Great article against Jordan Peterson.
A few select quotes since the article is long. Please read the entire thing: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Damn, what a take down. Will be book marking this.
Great article against Jordan Peterson.
A few select quotes since the article is long. Please read the entire thing: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Eh, I love listening to JP. He is very misconstrued by the media.
If he is helping people better themselves then I say good for him. I still need to read his book. He is motivational for me.
Everyone hates him because he fluffs up his language with nonsense? I doubt that very much.
Thank you for the non-answer.
Everyone hates him because he fluffs up his language with nonsense?
So, I made it up to the transcript of 17 minutes from one if his talks, and I've gotta take a break. This part just about killed me:
"So I'm poking this kid and trying to get him to, smile but there's no damn way you know I'm poking him he's just ignoring me like mad and I thought that's not good, you know, because you don't want your four year-old to have learned that you should, that it's okay to ignore the adults, or that you should ignore the adults, or that you canignore the adults. That's all BAD because the world's full of adults and they know a lot of thingsand they control all the resources and so you BETTER GET ALONG WITH THEM PLUS you're going to end up… AS an adult for most of your life, so if the general, so if the first rule is adults can and should be ignored then what the hell are you headed for? You know? And it's one of the reasons why it's really useful to make sure the children respect adults because they're going to be adults so if they don't respect adults then of course they don't have any respect for what they're going to BE why the hell grow up? You end up like Peter Pan because that's what Peter Pan's about right Peter Pan wants to stay in Neverland, with the Lost Boys, where there's no responsibility because you know, he looks at the future and all he sees is Captain Hook. A tyrant who's afraid of death, that's the crocodile right… that's chasing him with the clock in his stomach. And it's the same thing as this dragon. So you know… KIDS HAVE TO RESPECT ADULTS. It's, you're doing them a disservice if they don't! So okay so fine, I'm poking this kid, there's just no damn way, I'm not getting anywhere with him and I thought this isn't good."
I will finish the article, but my impression so far is he's a mix between self help, bootstraps, biblical psychology, double speak, and the alt right. Loves operating in the grey, saying what bigots want to hear, justifying it, but leaving wiggle room/plausible deniability so that he can stay employed/be invited on talk shows.
yeah i see that, none of the things he says are uniquely him at allThat's because he says a lot of vague shit that appeals to anyone, like a palm reader.
yeah i see that, none of the things he says are uniquely him at all
i've never sought him out but he was on joe rogan a couple times when i still listened to that (definitely making myself look worse here lol, but w/e) so i heard him talk a few times. never heard him anywhere else though, except through threads on here.
So, I made it up to the transcript of 17 minutes from one if his talks, and I've gotta take a break. This part just about killed me:
"So I'm poking this kid and trying to get him to, smile but there's no damn way you know I'm poking him he's just ignoring me like mad and I thought that's not good, you know, because you don't want your four year-old to have learned that you should, that it's okay to ignore the adults, or that you should ignore the adults, or that you canignore the adults."
I feel like identity politics is a shit show so im OK with him attacking that. I hope he doesn't attack minorities?
I'm wondering what videos show him attacking minorities? I was unaware and would like to see what he said.
Not trying to troll I honestly havent seen a video of him attacking minorities. If you could show me one cool. If he is being offensive and racist in context that's not cool.
The article nails it. More than half of pop-culture social commentary is a joke, but the depressing part is that people keep falling for it.
He's the poster boy of anti-intellectual intellectualism.
Peterson is worthless. His episode on EconTalk was so atrocious, I'm this close to dropping that off my list.
that was incredible
Not trying to troll I honestly havent seen a video of him attacking minorities. If you could show me one cool. If he is being offensive and racist in context that's not cool.
Thats what I do. I dont see may videos of him attacking minorities. I feel like identity politics is a shit show so im OK with him attacking that. I hope he doesn't attack minorities?
I'm wondering what videos show him attacking minorities? I was unaware and would like to see what he said.
He is a well spoken conservative voice when most conservatives look insane. I'm not a fan, but he has never been overtly offensive. His book was meh, standard self-help tripe.That Jordan is popular surprises me to no end, dude is just a self help guru, which there is nothing wrong with it and i guess some people do need that kinda help, but dude is biting more that he can chew.
Now a funny pic
Bad example given he was sorta right. He argued about 'compelled speech', whatever that is. The Lindsay Shepard thing absolutely proved people would miss-characterize and misuse the addition.He constantly spouts misinformation on topics that he is not qualified to speak on. For example, he kept going on about how Bill C-16 here in Canada is about censorship, ignoring experts on Canadian law who said that all it does is add gender identity to the list of groups that are protected from hate speech.
He is a well spoken conservative voice when most conservatives look insane. I'm not a fan, but he has never been overtly offensive. His book was meh, standard self-help tripe.
What did he say? I know he is against being forced (by law) to use gender pronouns, It makes him a bit of a dick but he has a point to it, and I wouldn't call it attacking minorities.He literally testified against giving trans folk human rights protections.
That's why he even got famous
He literally testified against giving trans folk human rights protections.
That's why he even got famous
He is a well spoken conservative voice when most conservatives look insane. I'm not a fan, but he has never been overtly offensive. His book was meh, standard self-help tripe.
What did he say? I know he is against being forced (by law) to use gender pronouns, It makes him a bit of a dick but he has a point to it, and I wouldn't call it attacking minorities.
This is what I know about his views on transgender views.
What did he say? I know he is against being forced (by law) to use gender pronouns, It makes him a bit of a dick but he has a point to it, and I wouldn't call it attacking minorities.
This is what I know about his views on transgender views.
Using 'non political' issues to define your political compass.
Using 'non political' issues to define your political compass.
I actually want to see this, LOL.Frozen propaganda and not art because he didn't see the Hans is a bad guy twist coming.
Well duh. To my knowledge, his biggest issue with C-16 was ambiguity on language, and his idea of 'compelled speech'. Which isn't an outright attack on Trans-people, but that knowledge is mostly from CBC podcasts I listen to during my commute.
Then I will separate his views on the transgender community from his other views. I wish I had some details about what he said when he testified, but I hope its not as simple as him being bigoted against trans people, and more about him and 'free speech'.
He literally testified against giving trans folk human rights protections.
That's why he even got famous
... that he did do, and is every bit as bonkers as it seems.He compares gender neutral pronouns to genocidal marxism and declares Frozen propaganda and not art because he didn't see the Hans is a bad guy twist coming.
Im honestly trying not to troll. Call me dumb or ignorant, i'm trying to improve my behavior here. Im fine with being enlightened or educated by posts/posters.I actually want to see this, LOL.
Well duh. To my knowledge, his biggest issue with C-16 was ambiguity on language, and his idea of 'compelled speech'. Which isn't an outright attack on Trans-people, but that knowledge is mostly from CBC podcasts I listen to during my commute.
That said. I know how this topic/poster combo always works out and I'll probably duck out soon.
Well duh. To my knowledge, his biggest issue with C-16 was ambiguity on language, and his idea of 'compelled speech'. Which isn't an outright attack on Trans-people, but that knowledge is mostly from CBC podcasts I listen to during my commute.
That said. I know how this topic/poster combo always works out and I'll probably duck out soon.
http://time.com/5176537/jordan-peterson-frozen-movie-disney/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.
A friend tried to get me into him a while ago because the sort of vague philosophical musings he gives can be compelling from a distance.
But you do sort of see the seams of what he's actually trying to do when you start noticing the contradictions.
Something as obvious as we are all fundamentally imperfect and then a few hundred pages later decrying people who engage in political activism because they're imperfect might sail by unnoticed until you realise he's basically laying down a praxis where activism is wrong, probably because he dislikes the majority of sorts of people who are political activists and their causes.
Similarly when he speaks of the disease of youth activism beginning in the 1960s as an abstract, and being foolish because young people don't know anything he's very careful not to mention what was being protested. Specifically it was racial segregation and the Vietnam War, both of which being things young people were correct about.