Jordan Peterson on free-will

https://youtu.be/WCLfw4RjXE0

What Dr. Peterson is saying about free-will is what I observed myself and that’s also what I use as proof of free-will: if there wasn’t one and determinism was true, then there would be no difference between us and animals. Or machines for that matter. Therapy would be very easy in this case, since everything would be working according to certain rules which you just have to figure out. But that is not the case.

I did go to various therapists for years but it never felt like it was helping. Though as I started reading Ayn Rand, who taught me that free-will is real and you have to take responsibility for yourself, I started realizing that it wasn’t the therapists who didn’t understand me or who were incompetent or something, but it was me because I wasn’t willing.

That’s why I haven’t been in therapy for years, even though I needed it and still do, because I’m still struggling with taking on the effort of actually working on myself, to get out of my comfort zone.

So yeah, unless the person is willing there’s only so much you can do.

I also want to say how very important people like Dr. Peterson are. Not just for me, but for the whole society, especially in our time. And that is for two reasons:

1. The way he explains things.

He is able to convey complex and highly abstract topics for laymen to understand. It can be very hard to verbalize insights and knowledge you gathered consciously or unconsciously, so you go looking for answers and find people like him, who are able to pull it out of the depths of your mind, so to speak.

And you are excited because they help you to understand things, improve your concepts, your thoughts, your worldview. Plus he is so energetic, eloquent and genuinely honest, but you can also sometimes see that he has the same problem as the rest of us, namely that he has so much more to say than he can put into words, because he doesn’t only want to convey factual knowledge but philosophical insights.

2. The way he engages with critics.

He is one of the few people who really try to find the truth, so while he is clearly articulating his views of certain topics, he never demonizes his opponents. And shows that violence, even if it is just verbal, makes things worse. The fact that he stays absolutely calm while SJW-students yell „transphobic piece of shit“ at him, is deeply impressive. When you think of people with different opinions as a potential danger and engage with them in anger or even hatred, be it in real life or hypothetically, than you are less likely to really understand their arguments or where they might be right. You then tend to ignore or overlook things you might want to analyze.

This leads to philosophical and cultural stagnation and divides a society, this is why all the talk about „male privilege“ or „white privilege“ and so on is the actual „hate-speech“, because it is so divisive. Or the whole class-warfare-rhetoric of the radical left for that matter: Opressor vs oppressed, Men vs women, rich vs poor, white vs every other ethnicity etc. The phrase „Violence causes violence“ is true on a fundamental philosophical level. So that is the reason why I admire him so much: he shows us how to get out of this viscous circle of collectivism, by being an example and fighting for unrestricted free-speech.

A link between videogame-violence and real world? No.

Even if this sounds ignorant: I don’t care what scientists say to this, there is no link.

How dumb do these people think gamers are? If a fictional work of art would influence people in such a simplistic and linear way, we would’ve gone extinct thousands of years ago after the first theatrical play depicting the war against another tribe or something, because everyone would’ve gone on a killing spree. Even little children aren’t that dumb.

The only thing that influences people in a certain way are the emotions or thoughts provoked trough the story or the presentation. It are ideas that lead people to certain actions, the mere explosion of a head does fucking nothing.

For example: I can have fun all day long with gutting stinking demons in Doom with the chainsaw or tearing their limbs of and beating them to death with it and not waste a single more thought on it when I go to bed. What really sticks in my mind and makes me consider my potential course of action in real life are certain scenes (like the prologue or the ending) in The Last of Us. This is the kind of brutality and cruelty that leaves an impression in the players’ mind. It depicts far less blood and dismemberment than Doom, yet I would deem it to be far more brutal than the afore mentioned.

And let us not forget how twisted and disturbing the original grim tales were. So much for videogame violence being such a new and different thing. And let us also not forget that these tales were actually written for children, whereas shooters or horror-games were not (another thing anti-videogame advocates like to forget).

Btw.: this dude on the left was allegedly in the military and thinks you can train shooting with games?! I never touched a gun in my life and even I have enough common sense to know the huge difference between moving a mouse/clicking a button and pulling the trigger of an actual gun.

Edit: Rewatching this, I noticed that he didn’t actually say that, but he is clearly insinuating it in my opinion (at 1:33).

There are only two genders

www.youtube.com/watch

Narcissists like these should learn to control their emotions and that not everybody they conceive as intolerant is perpetrating „violence“. Real tolerance means that you have to accept that some people say something you deem to be rude or „unethical“.

When some asshole constantly refers to me, a man, as „she“ and I find this offensive, then I stop talking to that person. It’s as simple as that. Why do these whiny brats insist on being referred to by their ridiculous made up pronouns?

There are two biological genders/sexes with certain characteristics and behavioral tendencies. Everything between are just variations. We use words to describe reality as it is not how we want it to be. And we don’t need a word for every concrete entity. In fact we use categories like „male“ and „female“ to economise our perceptions of concrete things which largely share the same attributes (like that men only have penises) to enable us to navigate through the world (conceptualization).

If a specific entity (like a person) is to be addressed then we’ve got names or designations. Short: made up pronouns are totally superfluous. It is just impractical and confusing.

Like Ayn Rand said:

Words are a lens to focus ones mind.

They shouldn’t be used to „un-focus“ it.

Why do people get offended about gay scenes in games?

“And then there are also those who are going to care, because they think it’s an attempt to “SJWing” up the game. However you want to put it, people feel that this is an attempt to make their favorite pastime politically correct and some sort of activist political statement on diversity or what have you. It doesn’t mean that the people who feel this way disagree with the things that are being discussed or shown in this particular sequence. All it means is that people feel frustrated when something is clearly an attempted activism. They feel that that it’s fine, you can be an activist for things you believe in, but being an activist in something like gaming might not be the time or place for it and to be fair, I actually find this to be a perfectly reasonable feeling to have.”

I am glad somebody finally pointed this out. Though I think even in games people can and should make political statements if it is important to them (I’d try that too), since this is one of the reasons art exists. The problem lies with how it is done.

I think people are less “mad” about a gay character itself, but rather feel reminded of the obnoxious and whiny moron, who made a fuss because someone dared to use a word he randomly decided to not be “politically correct”.

Most people wouldn’t have a problem with a gay character here and there, but the way it is implemented often just feels weird and/or forced. They feel lectured and as Luke pointed out in his L.A. Noire critique, people don’t like to be lectured. SJWs have created a poisoned atmosphere and alienated people, who would otherwise be on their side. People who start seeing SJW-Agitation literally everywhere.

As I wrote in Racism and Sexism in Games, the controversy about Battlefield 5‘s cover is a good example of this: Female soldiers in WW2 were a rare exception, so it is an obvious reaction for most people to think of it as historically incorrect. And from there it is a small step to think that the reason it is done anyway, are some SJW’s trying to force their ideology upon on them.

Now, I don’t share this opinion. From a neutral perspective, I find it even intriguing seeing WW2 from a woman’s perspective. Also Left Behind is treating this topic absolutely right in my opinion. So too did Horizon Zero Dawn, because there is no special emphasis on Aloy being a woman and you’re just playing a strong, self-confident and determined individual, who just happens to be female. That’s why she doesn’t come across like one of those shallow and awkward quota-women: She is a real character with a justification of being there.

But I can understand when people feel the way they do about scenes like in Left Behind. It is just a counterreaction to the people constantly whining about “gender-equality” when e.g. a TV-Ad displays a disproportionate amount of men or women. It is not only people from “the right” who politicize insignificant nonsense and turn it into a “scandal”, people from “the left” are equally good at it.