• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

spineduke

Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
8,754
This is one of the best articles I've read that articulated so well the many issues I have with his writing - it explains how I initially found value in some of his talks, but the deeper the rabbit hole he went, the more aware I was of the narrative and lack of logic that other people seemingly projected onto it. Really great article that does a good job of avoiding the typical character attacks.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
16,812
Lost: lack of structure and control
Stale: lack of new impulses
Inner world: the psyche
(World of) objects: the material world.
You certainly realize that you are in no way more precise than Peterson here.
A good philosopher would try to define control, structure, impulses, psyche, material and all terms that could be understood in various manner for fears of being misunderstood.
And even if I were to be charitable and use your definitions, there is no indication that they are Peterson's so you may have understood something entirely different from what he is saying.
Peterson doesn't explains, he let the doubt linger in hopes that less discerning individuals will fill in the blanks for him.

He's a fucking lost English speaking Bogdanov brother with pretensions even more ridiculous than the funny twins.
And I'm being extremely harsh on the French brothers because at least they're not peddling emptiness as a philosophy.

e: And someone really need to sit down with Peterson and explain to him what the fuck Derrida was working on because frankly Peterson's interpretation makes no sense at all.
And similarly for cultural marxism and post modernism.
Like Why the fuck does he thinks that post modernists were reconverted communists who tried to repackage marxist theory into something else?
Does he actually understand what post modernism even is?
 
Last edited:

Oversoul

Banned
Dec 20, 2017
533
Thanks for the answer!

I certainly don't view him nor his work like you do, especially with regard to him and his politics as being "common sense" and him not being extremist, least on certain issues, but if his stuff helped you to be a better, more thoughtful person, I suppose that's a good thing.

I guess one last question if I may. You claim to be a centrist, but Peterson does attract a vocal, don't know how major or minor, fanbase that is very extremist; i.e., a lot of red-pill, men going their own way, anti-feminists, and anti-social justice type of folk that have really hateful views about women, minorities, and whatnot; and then there's the alt-right that gleam on and support him as well. I'm not trying to do a "guilt by association" thing, but do you ever wonder why he attacks those crowds in such a seemingly large and passionate way? Do you think they just have a profound misunderstanding of him when Peterson talks about feminist, transgender, and social political issues?

As far as I see it, the left won the culture war. Anyone that criticizes it's excessions will therefore receive support of the alt-right by default.

You have probably seen the repackaged youtube clickbait stuff too "PetersoN DESTROYS swj professor". That also attracts a dumber audience, unfortunately. And if said audience only knows that side of Peterson...well I'm not surprised, frankly.

That said, Peterson called MGTOW pathetic, and tweets negatively about the alt-right. It's clearly he's not on their side but I do think he wants to save them from being trapped inside the ideology, partly. He still sees some hope for them, where as left leaning people consider them lost and good riddance.

Final part is that Peterson is part-self help guru, so that's also something to keep in mind. People who need a self-help guru are generally not the happiest types.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
As far as I see it, the left won the culture war. Anyone that criticizes it's excessions will therefore receive support of the alt-right by default.
I'm not quite sure on this. Usually people who get prescribed to the alt-right is voluntary, or to neo-nazi's. Could you elaborate what you think Peterson or yourself mean would be outside the leftist culture war that would make people perceive those to be "alt-right" by not being on board with the cutler war? Is that just gay marriage like it used to be? Or is it the emergent trans movement? Could you describe what Peterson or yourself would be the "excessions" of the leftist won culture war?
Final part is that Peterson is part-self help guru, so that's also something to keep in mind. People who need a self-help guru are generally not the happiest types.

In a way, that was kind of my question to you earlier. Did you read much self-help books prior to Peterson? Like, Chicken Soup for the Soul, or Seven Habits for Highly Effective People, the Art of War, or How To Win Friends and Influence People?
 

Deleted member 19844

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,500
United States
In a way, that was kind of my question to you earlier. Did you read much self-help books prior to Peterson? Like, Chicken Soup for the Soul, or Seven Habits for Highly Effective People, the Art of War, or How To Win Friends and Influence People?
I don't believe the chicken soup books or the art of war are self help books - at the very not at all like the other ones listed...
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
I don't believe the chicken soup books or the art of war are self help books - at the very not at all like the other ones listed...
I've heard from people who read those that they gained a lot of insight into their own lives by reading those books. I know a lot of men/boys who think The Art of War is a self-help book. I included them only because of that, and I'll be honest that I've not read a lot of self-help books to know firsthand. Don't think it really takes away from my central point.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
16,812
Yes. I've had people tell me that they read and were recommended Sun Tzu's The Art of War as a self-help book. Now, they're usually not the best of people, but I thought I'd include it in a very small list.
Whatever float their boats, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some people read a chess manual in the same way frankly.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
Whatever float their boats, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some people read a chess manual in the same way frankly.
I think for those people "self-help" meant "how to manipulate people." But, who knows. "self-help" is a nebulous term, which is why some people think MGTOW and Red Pill people are "self-help", which is why I framed my question to Oversoul as I did to better get a grasp on what they mean. As we've discussed in this thread, self labels are hard to pin down.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
16,812
The man tweets a bit too much, but here is one example.

A better idea would have been to extract the quotes out of the article you linked because you basically linked to a Breitbart tier site here.
I wouldn't trust an article on it saying that water is indeed wet.

I think for those people "self-help" meant "how to manipulate people." But, who knows. "self-help" is a nebulous term, which is why some people think MGTOW and Red Pill people are "self-help", which is why I framed my question to Oversoul as I did to better get a grasp on what they mean. As we've discussed in this thread, self labels are hard to pin down.
It's kind of fitting that a vague author would find success in a vague field...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,326
Here's the deal fuck it... He's not far alt-right fine but he is hella right wing and his rhetoric and his associations encourage his followers to go further than him... see Lindsay Shepherd.

He's a gateway drug.
 

Oversoul

Banned
Dec 20, 2017
533
I'm not quite sure on this. Usually people who get prescribed to the alt-right is voluntary, or to neo-nazi's. Could you elaborate what you think Peterson or yourself mean would be outside the leftist culture war that would make people perceive those to be "alt-right" by not being on board with the cutler war? Is that just gay marriage like it used to be? Or is it the emergent trans movement? Could you describe what Peterson or yourself would be the "excessions" of the leftist won culture war?


In a way, that was kind of my question to you earlier. Did you read much self-help books prior to Peterson? Like, Chicken Soup for the Soul, or Seven Habits for Highly Effective People, the Art of War, or How To Win Friends and Influence People?

Regarding the culture war there are obvious attacks on masculinity as a concept, free speech as a concept, whiteness as a form of guilt by default and heteronormativity, traditional family structure etc. These attacks have gone on largely unchallenged for a while largely fostering in university environments. But at the same time they are being spread in the mainstream through the likes of Buzzfeed and Salon.

I mean, look at this:
1xnd.png


One of the things at the core of this narrative is that every "group" (except white people of course) is a victim of opression. The alt-right basically was a response to that and they say: "no, WE are the ones being opressed."

Than Peterson (but also Rogan, Weinstein, etc) came along and basically say: of course you are a victim EVERYONE IS, life is suffering. The cards may be stacked differently for each of us, but at the end take your responsibillty, bear your load and make the world a tiny bit better. Which basically is the message of Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl.

Regarding self-help books, I read a few before. The Way of the Superior Man, by David Deida and both books by Mark Manson (Models and SAONGAF) Probably some more I forgot. It's been a while, I read most of those 4 years ago probably.

I think what set's Peterson's book apart (not better or worse, but different) is his mixture of the spiritual/metaphorical with psychology and biological factors. It's as far as I can tell a warning: don't forget the wisdoms of the past. That's the conservative part. Take the good parts and use them to fight the dangers of groupthink ideology and nihilism.
 
Last edited:

Superking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,622
Peterson is not an ideologue. He is a hardcore centrist. This is why he has fans on both sides of the aisle.

On the right he has:

- Ben Shapiro
- Steven Crowder
- Tucker Carlson
- Stefan Molyneux
- Sargon of Akkad
- David Rubin
- Pretty much all of Breitbart/The Daily Caller/Fox News/every other conservative media outlet known to man

And on the Left he has an equally long list of prominent liberal fans like:


-
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,326
. Take the good parts and use them to fight the dangers of groupthink ideology and nihilism.

But like literally Jordan Peterson is group think... literally he has trained his followers to hate postmodern neomarxist SJWs and see postmodern neomarxism in everything they dislike.

He basically posits that POMOs are the greatest threat to western society... he says postmodern neo marxists engage in the same strain of marxism as the USSR... he repeats frequently how that strain killed 100 million people and then associates everything from gender neutral pronouns to that strain of genocidal marxism.

He condemns young activists (all the way back to literally the 60s... aka the civil rights and women's rights movements) he paints anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia activists with the brush of POMO neomarxists.

He makes it out to be a very real, very deadly threat... He invokes the gulags constantly.

He whips this followers into a fearful rage and then says "oh don't be a white nationalist either"

But guess what... he doesn't hold White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism up as a real threat, he doesn't teach his followers to fear them. So what happens? White Nationalists come along and say... we agree with Peterson on many things, post modern neomarxists are indeed a lethal threat to our race and society but we disagree that there's anything wrong with white nationalism... so join us.

And they do. Because Peterson's not afraid of Nazis he is afraid of communists... you can literally trace it back to his late teens. His entire worldview can be traced back to his nightmares (like actual bad dreams not a euphemism here) of Cold War Nuclear Annihilation. Peterson at his core is a very very scared man... and that fear is what drives him. He can say oh don't be a Nazi but to him they're not a threat so he spends no time in it. He's afraid of communism, he literally believes it's coming if he doesn't fight it and uf he fails he'll die in a genocidal purge... but he sees communism in just about everything that pushes back against him... in everything that he hates... hence Frozen being propaganda and not art because he hated the Hans is a bad guy twist.

He's taught his followers that minorities fighting for their civil rights and folks fighting for progressive social politics are a literal threat to the country to your way of life, that if they aren't stopped, millions will day again. That's the problem with Jordan Peterson and that's why it doesn't matter if he's not technically alt-right or that he gives token dismissal towards White Nationalism. He is a bridge to it. End of story.
 
Last edited:

DryCreek

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,987
Lol why is an "intelectual" like Peterson even concerning himself with frozen like fucking lol. Dude is absolutely unhinged.
 

Ninja

Member
Oct 28, 2017
279
I finished reading the OP article and I found it strange that it criticizes Maps of Meaning so much when nobody ever talks about it. Most people seem to like his NEW book so I thought the author would go into it but it was only mentioned briefly at the beginning and end of the article. I guess since JP wrote MoM, he has to own it forever but it is an old book and people are more into him now for his message of personal responsibility so I thought just going after MoM makes this look like a hit piece.

I would like to know what you guys think of some other articles that talk more about his current affairs:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/jordan-petersons-gospel-of-masculinity
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,326
I finished reading the OP article and I found it strange that it criticizes Maps of Meaning so much when nobody ever talks about it. Most people seem to like his NEW book so I thought the author would go into it but it was only mentioned briefly at the beginning and end of the article. I guess since JP wrote MoM, he has to own it forever but it is an old book and people are more into him now for his message of personal responsibility so I thought just going after MoM makes this look like a hit piece.

I would like to know what you guys think of some other articles that talk more about his current affairs:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/jordan-petersons-gospel-of-masculinity

His new book is not an academic one. It's a self help whatever book. The article was about looking at Peterson's academic work... but sure hit piece.

And uh you know that Peterson still touts Maps of Meaning right? Like he stands by it 100%. In fact he cites having written it as a reason why he should be taken seriously when claiming Frozen is not art but instead propaganda


In your new book 12 Rules For Life, you're very critical of Frozen. Why do you call it "deeply propagandistic"?


It attempted to write a modern fable that was a counter-narrative to a classic story like, let's say, Sleeping Beauty — but with no understanding whatsoever of the underlying archetypal dynamics. You could say that Sleeping Beauty was raised out of her unconsciousness via a delivering male. Another way of reading the story is that unconsciousness requires active consciousness as an antidote. And the unconsciousness is symbolized in that particular story by femininity and active consciousness by masculinity. I could hardly sit through Frozen. There was an attempt to craft a moral message and to build the story around that, instead of building the story and letting the moral message emerge. It was the subjugation of art to propaganda, in my estimation.

Not just a lovely story about sisterhood?



No, not just a lovely story about sisterhood. No, 'fraid not. No, you don't spend tens of millions of dollars on a carefully crafted narrative that's just a lovely story unless that's what you're trying to tell. That isn't what the people who made Frozen were trying to tell. Not in my estimation.

You regard it as more propagandistic than say, The Little Mermaid? Those other movies are based on folktales that are maybe — some of those folktales have been traced back 13,000 years.

Aren't we allowed to make up new stories?

Not for political reasons.

Who gets to choose what's propaganda?

I mean, they're Disney movies. None of them are super subtle. Well, that's a good question. I wrote a whole book, Maps of Meaning, about that. It's about 500 pages long, and it's an attempt to answer that really complicated question. A properly balanced story provides an equal representation of the negative and positive attributes of I could say the world, but it's actually a being. Harry Potter's a good example. So Harry's the hero, right. But he's tainted with evil. There's a dark and a light in every bit of that narrative. It's well balanced. And in the propagandistic story, you don't see that. You see the darkness all being in one place and the light all being in one place.

Isn't the darkness and the light in Elsa, who has the power to freeze things, for good or ill?


The most propagandistic element of Frozen was the transformation of the prince at the beginning of the story who was a perfectly good guy, into a villain with no character development whatsoever about three-quarters of the way to the ending.

He was a villain the whole time! He was a wolf in sheep's clothing!

That's how it turned out in the end, but there was no indication of that at the beginning.

That's good story craft — not tipping your hand. Like The Crying Game.


It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about Frozen, although I don't think so.

http://time.com/5176537/jordan-peterson-frozen-movie-disney/
 
Last edited:

Ninja

Member
Oct 28, 2017
279
But like literally Jordan Peterson is group think... literally he has trained his followers to hate postmodern neomarxist SJWs and see postmodern neomarxism in everything they dislike.

He basically posits that POMOs are the greatest threat to western society... he says postmodern neo marxists engage in the same strain of marxism as the USSR... he repeats frequently how that strain killed 100 million people and then associates everything from gender neutral pronouns to that strain of genocidal marxism.

He condemns young activists (all the way back to literally the 60s... aka the civil rights and women's rights movements) he paints anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia activists with the brush of POMO neomarxists.

He makes it out to be a very real, very deadly threat... He invokes the gulags constantly.

He whips this followers into a fearful rage and then says "oh don't be a white nationalist either"

But guess what... he doesn't hold White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism up as a real threat, he doesn't teach his followers to fear them. So what happens? White Nationalists come along and say... we agree with Peterson on many things, post modern neomarxists are indeed a lethal threat to our race and society but we disagree that there's anything wrong with white nationalism... so join us.

And they do. Because Peterson's not afraid of Nazis he is afraid of communists... you can literally trace it back to his late teens. His entire worldview can be traced back to his nightmares (like actual bad dreams not a euphemism here) of Cold War Nuclear Annihilation. Peterson at his core is a very very scared man... and that fear is what drives him. He can say oh don't be a Nazi but to him they're not a threat so he spends no time in it. He's afraid of communism, he literally believes it's coming if he doesn't fight it and uf he fails he'll die in a genocidal purge... but he sees communism in just about everything that pushes back against him... in everything that he hates... hence Frozen being propaganda and not art because he hated the Hans is a bad guy twist.

He's taught his followers that minorities fighting for their civil rights and folks fighting for progressive social politics are a literal threat to the country to your way of life, that if they aren't stopped, millions will day again. That's the problem with Jordan Peterson and that's why it doesn't matter if he's not technically alt-right or that he gives token dismissal towards White Nationalism. He is a bridge to it. End of story.

I'm gonna need to see references for the accusations you are saying against him here but I am guessing you don't have them since you are using language like "he basically does ____"

More importantly, saying "end of story" at the end like that is just making you look desperate. And you are wrong besides, to assume that those who listen to him will end up as WN(I really shouldn't have to point this out...). It's usually outlets like Fox News that I would expect to use blatant fearmongering like that.
 

Gluka

Member
Oct 25, 2017
368
MoM seems like Peterson's more serious attempt at laying out his ideology so it is probably more apt to attack the views within that than the self help book tailored towards his YouTube audience.
 

Spuck-

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
996
Sam Harris is definitely not right-wing. Btw what is up with the hate for him here on Resetera? He has his flaws for sure (like the anti SWJ stuff, and his position on the middle east)but I still think it's a good podcast overall and I would not say that SH and JP are very much alike at all.

Sam Harris thinks we should nuke muslim countries, thinks Milo can't be right wing because he's gay, defended Donald Trump's Neo-Nazi apologetic bothsiderism on Charlottesville.

He's not right wing but he's a real piece of shit regardless:

"We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been 'hijacked' by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran."
 

SixPointEight

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,287
That's good story craft — not tipping your hand. Like The Crying Game.


It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about Frozen, although I don't think so.

Then why advance it at all? You have a tribune, be responsible.

That's his entire thing. Advance controversial ideas and have an easy escape strategy. If his statements don't undermine his credibility as a public figure, this definitely does it.
 
Last edited:

Ursus007

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
202
Lausanne, Swizterland
Okay so two things. I had a look at the unedited video.

The first thing I want to mention is... do you not think he is kind of a dick? Like a condescending, histrionic, needlessly combative dude? Why is he so incredibly mad at this guy?

Anyway though whatever. If you like his style, that's your opinion. Let's talk about what he says after the makeup thing, which you think was taken out of context.



So there's the rest of the interview. I spent like half an hour and a significant number of brain cells transcribing it for you.

What, in the above transcript, sheds a more positive light on Peterson saying that women who wear makeup but do not want to be sexually harassed are hypocrites? It's all laid out for you up there. In my opinion the full transcript makes him sound significantly worse. But you're the JP fan.

Seriously I do want to know the answer to this.

Edit - Also holy shit this guy wrote an advice book with a chapter called "be precise in your speech" and this is how he talks ffs

Edit 2 - Also yeah I'm not shocked that this guy has had three sexual harassment cases himself. Also the conflation of sexual assault with casual sex is really shitty.

Sorry you spent so much time transcribing this while I was sleeping!

You shouldn't really have bothered, but to tackle this, letme just put things in order.

Main point: Peterson hates what he calls Progressive Marxism or what he believes to be a (what I would call) a mob mentality based on constant prism of victimisation coupled with radicalisation, in which the designated victims demand rules to be put in place which are not entirely understood and lead to societal changes and experiments similar to those that in 20th century led to huge losses of life and which he believes were predicted in 19th Century by Nietzsche and could be avoided today.

Like that's his whole mindset in the simplest form I can put it and I omit some things so don't crucify me.

The solution, again simplified, is self actualisation through rules and free thinking outside of group mentality and moving away from victim-perpetrator Marxist ideology.

Everything else he says can be generally traced back to the points above.

1. He's combative that's true and you can reject such approach but the man practices what he preaches really. The whole lobster thing is about being combative. I'd say the interviewer should've pushed harder and was weak with his arguments. He could've challenged Peterson more on women at work statistics or other things but was mumbling half the time. Maybe in part it is his combativeness and assertiveness that makes Peterson so popular?

2. I will say it one last time, you transcribed it so there's no better proof. Person says that the point is pushed way beyond where he was going with it. You see the initial make up question was just a provocation - to illustrate the ongoing point that rules are murky, we don't know how to behave at work fundamentally and we're acting on impulse while we can't have a civil conversation about it without getting emotional or even honest with each other. And I said before of course in such caricature scenario the logic is still sound: make up is sexual display so it leads to sexualization of workplace which means that technically if woman puts on makeup and doesnt want any attention there's an implicit hypocrisy.

3. However, it's all beyond the actual point, a simplified fictional question, and not a serious discussio. But it could be if we're to cross all the dots over what constitutes sexual behavior at work. Which we don't, which we shouldn't and which Peterson rejects and suggests as you transcribed a more fluid form of communication. We accept that sometimes pretty women catch our eye at work but they can express themselves and men behave appropriately and we show a certain amount of tension which is natural.

4. NBC policy if true is indeed unfortunate. That's probably the best example of overreach that Peterson is afraid of.
 

Artdayne

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
5,015
This guy is bizarre and off the rails. He also comes across as someone who dodges answering questions when he's pressed on specific topics, like religion.
 

Oversoul

Banned
Dec 20, 2017
533
Sorry you spent so much time transcribing this while I was sleeping!

You shouldn't really have bothered, but to tackle this, letme just put things in order.

Main point: Peterson hates what he calls Progressive Marxism or what he believes to be a (what I would call) a mob mentality based on constant prism of victimisation coupled with radicalisation, in which the designated victims demand rules to be put in place which are not entirely understood and lead to societal changes and experiments similar to those that in 20th century led to huge losses of life and which he believes were predicted in 19th Century by Nietzsche and could be avoided today.

Like that's his whole mindset in the simplest form I can put it and I omit some things so don't crucify me.

The solution, again simplified, is self actualisation through rules and free thinking outside of group mentality and moving away from victim-perpetrator Marxist ideology.

Everything else he says can be generally traced back to the points above.

1. He's combative that's true and you can reject such approach but the man practices what he preaches really. The whole lobster thing is about being combative. I'd say the interviewer should've pushed harder and was weak with his arguments. He could've challenged Peterson more on women at work statistics or other things but was mumbling half the time. Maybe in part it is his combativeness and assertiveness that makes Peterson so popular?

2. I will say it one last time, you transcribed it so there's no better proof. Person says that the point is pushed way beyond where he was going with it. You see the initial make up question was just a provocation - to illustrate the ongoing point that rules are murky, we don't know how to behave at work fundamentally and we're acting on impulse while we can't have a civil conversation about it without getting emotional or even honest with each other. And I said before of course in such caricature scenario the logic is still sound: make up is sexual display so it leads to sexualization of workplace which means that technically if woman puts on makeup and doesnt want any attention there's an implicit hypocrisy.

3. However, it's all beyond the actual point, a simplified fictional question, and not a serious discussio. But it could be if we're to cross all the dots over what constitutes sexual behavior at work. Which we don't, which we shouldn't and which Peterson rejects and suggests as you transcribed a more fluid form of communication. We accept that sometimes pretty women catch our eye at work but they can express themselves and men behave appropriately and we show a certain amount of tension which is natural.

4. NBC policy if true is indeed unfortunate. That's probably the best example of overreach that Peterson is afraid of.

This is a solid post that, in my estimation, summarizes Peterson quite well.
 

Arebours

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
Sam Harris thinks we should nuke muslim countries, thinks Milo can't be right wing because he's gay, defended Donald Trump's Neo-Nazi apologetic bothsiderism on Charlottesville.

He's not right wing but he's a real piece of shit regardless:
I agree that he is out of his depth on the middle east, but spreading lies only serves to discredits your position. The original quote is taken from a made up scenario where he debated a preemptive first strike in the case an islamist state got their hands on nuclear weapons. Not quite the "thinks we should nuke muslim countries" distortion that you are spreading.

All I've heard from him on Milo, Trump and Neo-Nazism is disgust and disapproval. Having listened to much of his podcast it would surprise me if any of what you say is true, but feel free to link me some sources and prove me wrong.
 

Spuck-

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
996
I agree that he is out of his depth on the middle east, but spreading lies discredits your position. The original quote is taken from a made up scenario where he debated a preemptive first strike in the case an islamist state got their hands on nuclear weapons. Not quite the "thinks we should nuke muslim countries" distortion that you are spreading.

All I've heard from him on Milo, Trump and Neo-Nazism is disgust and disapproval. Having listened to much of his podcast it would surprise me if any of what you say is true, but feel free to link me some sources and prove me wrong.

Here's a few more choice ones then:

"My tweet was actually fairly carefully written. I mean, it starts with 'In 2017 all identity politics is detestable.' And of course I'm thinking about the West, and I'm thinking primarily about America, I was commenting on Charlottesville. And I believe this, you know, I think Black Lives Matter is a dangerous and divisive and retrograde movement, and it is a dishonest movement. I mean, that's not to say that everyone associated with it is dishonest, but I find very little to recommend in what I've seen from Black Lives Matter. I think it is the wrong move for African Americans to be organizing around the variable of race now. It's *obviously* the wrong move, it's *obviously* destructive to civil society." - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/08/28/sam-harris-black-lives-matter-identity-politics/

re:Milo:
"the Milo I've seen is very far from being a Neo-Nazi or someone whose attitudes are truly of the right. That's probably not an accident, he's flamboyantly gay and half Jewish, so I don't know how right wing he could be in the end."

-https://twitter.com/_Saeen_/status/891409832665862145

So he's either okay with this or just profoundly out of his depth. Plenty in the 'New Atheist"/Skeptic community like him as well.
 

Deleted member 19844

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,500
United States
I've heard from people who read those that they gained a lot of insight into their own lives by reading those books. I know a lot of men/boys who think The Art of War is a self-help book. I included them only because of that, and I'll be honest that I've not read a lot of self-help books to know firsthand. Don't think it really takes away from my central point.
You're right, it doesn't take away from your central point.
 

ry-dog

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,180
Can someone explain to me how you can detest identity politics and group thinking - but at the same time be a strong advocate for protecting "traditional modes of being".
 
Last edited:

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,326
It's usually outlets like Fox News that I would expect to use blatant fearmongering like that.

He certainly likes going on there.

As for sources:

Frame of reference for him being more afraid of Marxism than Nazism (he blatantly uses communism and marxism as synonyms):

In practice, however, communism repeatedly showed it made things worse. It was put into place in many parts of the world throughout the 20th century "with absolutely murderous results," Peterson said. "It was the most destructive economic and political doctrine I think that has ever been invented by mankind," surpassing even the terror seen under Adolf Hitler, with its system of murder that would kill over 100 million people in less than a century.




Here's him declaring postmodernism neo marxism (despite marxism being very much modernism)
Peterson said it's not possible to understand our current society without considering the role postmodernism plays within it, "because postmodernism, in many ways—especially as it's played out politically—is the new skin that the old Marxism now inhabits."


"Even the French intellectuals had to admit that communism was a bad deal by the end of the 1960s," he said. From there, the communists played a "sleight of hand game, in some sense," and rebranded their ideology "under a postmodern guise."

"That's where identity politics came from," he said. And from there, it "spread like wildfire" from France, to the United States through the English department at Yale University, "and then everywhere."Marxism preached that the natural and economic landscape is a battle between the so-called proletariat and the bourgeois. It claimed that economic systems were going to enslave people and keep them down, Peterson said.

...

Rather than do away with the ideology, however, they merely gave it a new face and a new name. "They were all Marxists. But they couldn't be Marxists anymore, because you couldn't be a Marxist and claim you were a human being by the end of the 1960s," said Peterson.

The postmodernists built on the Marxist ideology, Peterson said. "They started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name."


"It was no longer specifically about economics," he said. "It was about power. And everything to the postmodernists is about power. And that's actually why they're so dangerous, because if you're engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power, all they are motivated to do is to accrue all the power to them, because what else is there?" he said. "There's no logic, there's no investigation, there's no negotiation, there's no dialogue, there's no discussion, there's no meeting of minds and consensus. There's power."

"And so since the 1970s, under the guise of postmodernism, we've seen the rapid expansion of identity politics throughout the universities," he said. "It's come to dominate all of the humanities—which are dead as far as I can tell—and a huge proportion of the social sciences."


Here's him sayimg postmodern neomarxists are a threat to Western Civilization
"We've been publicly funding extremely radical, postmodern leftist thinkers who are hellbent on demolishing the fundamental substructure of Western civilization. And that's no paranoid delusion. That's their self-admitted goal," he said, noting that their philosophy is heavily based in the ideas of French philosopher Jacques Derrida, "who, I think, most trenchantly formulated the anti-Western philosophy that is being pursued so assiduously by the radical left."

"The people who hold this doctrine—this radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramount—they've got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well," he said. "But even in the United States, where you know a lot of the governmental institutions have swung back to the Republican side, the postmodernist types have infiltrated bureaucratic organizations at the mid-to-upper level."

"I don't think its dangers can be overstated," Peterson said. "And I also don't think the degree to which it's already infiltrated our culture can be overstated."

https://m.theepochtimes.com/jordan-...r-the-guise-of-identity-politics_2259668.html



The Frozen is propaganda:

In your new book 12 Rules For Life, you're very critical of Frozen. Why do you call it "deeply propagandistic"?


It attempted to write a modern fable that was a counter-narrative to a classic story like, let's say, Sleeping Beauty — but with no understanding whatsoever of the underlying archetypal dynamics. You could say that Sleeping Beauty was raised out of her unconsciousness via a delivering male. Another way of reading the story is that unconsciousness requires active consciousness as an antidote. And the unconsciousness is symbolized in that particular story by femininity and active consciousness by masculinity. I could hardly sit through Frozen. There was an attempt to craft a moral message and to build the story around that, instead of building the story and letting the moral message emerge. It was the subjugation of art to propaganda, in my estimation.

Not just a lovely story about sisterhood?



No, not just a lovely story about sisterhood. No, 'fraid not. No, you don't spend tens of millions of dollars on a carefully crafted narrative that's just a lovely story unless that's what you're trying to tell. That isn't what the people who made Frozen were trying to tell. Not in my estimation.

You regard it as more propagandistic than say, The Little Mermaid? Those other movies are based on folktales that are maybe — some of those folktales have been traced back 13,000 years.

Aren't we allowed to make up new stories?

Not for political reasons.

Who gets to choose what's propaganda?

I mean, they're Disney movies. None of them are super subtle. Well, that's a good question. I wrote a whole book, Maps of Meaning, about that. It's about 500 pages long, and it's an attempt to answer that really complicated question. A properly balanced story provides an equal representation of the negative and positive attributes of I could say the world, but it's actually a being. Harry Potter's a good example. So Harry's the hero, right. But he's tainted with evil. There's a dark and a light in every bit of that narrative. It's well balanced. And in the propagandistic story, you don't see that. You see the darkness all being in one place and the light all being in one place.

Isn't the darkness and the light in Elsa, who has the power to freeze things, for good or ill?


The most propagandistic element of Frozen was the transformation of the prince at the beginning of the story who was a perfectly good guy, into a villain with no character development whatsoever about three-quarters of the way to the ending.

He was a villain the whole time! He was a wolf in sheep's clothing!

That's how it turned out in the end, but there was no indication of that at the beginning.

That's good story craft — not tipping your hand. Like The Crying Game.


It's certainly possible that I'm wrong about Frozen, although I don't think so.

http://time.com/5176537/jordan-peterson-frozen-movie-disney/

Trans Activists are guided by the same ideologyas Mao:

PETERSON: I did compare them to Mao … I was comparing them to the left-wing totalitarians. And I do believe they are left-wing totalitarians.

NEWMAN: Under Mao millions of people died!

PETERSON: Right!

NEWMAN: I mean there's no comparison between Mao and a trans activist, is there?

PETERSON: Why not?

NEWMAN: Because trans activists aren't killing millions of people!

PETERSON: The philosophy that's guiding their utterances is the same philosophy.

NEWMAN: The consequences are …

PETERSON: Not yet!

NEWMAN: You're saying that trans activists, …

PETERSON: No!

NEWMAN: Could leads to the deaths of millions of people.

PETERSON: No, I'm saying that the philosophy that drives their utterances is the same philosophy that already has driven us to the deaths of millions of people.

NEWMAN: Okay. Tell us how that philosophy is in any way comparable.

PETERSON: Sure. That's no problem. The first thing is that their philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount. That's the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Maoist China. And it's the fundamental philosophy of the left-wing activists. It's identity politics. It doesn't matter who you are as an individual, it matters who you are in terms of your group identity.

From the OP article

Democrats, liberals, SJWs, lefties are on a path to the USSR:

[Liberalism] got flipped so that the world was turned into one group against another. Power struggle from one group against another, and then the social justice warrior types and the lefties, even the Democratic party, started categorizing everybody according to their ethnic, or sexual, or racial identity, and made that the canonical element of their being. And that's an absolutely terrible thing to do! It leads to, in the Soviet Union when that happened, for example, when they introduced that idea along with the notion of class guilt… So for example, when the Soviets collectivized the farms, they pretty much wiped out, or raped and froze to death all of their, all their competent farmers—they called them kulaks—and they attributed class guilt to them, because they were successful peasants, and they defined their success as oppression and theft. They killed all of them pretty much, shipped them off to Siberia and froze them to death, and they were the productive agricultural to the Soviet Union, and then in the 1930s in the Ukraine because of that, about six million Ukrainians starve to death.

OP Article again

1960s student activists (which is Civil Rights, Women's Rights and Anti-Vietnam War Activists I remind you) were appalling. He also reduces the youth element of those movements to simply foolish kids shaking paper on sticks at people they disagree with

This happened in the 60s, as far as I can tell, that we got this misbegotten idea that the way to conduct yourself as a responsible human being was to hold placards up to protest to change the viewpoints of other people and thereby usher in the utopia. I think that's all appalling, I think it's appalling. And I think it's absolutely absurd that students are taught that that's the way to conduct themselves in the world. First of all, if you're nineteen or twenty or twenty one, you don't bloody well know anything. You haven't done anything. You don't know anything about history, you haven't read anything, you haven't supported yourself for any length of time. You've been entirely dependent on your state and on your family for the brief few years of your existence. And the idea that you have any wisdom to determine how society should be reconstructed when you're sitting in the absolute lap of luxury protected by processes you don't understand… let's call that a bad idea… The idea that what you should do to change the world is to find people you disagree with and shake paper on sticks at them

OP Article again

Here he is associating gender neutral pronouns with genocidal marxism

First, I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.
...

Bill C-16 is dangerous legislation. Those who formulated it and who are pushing it and its sister legislation are dangerous people. I'm not going to use their words. Read the Ontario Human Rights Commission website dealing with such things. Formulate your own opinions. Decide for yourself

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-right-to-be-politically-incorrect

Here's him calling the concept of privilege a marxist lie:

Peterson said it's not possible to understand our current society without considering the role postmodernism plays within it, "because postmodernism, in many ways—especially as it's played out politically—is the new skin that the old Marxism now inhabits."

"Even the French intellectuals had to admit that communism was a bad deal by the end of the 1960s," he said. From there, the communists played a "sleight of hand game, in some sense," and rebranded their ideology "under a postmodern guise."

The Marxist concepts of the "oppressed and the oppressor" continued to manifest themselves in countless ways eventually leading to the coining of the phrase "white privilege" by Peggy McIntosh in the late 1980s. Eventually, the neo-Marxist concept of "white privilege" evolved into social doctrine within progressive political camps. Even more concerning is that the fallacy of "white privilege" has found its way in through Reformed Christian circles and into the two largest Protestant denominations in the United States: The Southern Baptist Convention and The Presbyterian Church in America.

https://sovereignnations.com/2018/0...xist-lie-white-privilege/#55c28tlVEjTxDds5.99


And btw Sovereign Nations hosted that talk: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1572028706194592&id=145917588805718


They engage in Soros and Cultural Marxist conspiracy reporting:
And don't tell me we can't judge him based on whose organizations he decided to give a speech to... especially when they are ideologically alligned on the topic he was invited to speak on.



Lindsay Shepherd, a now well known follower of his, used her new found fame to immediately invite a white nationalist to speak at her school (a white nationalist that even Peterson himself had once dropped from his speaking group)

Here's citations on Faith Goldy

Faith Goldy was too right wing for Rebel Meia... aka Canadian Fox News:


and Dropped from a speaking tour by Jordan Peterson:

Peterson criticized Goldy's journalistic integrity and suggested her tragic flaw is that she's too "agreeable," but ultimately, the professor said, Goldy was axed because her questionable ties with neo-Nazis made her "too hot" to associate with his brand:

"She became too hot of a property for us, and not just for us, and well, that was the reason for the decision. That was my reasoning."

http://pressprogress.ca/jordan-pete...ing-speaker-from-free-speech-on-campus-event/


Oh and since I'm sourcing everything... here's the story about his Nuclear Annihilation nightmares being his origin story of sorts

He finished undergrad at the University of Alberta, first studying political science and then psychology. In Peterson's retelling, he endured psychic turmoil like other students suffer hangovers. He became obsessed with the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, and, for a year or so, was haunted by apocalyptic nightmares. He became depressed and confused about the world's—and his own—capacity for evil.

Literature offered both solace and solutions. He dove deeply into writings by those who would form his world view: Jung, Nietzsche and Solzhenitsyn. On his website, Peterson lists recommended books, a syllabus he could have compiled, for the most part, when he was in his early 20s: Orwell, Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky, as well as Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking."Trigger warning," he writes sardonically, "these are the most terrifying books I have encountered." Number 13 on the list is one that Peterson himself wrote—Maps of Meaning, his attempt to untangle the roots of belief-based violence. Peterson began the book at McGill, where he completed his PhD, and worked on it for 15 years. Published in 1999, Maps of Meaning is a dense and difficult blend of psychology, mythology, philosophy and neuroscience.

https://torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral-pronouns/


And a bonus his inability to support gay marriage


And that should about cover it.
 
Last edited:

Clefargle

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,124
Limburg
Here's the deal fuck it... He's not far alt-right fine but he is hella right wing and his rhetoric and his associations encourage his followers to go further than him... see Lindsay Shepherd.

He's a gateway drug.

Yeah he's the bridge between naive anti-establishment contrarian left and the alt-light diet bigotry YT is famous for. And their commonality? Bashing liberals
 

Arebours

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
Here's a few more choice ones then:
You conveniently left out the quote where is said that while he deplores identity politics, white identity politics is the worst flavor of it. I don't necessarily think people should listen to Sam Harris for his political opinions but he is not a nazi-apologist, alt-righter or rightwing. As for the rest, it's amazing how you did exactly the thing I asked you not to(using tweets and out of context clips as sources). I've seen tweets from that user before and taking things out of context to misrepresent views and make people look bad and is what he does.
Link me the original podcast with timestamps, I assume you've listened to it. If not maybe that's a good place to start for forming your own opinion.

Look I even found a link corroborating the above, from the same homepage you posted, featuring the same twitter user:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...rt-to-discredit-him/?utm_campaign=shareaholic
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
I find it fantastic that because he hasn't actually defined Cultural Marxism, his followers just kind of make up their own meanings.

That was what I was getting at. Three (two) different interpretations at least and even then, these interpretations are not concrete.

Sorry you spent so much time transcribing this while I was sleeping!

You shouldn't really have bothered, but to tackle this, letme just put things in order.

Main point: Peterson hates what he calls Progressive Marxism or what he believes to be a (what I would call) a mob mentality based on constant prism of victimisation coupled with radicalisation, in which the designated victims demand rules to be put in place which are not entirely understood and lead to societal changes and experiments similar to those that in 20th century led to huge losses of life and which he believes were predicted in 19th Century by Nietzsche and could be avoided today.

Like that's his whole mindset in the simplest form I can put it and I omit some things so don't crucify me.

The solution, again simplified, is self actualisation through rules and free thinking outside of group mentality and moving away from victim-perpetrator Marxist ideology.

Everything else he says can be generally traced back to the points above.

1. He's combative that's true and you can reject such approach but the man practices what he preaches really. The whole lobster thing is about being combative. I'd say the interviewer should've pushed harder and was weak with his arguments. He could've challenged Peterson more on women at work statistics or other things but was mumbling half the time. Maybe in part it is his combativeness and assertiveness that makes Peterson so popular?

2. I will say it one last time, you transcribed it so there's no better proof. Person says that the point is pushed way beyond where he was going with it. You see the initial make up question was just a provocation - to illustrate the ongoing point that rules are murky, we don't know how to behave at work fundamentally and we're acting on impulse while we can't have a civil conversation about it without getting emotional or even honest with each other. And I said before of course in such caricature scenario the logic is still sound: make up is sexual display so it leads to sexualization of workplace which means that technically if woman puts on makeup and doesnt want any attention there's an implicit hypocrisy.

3. However, it's all beyond the actual point, a simplified fictional question, and not a serious discussio. But it could be if we're to cross all the dots over what constitutes sexual behavior at work. Which we don't, which we shouldn't and which Peterson rejects and suggests as you transcribed a more fluid form of communication. We accept that sometimes pretty women catch our eye at work but they can express themselves and men behave appropriately and we show a certain amount of tension which is natural.

4. NBC policy if true is indeed unfortunate. That's probably the best example of overreach that Peterson is afraid of.
Now we have Progressive Marxism. You start if good with the mob mentality bit but who has been radicalized? I don't see leftists driving into mobs of people. Or attack minorities. Or all the other shit racists have done. And what societal changes? The ones in Russia? What about the ones here in America such as the Civil Righrs Era or Suffrage?

I will say it again, Peterson said that the work relationships between men and women have deteriorated over the last forty years. How did that happen? What the hell is he talking about?
 

Goat Mimicry

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,920
And I said before of course in such caricature scenario the logic is still sound: make up is sexual display so it leads to sexualization of workplace which means that technically if woman puts on makeup and doesnt want any attention there's an implicit hypocrisy.

So following Peterson's logic, technically if a guy tell a woman to wear more makeup, that guy is asking her to display herself sexually? Because that would be some pretty clear-cut sexual harassment by most workplace standards. For such an intellectual, it doesn't seem like he thinks these things through.

He also doesn't seem to get that women are sexually harassed even when they're not wearing makeup or nice clothes, which is something he could have remedied by listening to a few of them. It's like he's in an echo chamber or something.
 
Last edited:

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,326
right. You were totally about to whip out that little bon mot and we're not at all implying that Peterson started it. but way to google.

...

Ummm... what? I was absolutely going to whip that link out and I was never implying Peterson started it. Why the hell would I do that? That would make no sense. The reason invoking cultural marxism as a phrase is a red flag is because of its history within the Frankfurt School Conspiracy. Why would I be claiming that Peterson invented it? Doing that would mean I would be claiming the phrase has no history or real meaning... its history and meaning is exactly why it's relevant that he's used it in the past.

But way to make and utterly bizarre assumption and assume I'm an idiot who didn't know the origins of the concept and had to "google it"
 
Last edited:

Clefargle

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,124
Limburg
io the logic is still sound: make up is sexual display so it leads to sexualization of workplace which means that technically if woman puts on makeup and doesnt want any attention there's an implicit hypocrisy.

No it isn't. Some women aren't into men, and men are the primary agressors in sexual harassment. So it is possible for a woman to put on makeup for NO ONE at work and not "deserve" to be harassed.
 

Spuck-

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
996
You conveniently left out the quote where is said that while he deplores identity politics, white identity politics is the worst flavor of it.

I didn't conveniently leave it out, but thanks for bringing it up. It's good evidence of him being incoherent and counteracting his own dumb arguments.

He isnt alt right but he does their rhetorical trick of never backing up anything he says, so he's not worth anyones time.
 

Atrophis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,172
right. You were totally about to whip out that little bon mot and we're not at all implying that Peterson started it. but way to google.

Petersons far too stupid to invent something like the Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory himself. He just borrowed it from Neo Nazis and started applying it to anyone on the left who he dislikes.
 

nemoral

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,081
Fiddler's Green
Peterson is a half-assed self-help guru and the people who buy his snake oil are sad sacks. Shouldn't be treated any more seriously than people who live their lives by The Secret. All bullshit peddled to make people feel better about how shitty they are.
 

Ursus007

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
202
Lausanne, Swizterland
So following Peterson's logic, technically if a guy tell a woman to wear more makeup, that guy is asking her to display herself sexually? Because that would be some pretty clear-cut sexual harassment by most workplace standards.

Well yes... Maybe I'm not reading you right, but that sounds all true to me, what's the problem?

No it isn't. Some women aren't into men, and men are the primary agressors in sexual harassment. So it is possible for a woman to put on makeup for NO ONE at work and not "deserve" to be harassed.

I addressed this overreaction in previous post yesterday, nobody is saying what you're implying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.