was the top agent who organized the entire network. It talks a little bit about breaking Enigma but it has more to do with fighting the ideological war and how the cooperative networks were one of the deciding factors that stopped Hitler. After the war, the cooperative agency was dissolved and individual nations sort of withdrew with their own intel agencies.
Why is Peterson standing straight? Is that ok ? — I don’t know. Why? — Well maybe because male genitalia stand straight during sexual arousal, that’s why. Why do you stand straight? Same reason. Why do you wear suit? It’s there to exaggerate sexual attractiveness…What if a woman wore makeup, high heels, and a male suit to work? What about negligees? What if women wore negligees to work?
HITLER WAS NOT EXTERMINATING PEOPLE DURRING THE WAR. THEY WERE LABOR CAMPS. At the end of the war is when its claimed he had them executed.
The_Grass_Roots_0f Old_Hickory there was never a deliberate campaign to exterminate them all. The intention was relocation. The allies bombing caused most of the deaths.
wrong place to peddle this shit-ivan and people from coutnries occupied by gemans suuh is myself have ancetors and relatives some of them still living who saw savagery of german war machine including their camps.they treated subhuman slavs with contept and have no probs engagin in mass killings and yet off course they didtn touch jews their satanic enemy whch is responsible for all evil in world.yeah,right. only western europeans who didnt feel nothgin of german savagery,muricans adn progeny of nazi collaborators can spout this shit today.
I recently managed to word a rebuttal to Peterson's redefinition of truth, in a way that I think really outlines the core problem with it, it seems that Peterson claims the following (duh troof=Petersonian truth, troo=true in Petersonian sense):

- All claims have a property called duh troof
- The means of measuring duh troof of a claim, is to observe whether holding that belief eventually kills the believer of that claim, or leads to the end of the believer's lineage; if it does, the claim is not troo.

It seems to me, that from this it necessarily follows:
- Duh troof of a claim can never be verified, even hypothetically, by anyone, because the mere fact that there exists a sentience to do the verifying at all, means that the claim is still in a state of being undefined in terms of duh troof.

To take this to the extreme, one can always say in response to a Petersonian, whatever his sentence may be, that he is assuming things are troo. The fact of the matter is that every possible conceivable claim could theoretically render you an evolutionary dead end, if you're willing to come up with a sufficiently creative and possibly silly story, including but not limited to:

- That the past is a reasonable template for predicting future events
- Gender is a binary
- Religion is good
- Don't be bitter and resentful
- You should clean your room
- Calling that guy bucko is a good idea
- Buy my book, maps of scheming
- Stand up straight with your shoulders straight
- Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
- Buy my $2000 rug, it's called meaning of Jungian Pseudoscience
- Pursue what is meaningful, not expedient
 -Tell the truth, or at least don't lie (Peterson acknowledges that it's ok to lie in service of troof, like a jihadi, in his video on white lies)
- Pet a cat when you encounter one in the street
- Donate to my Patreon
- If it doesn't serve life, it's not troo

One can go on endlessly with this, but the best part is that ALL POSSIBLE CLAIMS cannot be demonstrated as troo, and ALL POSSIBLE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM, also cannot be demonstrated as troo, hence one can't even actually make a case for preferring one to the other for any reason other than "just cuz", because all possible reasons that are provided cannot be demonstrated to be troo or more troo than any reasons for believing the opposite.

Peterson's Ideology is inadequate for the purposes of making any statements AT ALL.

In conclusion Peterson chops a mean word salad, and uses as much time and Forer effect (especially Forer effect) as possible, to say nothing, since everything he says and can possibly say is always in a state of "troo=y/n?", just as much as anything anyone else says. In fact he cannot even demonstrate that postmodernism isn't troo, as it has not yet killed us.

Peterson's Ideology is literally less useful than saying nothing at all, because at least saying nothing at all doesn't waste additional calories.

 

 

About homelessholocaust

I actually do not write most of these articles, I collect them here, for my personal useage, I find Some Other's enjoy them as well, which is a side effect of my Senility. As I am a Theosophist, and also study Vedanta Society of Northern California, so Your Visitation from the Akashic records to approve my feebile works gives me Great Hope! I am 68, years old, I will Come To You in another 30 or so years. You Reinforces my Belief that in my Sleep I visit The Akashic Records when I remember my dream's. I keep notes about 'Over There." the Colour of Daylight is Darker, but the Life is Brighter, property has no meaning, and it is homish. are the energetic records of all souls about their past lives, the present lives, and possible future lives. Each soul has its Akashic Records, like a series of books with each book representing one lifetime. The Hall (or Library) of the Akashic Records is where all souls’ Akashic Records are stored energetically. In other words, the information is stored in the Akashic field (also called zero point field). The Akashic Records, however, are not a dry compilation of events. They also contain our collective wisdom.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s