A fuckin' white male Canadian psychologist that has harnessed meme magick with his Kermit voice. He utters things that have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Jordan Peterson: "Hey, you need to sort yourself out bucko."
SJW: "Oh no sir, and you may refer to me as zey/zer, Bill C-16 has finally passed."
Jordan Peterson: "Clean up your room!"
SJW: "Oh no sir, and you may refer to me as zey/zer, Bill C-16 has finally passed."
Jordan Peterson: "Clean up your room!"
by Artilectual Thanatos July 26, 2017
The God of neutral pathology and an honorable nobleman of psychopathic inner cultivation that cures all mental ailments/inflictions of the mind (Especially PTSD. All hail the King.
by DR. SCHIZONIGGA September 10, 2019
Terrific but very unfunny Canadian intellectual famous for verbally beating the shit out of radical leftist ideologues. Good on him.
by C J B November 6, 2019
Most people know this but it’s a name for when you have a gigantic explosive diarrhea level shite in your jorts.
John: Why are Michaels jorts brown all of a sudden?
Jimmy: Ah yes someone made him jump and he did a Jordan Peterson.
John: Ohhhh.
Jimmy: Ah yes someone made him jump and he did a Jordan Peterson.
John: Ohhhh.
by Manfoetus July 17, 2023
Canadian psychologist famous for his opposition to compelled speech, and for urging people to take accountability and action for their life rather than blaming others for their circumstances.
Blue haired teen: “is that Jordan Peterson? He is problematic because he doesn’t say things I like”
Everyone else: “you smell like funyuns, leave the lobsterlord alone”
Everyone else: “you smell like funyuns, leave the lobsterlord alone”
by Borgar hoarder December 11, 2022
A gamer rights advocate who got very famous for saying it's the libtards' fault if the gamers don't have girlfriends.
"After reading Jordan Peterson once, Bryan finally cleaned his room, climbed gold on League of Legends, and started to claim that western civilisation peaked with the Spartans."
by Gjord August 15, 2022
A logical fallacy where one of the sides attempts to discredit the opposition by painting the other side as incapable of arguing on the topic, by pointing out a source about the topic (which is mostly too long to skim through in a short time) and stating that they must scan the said source extensively before they can talk about the said topic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
It is a combination of "red herring" and projected "self-incredulity" intended to act as a setback for the opposition or to cut off the exchange by saying "You don't understand this topic well enough to talk about it".
It is named after "Jordan Peterson" as he is often known for using this tactic.
Example 1
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
-----------------------
Representative A: I wouldn't want to drop a Jordan Peterson here, but reading the work of (insert author/thinker) named (insert source/research name) is a must if we want to discuss this.
Example 2
-----------------------
Debator 1: It is not morally acceptable to suggest that the concept of human emotions can be put under an objective standard.
Debator 2: Well, in the work of "Sam Harris" named "The Moral Landscape", he talks about this topic extensively as to why this argument can be made. The suggested reasoning is not to divert our focus into utilitarianism, but to use it to identify what is beneficial for our well-being, which Sam Harris defines as the source of moral thinking.
Debator 1: I would have to disagree with that reasoning, and for that, I will be referring to (insert a counterpoint source or research). The reasoning of Q (author or thinker of the counterpoint) shows how your argument falls to pieces when faced with their deduction.
Debator 2: If you could elaborate on their reasoning, perhaps we can talk more about the topic and expand upon our debate through that.
Debator 1: I mean I could, but I don't think condensing a 600-page study into a few sentences can do it justice. And not to mention that we don't have the time tonight to go over all of the contents.
Debator 2: How are we supposed to continue our exchange then?
Debator 1: Read it, all of it, and come back. Then we can continue.
by Doge of Chamberlain October 12, 2023