-
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.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
"He doesn't officially refer to himself a conservative, therefore he can't be one."
aka The Peterson's defense.
"I can't be something if I don't claim that I am".
And the corollary, "If I claim I am something, I am unquestionably that thing." AKA Centrists
Calls for parents to take their kids out of schools that bring up diversity and white privilege and for cultural Marxists to be kicked out of academia would be pretty anti-intellectual, wouldn't you agree?
All of this discussion over whether or not he's a Christian or atheist proves that Peterson is vague and imprecise.
He is The Secret incarnate
In this clip Jordan is asked straight up whether he's a Christian at 12:52. Naturally he responds with one of his famously precise answers: yes. When he's asked whether he believes in the literal resurrection of Christ, things get wobbly
Last edited:
As someone that has spent a lot of time talking to christians, atheists, and deists... I would suggest not getting hung up on qualifiers like that when tackling somebody slippery like this. I know liberal christians that only support <5% of the Bible as fact, but they will defend their title as a "Christian" through the night. I've met atheists that agree with more of the Bible than those people, and they go to church regularly for their families. Ultimately, it's easier to look at their claims all lined up, and address each on the merits. Whatever JP is in actuality in his heart, he's a charlatan no matter what. None of his arguments hold water and are full of fallacy.
This is all too common behavior by contrarians of all stripes. Hide behind soft unassailable rhetoric (self help), then lace in the chum that gets you the attention you need to develop a serious following. Then just act attacked and aggrieved around the clock and try to draw a big enough spotlight to yourself to suit your ends. (Money, fame, power, respect)
This was essentially the creationist/ID movement for decades. They leverage any part of the education system they could against society similar to what the NRA gets away with these days. If you let them get their foot in the door, they'll use it to make themselves look legitimate. It's all about the thin sheen of legitimacy they crave from society. Because they don't ave the evidence on their side or popular opinion on their side, they have to pry it out of us with tricks.
Peterson rings all the alarm bells for me, he's caging his language in a way to be as inoffensive as possible while simultaneously not sounding PC. It's very calculated and tailored to his audience. His self help stuff is a classic snake oil tactic from waaaay back. His "just asking questions" routine is straight out of Scientology thugs, or flat earther conventions. And then the misogyny is just the cherry on top that always seems to underly the shitlord aesthetic.
This is all too common behavior by contrarians of all stripes. Hide behind soft unassailable rhetoric (self help), then lace in the chum that gets you the attention you need to develop a serious following. Then just act attacked and aggrieved around the clock and try to draw a big enough spotlight to yourself to suit your ends. (Money, fame, power, respect)
This was essentially the creationist/ID movement for decades. They leverage any part of the education system they could against society similar to what the NRA gets away with these days. If you let them get their foot in the door, they'll use it to make themselves look legitimate. It's all about the thin sheen of legitimacy they crave from society. Because they don't ave the evidence on their side or popular opinion on their side, they have to pry it out of us with tricks.
Peterson rings all the alarm bells for me, he's caging his language in a way to be as inoffensive as possible while simultaneously not sounding PC. It's very calculated and tailored to his audience. His self help stuff is a classic snake oil tactic from waaaay back. His "just asking questions" routine is straight out of Scientology thugs, or flat earther conventions. And then the misogyny is just the cherry on top that always seems to underly the shitlord aesthetic.
Apparently Peterson announced he no longer believes in God this year.
When I lived in Colorado Springs, there was a very strong Christian conservative sentiment. As a teacher there, I had to sign a document agreeing not to teach evolution in the classroom, and I had to verbally agree that it was a "political movement", not a scientific theory. For that reason, I have planned on homeschooling my son for a long time - I don't want him indoctrinated into their perspective because I consider it dangerous. I don't think that makes me anti-intellectual. If someone is looking at other, more liberal schools and is concerned about their child being indoctrinated into a perspective they disagree with, then I don't see that as anti-intellectual. I do think it's fair to call Peterson anti-diversity if he is specifically using that kind of language. But every parent should be reflecting on what schools teach their children, and whether they are okay with that. These are government institutions that belong to the people they work for, and right now schools are in a tricky position where they want to teach values to kids because they need it (oh god, do they need it), but parents get upset so we try to be value-free. A major discussion about what schools should really be doing in this country is long overdue, and I hope that Peterson's offense at modern education leads to more conversations. This generation is waking up to a lot of things our parents slept on for some reason, and it's great to see. Assuming Trump is forcefully removed from office, I think him getting elected is for the best in this country.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist yourself here.
Peterson got famous only recently. He's been a lecturer for years. There is no "calculation": Peterson never expected this.
The self help stuff actually came LAST. His lectures came first, long before any PETERSON DESTROYS LIBERUL moment. Maps of Meaning came before 12 rules.
In your fear, disgust, or probably both, you are trying to portray Peterson as a deviously cunning master strategist. He's not. He just got popular mostly out of the blue for saying "stop, no further." at the right time.
You're trying to portray him as someone looking for legitimacy from society. That's laughable. The guy is a succes in practically every metric. Look at his career. He was earning plenty of money before he became famous as well.
And finally you are trying to portray Peterson as someone with malicious intent, which I find very strange. It seems far more likely to me that he genuinely wants to help people and wants to understand how to keep society from falling into groupthink and ideological pitfalls.
If he justed wanted to be a self help guru preying on insecure young men with the goal of making cash, there are tons of easier ways to do it that don't require multiple days worth of video content ranging from the Bible, to Nietschze and Postmodernism. Not the most sexy or marketable subjects at all.
I would even take it one step further and propose that the number one reason Peterson succes has skyrocketed lately, is the he is actually genuine in his passion and mission to lift young men (and women) up to save them from the pitfalls of meaninglesness and nihilism.
Particulary white men who have been used as the one group you can always spit on, no questions asked, in certain "progressive" circles.
With this kind of rhetoric, is it any wonder a counter narrative has risen?
Now in stark contrast to the above, watch Peterson show some actual humanity:
Last edited:
Interesting equating schools teaching diversity, white privilege and other liberal topics to Christian conservative schools as if the liberal stuff is anti-intellectual with no factual evidence backing it. At least I see where you're coming from.
Guys, Peterson, suffer from a bias: Dunning–Kruger effect. He take a lot of hot topics of psychology and makes a hot pot. He wants to be a Jung 2.0. that 2.0, is taking evolutionary psychology premises and coat his jungian formation with them. For example the example of the lobster, that he uses to justify that Hierarchies aren't a human construct but a biological construct. He is making there a fallacy, circular reasoning, because he finish his argument with the same premise, both organism have a serotonin circuit. The thing is... he knows a lot about Jung and nothing more. The punch-line is that he is in fact chopping a huge part of the jungian theory because he knows that if he talks about that, he is fucked and that the animus and anima aspects of the self. That is, everyone have a tendency of liking boys and girls and having boys and girls traits regardless their sexual preference. If he talks about that and quote Jung saying that he felt and erotic pull from Freud when the two wrote letters his whole theory about gender is debunk.
Oversoul, there is no reason to take any of this personally or read more into my opinion than I posted. I think if you looked a a lot of recently popular alt right figures on YT, you would find quite a few that didn't rise to prominence by trying to actively court the alt right at the beginning. Most of them seemed harmless and their content was inoffensive until they started cultivating a sizaeable enough alt right following.
If you read my post a bit more carefully, maybe you'd be able to parse the points where I'm talking about Peterson directly, and points where I'm talking about his fans, and the broader anti-intellectual contrarian shitlord circles which feed off him.
Peterson may not have "tried" to cultivate a fanbase full of bigots, but he sure did benefit from it incidentally. And no matter how much his fans say he disavowed the alt right, I've never seen him make a full throated demarcation himself. He's certainly embraced his newfound popularity without many qualifiers and without making it crystal clear what his positions are. (This thread proves that).
The rest of my quote is in reference to pseudoscience movements I've studied over the years and there is certainly overlap with Peterson. The alt right, creationists, and flat earth morons are CONSTANTLY searching for figures in academia to validate their nonsense. It's common to find them quoting discredited academics or professors out of context so that they have some semblance of rigor. Ive seen hundreds of examples of creationists doing this. The fact that you think it's conspiratorial is pretty naive. If you've never seen these charlatans first hand, then you might not understand how brazenly they will use any leverage they can to get validation.
Many of Petersons positions are toxic but his fanbase is more toxic. If he is unaware that his arguments are being used by hatemongers to push bigotry, then he is ignorant. If he's intelligent as you believe, well maybe he's willfully ignorant. Sure is funny how that worked out huh? Peterson gets to look like a harmless selfhelp guru to the new channels, he gets to look like a savior to shitlords, he gets to make money off of books bought by unsuspecting suckers that don't know they're reading snake oil, and he gets plausible deniability for the whole thing because for some reason people give him a pass cause he talks softly or something.
If you read my post a bit more carefully, maybe you'd be able to parse the points where I'm talking about Peterson directly, and points where I'm talking about his fans, and the broader anti-intellectual contrarian shitlord circles which feed off him.
Peterson may not have "tried" to cultivate a fanbase full of bigots, but he sure did benefit from it incidentally. And no matter how much his fans say he disavowed the alt right, I've never seen him make a full throated demarcation himself. He's certainly embraced his newfound popularity without many qualifiers and without making it crystal clear what his positions are. (This thread proves that).
The rest of my quote is in reference to pseudoscience movements I've studied over the years and there is certainly overlap with Peterson. The alt right, creationists, and flat earth morons are CONSTANTLY searching for figures in academia to validate their nonsense. It's common to find them quoting discredited academics or professors out of context so that they have some semblance of rigor. Ive seen hundreds of examples of creationists doing this. The fact that you think it's conspiratorial is pretty naive. If you've never seen these charlatans first hand, then you might not understand how brazenly they will use any leverage they can to get validation.
Many of Petersons positions are toxic but his fanbase is more toxic. If he is unaware that his arguments are being used by hatemongers to push bigotry, then he is ignorant. If he's intelligent as you believe, well maybe he's willfully ignorant. Sure is funny how that worked out huh? Peterson gets to look like a harmless selfhelp guru to the new channels, he gets to look like a savior to shitlords, he gets to make money off of books bought by unsuspecting suckers that don't know they're reading snake oil, and he gets plausible deniability for the whole thing because for some reason people give him a pass cause he talks softly or something.
Oh cool, so Oversoul actually recognizes that Peteron's entire audience are angry white men.
I think we're making some progress. Maybe now we can dig into the fact that Peterson is creating scapegoats for this specific group of people and talk about why this specific group of people all want social regression for those who don't fit their own mold.
I think we're making some progress. Maybe now we can dig into the fact that Peterson is creating scapegoats for this specific group of people and talk about why this specific group of people all want social regression for those who don't fit their own mold.
Pulling kids out of school if they talk about white privilege, diversity, and inclusiveness is anti-intellectual because those things exist or are sorely needed. Pulling your kid out of class because the school doesn't want to teach evolution is not anti-intellectual because evolution is real. It's not the act of pulling your kid out that is anti-intellectual, it's the reason for doing it.
I hope Peterson's offense at modern education doesn't lead to more conversations. I don't want his offense to be the jumping off point. I think poisons the well and starts off the conversation on a negative note that leads to inaction or worse.
The amount of victimhood is appalling.
Not going by the lecture attendance, which is more varied. YT does seems to have a more male centric demographic, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RCmu-HuTg
This is why just analyzing Peterson's appeal as an angry young white guy thing seem to miss the mark. Krisoffer touched on this earlier.
That's not say that Peterson is harmless and beyond reproach obviously. Many have provided clear arguments against his worldview in this thread.
However, just handwaving his appeal to angry young white guys is rather superficial analysis.
That lecture is loaded with the amount of "diversity" I would expect
And of course, if his appeal wasn't "angry white men", why would a supporter of his whip out that Salon collage as a way to excuse his... predominantly white male audience.
It's hardly superficial when you listen to what he says, how he says it, how he frames it, and why a very select group of people have been cheering him on and arguably funding his existence.
I think Peterson knows his audience is largely white males, and if I recall correctly, he has said that if that audience exists, then it needs to be addressed. Otherwise it will become a problem. And it has become a problem, as we all know. It is going to be a bigger problem if people continually invalidate those feelings of anger and treat them as though they are groundless instead of listening. Of course, I'd prefer it if Peterson redirected their anger toward the rich, where I think it properly belongs (I'm a bit of a Marxist myself).
Peterson definitely wouldn't be my preferring jumping-off point for a discussion about values in modern education, but no one else is doing it, so I'm glad it might happen in some way. There's almost no discussion about how the Republican Party is using charter schools to indoctrinate children into conservative ideology, for example. Hell, my last school even had Ben Carson's Gifted Hands as one of the freshmen reading books, and it was preached as gospel. Terrifying.
Intellectual is a way of processing and relating to things. It's a question of how much you apply your intellect to any given situation. I would say that Peterson is very intellectual, and I don't see how that can be disagreed with.
The bolded is a valuation - if you apply your intellect with a different set of values, you will end up at a different conclusion. Obviously, that's what Peterson is doing here. I'm not saying that I agree with Peterson, obviously, but the label "anti-intellectual" isn't fitting. You can be a Christian conservative and intellectual.
Peterson definitely wouldn't be my preferring jumping-off point for a discussion about values in modern education, but no one else is doing it, so I'm glad it might happen in some way. There's almost no discussion about how the Republican Party is using charter schools to indoctrinate children into conservative ideology, for example. Hell, my last school even had Ben Carson's Gifted Hands as one of the freshmen reading books, and it was preached as gospel. Terrifying.
Wrong.
Are the scapegoats our uncleaned rooms?
Seriously, he's obviously describing factors that contributed to men being lost but he never concludes "see men, you can't help it, it's not your fault it's the women/postmodernists/whatever!"
Then who exactly is crafting and creating the counter narrative you pointed out? Why wold you point that collection of Salon article headlines and counter it with Peterson?
I'm seeing women in the comment section. They could be fake accounts who knows.That lecture is loaded with the amount of "diversity" I would expect
And of course, if his appeal wasn't "angry white men", why would a supporter of his whip out that Salon collage as a way to excuse his... predominantly white male audience.
It's hardly superficial when you listen to what he says, how he says it, how he frames it, and why a very select group of people have been cheering him on and arguably funding his existence.
But my point is that a good portion of his appeal cannot be only based on is PC gone amok crusading. Although I agree it is a part of it. And none of this stuff is new as well. Rush Limbaugh has been saying this stuff for decades as well.
But they're a clear appeal to his discussion on ''meaning" and how the individual fits into society. These are discussion that our secularized Western world has not found non-religious avenues to discuss at length. This is a huge part of his appeal. But I don't disagree with you on him also being an attack dog as well. All I'm saying is his appeal is more nuanced that people are giving him credit. He was filling up lectures on Bible stories way before the Cathy Newman interview, which boosted his presence to its highest levels so far.
Could you see Ben Shapiro fill lectures in London like Peterson did?
I bolded entire for a reason. Be precise in your speech, was it not?
I do think white men are his prime demographic. But there will be all kinds of people who will start listening to Peterson as he becomes more well-known. According to Peterson himself at least, more women are showing up to his talks lately. I don't see why he would lie about this, since he has stated that his audience being predominately male is not a problem at all.
As Karsticles puts it, it's no wonder why this is happening. And it's not a bad thing IMO. It's long overdue. The alternative is people to ideas that are infinitely worse than "clean your room, work on yourself first".
What exactly does that mean.
But yea, keep ignoring when he directly victim blames and tells young men they are born with direct disadvantages. It's not like he's doing that for a specific reason.
As long as you gobble up his extremely bland and generic self help that just so happens to be wrapped around social regression of women/minority rights, it's all groovy.
I've already seen how this game is played, it's so amazingly simple of deflection of specifics that Peterson has said and advocated for through "just asking questions", and the propping up his his beyond mundane "self help" that I would be better suited taking a chainsaw to my frontal lobe.
There is a reason he has a following, there is always a market for snake oil salesmen.
Last edited:
I don't really see this in his message at all. Like I said earlier, he particularly is clear about telling young men to get their act together. He rarely if ever says the same thing to women. A good part of his appeal is being a surrogate stern father figure. It's why his invective to "Clean Your Room" have reached meme territory. And regarding snake oil salesmen, all his stuff is on YT for free.
He's not a Tony Robbin that gates his stuff behind expensive AF live events and sales funnels--executive level, platinum, etc.
You can be Christian conserve and intellectual, yes, but if you support ideas such as pulling out your kids if they taught evolution, or diversity, or inclusiveness, or white privilege or any other such "progressive" ideas, you're an anti-intellectual. Peterson is an intellectual, but he espouses some anti-intellectual things such as calling women hypocrites, suggesting kids be pulled out of school because he doesn't want diversity, intentionally misinterpreting the bill that made him famous and is continuing to do so apparently, and so on.
I see people talking about modern education and how all of it is funded all of the time. It's the divisive, ass-backwards shit like Peterson's suggestion that gets play.
Just a reminder, you're talking about the person who called Frozen feminist propaganda,
Said women who wear makeup and demand to not be sexually harassed are hypocrites
And said men are twice as likely to fail at life because they are a man
But yea, those young men really need to get their act together, that's clearly the core foundation of what he has been saying.
What disadvantages are males born with according to Peterson?
More importantly, his entire message (and a fair point of critique in this thread made multiple times!) is that no disadvantage is ever an excuse for not trying to be the best you can be. Bear your load, life is suffering, yada yada. So how is that victim blaming? Peterson puts the blame, in the end, always on the individual and how he/she/they choose to to play the afformentioned dealt hand.
Also Peterson is not promoting social regression for minorities/women etc. He's just not focussing on their specific issues (although he touches on some women specific one regarding career and motherhood).
But that's the cool thing about the marketplace of ideas. There are other people who can put their focus elsewhere and on different demographics or ideas.
You can't expect Peterson to adress every issue. He's not some omnipotent ubermensch who understands every issue. In my opinion he already adresses too much.
But as Korsticles and others have explained, he chooses to prioritizes certain topics and discussions because he feels they aren't being talked about enough.
Just a reminder, you're talking about the person who called Frozen feminist propaganda,
Said women who wear makeup and demand to not be sexually harassed are hypocrites
And said men are twice as likely to fail at life because they are a man
But yea, those young men really need to get their act together!
I'm not defending what Peterson has said. All I'm saying that his appeal isn't as one dimensional as some are purporting.
I disagree with Peterson on many things. But you can certainly address the his surge in avenues beyond him being conservative firebrand. He's tapping into other cultural veins.
I'm going to stop replying to you considering you've spent this entire thread specifically ignoring people who give you links and exact examples of Peterson directly victim blaming. Go read up on my previous posts or the above posts for examples.
You said,
I just gave you specific examples of him in three completely separate situations crafting narratives that young men are being targeted by society and him directly blaming women.
1) Frozen is feminist propaganda that women don't need men anymore.
2) Women are blaming men for sexual harassment when they are the ones enticing men with makeup
3) Women choose their partners, biology has men at a 2:1 disadvantage because of women.
Now, we've already been over this earlier in the thread. It doesn't take a fucking genius or someone who is capable of "asking questions" to piece together how amazingly stupid each one of these points he has made is.
So, anyone who wants to make a point that Peterson is just talking about self help, I'm going to link his words and examples of what he specifically thinks of the people who just so happen to be causing issues for young men.
Last edited:
Let me go through that list:Particulary white men who have been used as the one group you can always spit on, no questions asked, in certain "progressive" circles.
With this kind of rhetoric, is it any wonder a counter narrative has risen?
"10 ways white people are more racist than they realize" - bringing attention to the biases of white people is not "spitting on white people."
"College is still for white people" - this is not wrong. The college system was set up with white people specifically in mind.
"The deep roots of white trash" - the author goes out of her way to criticize how the racists were poor in To Kill a Mockingbird. She's literally pointing out how insidious the concept of white trash is. That's outright sympathetic to white people.
"White supremacy and Trump: the toxic combo that's killing people - white people" - this one is about how white people are being screwed over by white supremacy. How exactly does pointing out something that's hurting white people hurt white people?
"Are white men waging the real 'war on cops?'" - there have been shootings of police officers by white people that have gotten far less attention than smaller shootings of police officers by black people.
"Why is it always a white guy" - I'd have to read this one, but based on the headline, sure, I guess I can give you that one.
"White people calling for unity" - it's true that you have a bunch of white people who call for unity after a tragedy while also doing jack shit about it, especially Republicans.
"White progressives' racial myopia" - it's not wrong that people like Sanders have trouble with talking about race issues.
"How to talk about white people" - look at the line right below it - "Discussing America's soon-to-be-newest minority with care and respect, not stereotyping and scorn." The article itself is about how minorities can engage with white people and includes such lines as "Don't assume that whites are wealthy" and "Don't assume that whites are racists." Again, that's spitting on white people to you? How?
"White America's death crisis" - this one is not against white people. It mentions how people are less sympathetic to poor white people because those poor white people are compared to minorities. It ends with how white people were tricked by political elites by a divide and conquer strategy that keeps both people of color and white people from unifying (making both groups worse off as a whole), which is historically accurate.
"White men must be stopped" - okay, you can have this one.
"What would a white man do" - this one could have used the advice from the "How to talk about white people" article, yes.
"Condemn white supremacy? Great! But no special credit, white people" - it's true. If people who claimed to stand against white supremacist groups like the KKK and what not actually cared enough to do anything about it, we wouldn't have Trump as president right now.
"#CrimingWhileWhite does pay" - nothing offensive here.
"White privilege has enormous implications for policy - but whites don't think it exists" - it's blunt, but accurate.
"White guys are killing us," "White male tempertantrums, " "White guy killer syndrome," and "The plague of angry white men" - I could see someone getting offended at the headlines, but the contents of the articles seem fine to me.
The rhetoric, for the most part, isn't the problem. The problem is that you're looking to be offended, and I can tell because you didn't even read some of the headlines or subtitles, let alone the articles themselves. For all that talk about how people should listen to hours of Peterson's speeches to put his quotes into context, it's funny that you couldn't be bothered to do a bit of light reading to put those headlines into context yourself (and again, some of that light reading would have needed nothing more than for you to check the subtitles).
It's just nuts to me that you don't think any of the articles listed about show humanity to white people. Some of the articles are highly sympathetic, while others are bluntly about white people taking personal responsibility (something I would think Peterson fans would appreciate if they were logically consistent). If not even the white trash one shows humanity to you then I'm not sure what would.
Last edited:
The first two are fair criticisms. Yet, he's not constructing his entire message on those points. But I'll give you those. The third one is odd, though. He's speaking from a biological evolutionary perspective. Did you listen to it? He's not saying men are qualitative failures. I don't see how anyone can read that as victim blaming.
He's taking an observation about biology and using it to say how things "ought" to be. That's not how it works
I already said that Peterson obviously states factors that make "life" more difficult for men or explains factors that contributed to the current state of young men becoming aimless and prone to fall prey to nihilism.
But you seem unable to grasp that this doesn't diminish his lesson/message/whatever not even one bit. Because it's part of it. "Life IS hard, BUT..."
Well, we tried.
Did he though? He's explaining biological "success". Human have moved on from those notions of success--well mostly. We define our success. I don't see him saying it ought to be that way.
He's telling a class of young men that they have 50% more chance of failure in life because they are men. Because women choose and rate men. He fucking loves using biology, because those who are unfamiliar with biology won't be able to tell him how much of an idiot he is being when using biology, and if you come back at him and don't know much about biology he will attack you for attacking "science". We already have examples of how fucking stupid his lobster biology example is, so we know he has a history of talking out of his ass to suit a narrative.
Funny how he's using the example of "biology". I wonder how his example would work out if we apply to the entire history of human society? You know, the actual use case of the biology he is talking about.
Tell me, what is the message he is crafting on these points? These three separate messages that all just happen to include women as the source of the issue?
How about you stop fucking ignoring what he is saying instead of sucking down his worthless self help.
If you need some random shmuck on youtube to tell you life is hard and you need to soldier on, one of the most common and least insightful examples of self help, then what exactly are you even capable of doing by yourself?
His essential message is responsibility.
That's not to say that he hasn't said toxic and vile things. But that's not his main thesis.
Here's a good summary.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...p/news-story/c1996c25c093450c7aad68000f9d0101
Again this is basic message.
However, this does not free him the criticism he's receiving. I have no problem with those attacking his problematic statements. it's fair game, but his message is easily distilled.
I have no issues with attacking him on his words and statement. My argument has always been to accurately state the Jordan Peterson phenomenon. And that does not absolve him from criticism either.
His main thesis is entirely dependent on his toxic and vile things, that's the entire point. These are not separate issues, they are directly connected. You are incorrectly disconnecting the things he says and treating them as separate issues to his core message which is directly crafted from his world view.
It's actually amazing that you just posted a quote talking about how "it's someone else's fault", when the three examples I just gave you are DIRECTLY BLAMING WOMEN for the faults of men.
The message he is trying to sell is "self responsibility", yet so much of what he says is blaming other groups for causing issues.
Men can't find partners because women are being more independent and don't need men (Frozen)
Men are being blamed for sexual harassment when women wear makeup in the workplace
Men are born at a biological disadvantage (even though human history shows men have far, FAR more control on their partners than women have ever had)
Last edited:
No need to make this personal. You seem really, really intent on focussing on specific sentences Peterson uses to illustrate the first part of his selfhelp message "life is hard"
I choose to look at the second part, which also contains the call to action: "..but in the end, YOU must take responsibillity for it and try to make it better"
In my estimate, the latter is far more important and forms the core of his message. You seem to disagree. Well, then further discussion on our part seems to be fruitless.
I must admit, I do find some humor in how the tone in your posts seems to resemble Petersons twitter account on a bad day now.
Why yes, I'm really intent on citing specific examples to reenforce my argument, how kind of you to notice.
You just admitted to hand-washing away his specific examples of blaming others because you like the "take ownership" part of his message.
Even when that's literally contradicting his own actions when out giving lectures, writing or doing interviews.
Here is an example of an equivalent charlatan to Peterson:
Ken Ham
He is an Australian Creationist with quite a following since before I was born and before Peterson was relevant. He fits all the criteria:
- Foreign born but has disproportionately large US fanbase
- Contrarian and anti intellectual
- Rose to prominence by using "soft" rhetoric that most christians believe in (Noah's ark)
- Cultivated gargantuan followings in the 90s/00s with his creation museum and his apologetics website (https://answersingenesis.org/)
- Sold books and curriculum full of alternative facts and was cited by thousands of creationists on YT for a decade.
- made media appearances on network TV
- Is actually fundamentalist right wing nut job but wraps his bullshit in...wait for it....bible verses!
- family friendly and also talks a lot of crap about transgender and gay people.
- has ties to bullshit "universities" or diploma mills
The similarities are there, whether Peterson became a charlatan the same day he began practicing psychology is different from whether or not he is one now.
Ken Ham
He is an Australian Creationist with quite a following since before I was born and before Peterson was relevant. He fits all the criteria:
- Foreign born but has disproportionately large US fanbase
- Contrarian and anti intellectual
- Rose to prominence by using "soft" rhetoric that most christians believe in (Noah's ark)
- Cultivated gargantuan followings in the 90s/00s with his creation museum and his apologetics website (https://answersingenesis.org/)
- Sold books and curriculum full of alternative facts and was cited by thousands of creationists on YT for a decade.
- made media appearances on network TV
- Is actually fundamentalist right wing nut job but wraps his bullshit in...wait for it....bible verses!
- family friendly and also talks a lot of crap about transgender and gay people.
- has ties to bullshit "universities" or diploma mills
The similarities are there, whether Peterson became a charlatan the same day he began practicing psychology is different from whether or not he is one now.
I've never tried to portray myself as "the calm centrist" here, so that doesn't exactly mean much.
Also notice how he calls Frozen feminist propaganda, and Beauty and the Beast "art".
Peterson has a habit of talking out of his ass on subjects he as no knowledge about, yet pretends to have. I wonder why?
The animated version is deconstruction of the original source in a way (as pointed out in the video) and is extremely political because of it.
But yes, Peterson is just a vault of fine crafted insights on society
Peterson has a habit of talking out of his ass on subjects he as no knowledge about, yet pretends to have. I wonder why?
The animated version is deconstruction of the original source in a way (as pointed out in the video) and is extremely political because of it.
But yes, Peterson is just a vault of fine crafted insights on society
Last edited:
It's weird how putting Peterson's words into context is a bad thing only when that context leaves no wiggle room to make him look good.
Last edited:
Everyone knows life is hard, but people aren't just sitting around and doing nothing about it. People are acting. They're marching; they're calling reps; they're trying to get better educations, not for just themselves, but for everyone. People want their States to be better, they want the country to be better, they want the world to be better, but Peterson is so intensely focused on the individual that he decries activism and such. He tells you to have your house in order before you try to change the world, but it doesn't work like that. It can't work like that. Sometimes, the world at large is holding you back. His approach to this is myopic and shortsighted and it will lead to greater inequality.
- Status