I honestly thought that Channing Tatum was in Pacific Rim and in that King Arthur movie.
-
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.
Tonight We Cancel Charlie Hunnam (For being a Jordan Peterson/Intellectual Dark Web fanboy)
- Thread starter Tabaxi
- Start date
I think the part of my post you didnt include in the quote summarizes my view here. You may very well be right, I just dont think his statement is even close to precise enough to ascribe to him every shitty position held by someone like Peterson or Shapiro. Im just not comfortable taking that specific sentance, which I find concerning but not completely damning, and then build all of that around him. Im not saying that there arent cases where people make damning or irredeemable statements, but this is way to broad I think. This type of reduction of individuality traded away to be able to slap some tags on someone doesnt always sit right with me.
Last edited:
Oof, indeed. Well, we'll always have our memories of a beefy blonde man in a pilot suit.
I will miss his iconic roles such as
💀💀💀
I'm imagining people reviewing clips of child porn with the intellectual rigour and self-seriousness of contemporary film critique.
what the fuck at that video hahahahaha. That's the "intellectual" the right likes? Motherfucker isn't saying SHIT. There's literally NOTHING to be gained from this 3-minute stream of consciousness.
Here's the issue; he could just be someone who is not smart. Someone could have forwarded something over to him with a by your bootstraps Peterson quote (because, self accountability and hard work is something he invented?) along with that wonky academic edgelord justice league photo when the term was first put up there. In that case he might not agree with 90% of what they were saying, however to mention it during a press junket for a movie you're promoting...we circle back to not smart .
There's also the bigger picture of where sometimes you do have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I mean, Hitler was a good painter (c) Erykah Badu, lol, if we gotta play that game as far as Peterson/Shapiro's 'clock is right twice a day'. When there's a concerted effort to radicalize through figures like Shapiro, even if he's 100% good hearted he fucked up.
I work with someone who casually watches the Jordan Peterson self help stuff, and have known others who watch those types of videos, and honestly I specifically blame the self-help views as the worst he does.
Because it's not self help, it's self blame. He teaches that we are all Indiviually responsible for every problem in our life and that's what leads directly into the more toxic views, the idea that minorities are responsible for their own problems.
His so called message is essentially that we should embrace suffering and narcissism and that the more of this we go through the better we will be. It is blatantly untrue to life and human behaviour and even just anecdotally I've seen that this attitude never ever helps the people who watch him, but rather it encourages self doubt and hatred of others.
His method of self help is one that makes division and a lack of empathy more palatable to those struggling with self worth. His self help doesn't help anyone, but opens the doors to fascism and right wing ideologies.
Our positions here do not seem to be far away from each other, since you acknowledge that there is a strong possibility that he does not hold all the views of shapiro or Peterson, which is my main point. I also explicitly stated that i saw what he said as concerning, which fits into what you described as him fucking up. I agree with that. Its the baby and bathwater part that is a bit sketchy, cause when it comes down to it, damning on insufficient evidence is not a moral act, especially when there are so many other tools in the locker in this case, like questioning his statements, probing deeper, asking for a elaboration. Hitler is a very bad analogy here because his actions are irrefutable and irredeemable, the former which is exactly whats is in contention in this specific case. I almost feel like invoking godwins law on this one.
lol@ this video
This is the kind of vapid, pointless rambling that's just open enough that someone who was willing to could spin and 'translate' in a way where they could interject some sort of point, and then pretend that's what Peterson was actually blabbering about.
I havent read Petersons self help book and I dont really want to, but my interpretation of what i have seen and read about it is not that everybody is entirely responsible for the situation they are in, which would be a morally reprehensible statement, rather it it seems to me as a heuristic designed to get yourself out of certain types of situations and negative spirals, irregardless of their origin. Peterson is hardly original here, there are many of these types of books which are more geared towards the practical. If he actually says that everybody is responsible for everything that has ever happened to them, then that is absolute bullshit.
More to the point of this thread however, would you say that your colleague, having read Petersons self help book, subscribes to everything Peterson says across all different subjects he has spoken about? If so, you think your colleague is a bad person, worthy of condemnation?
I'm down. Anyone who thinks Peterson is smart is a dumbass in my books. His fondness of psychopaths is also concerning.
The intellectual dark web, as it is called, refers to a section of the internet, of contrarians, reactionaries, and free speech advocates who espouse an ideology that is usually divorced from reality and retrograde. With Shapiro, it's hateful Muslim bigotry and incorrect historical knowledge of "western values" and pronoun usage under the guise of "facts over feelings". For Sam Harris, it's debating whether or not Black people are just stupider because of IQ. For Peterson, it's the support of a patriarchal worldview where men dominate women and "cultural marxism", i.e. anything progressive from gay rights to trans rights and so on, is bad because it isn't based on nature, specifically the lobster which has hierarchies.
As a purely motivational book I don't see what's to disagree with Peterson. I thought his book was filled with a lot of grounded common sense stuff. Note I haven't fully read it but that's what it seems like to me. I know his other talks are divisive on other topics but his self help shit seems ok.
If it helped Charlie out then power be to him.
There's no one size fits all motivational strategies but a lot of people seem to like his.
If it helped Charlie out then power be to him.
There's no one size fits all motivational strategies but a lot of people seem to like his.
No, he hasn't read the books but he casually watches the talks he does on YouTube when they get recommended to him.
The thing is he's quite liberal, more so than most people, even many on here. But it's that specific undercurrent of "fix yourself" that he focuses on. He likes to overexplain his opinions to me so it's pretty easy to trace back every problematic view he has to the videos he watches. And as I said it worlds as a gateway
So he doesn't have an issue with people who are LGBT. He's very supportive, but he does sometimes get the rather dismissive opinion that it's not a problem if we don't make it one.
Consequently I can easily talk him out of these views and he doesn't completely buy into them, but he has a lot of issues in his personal life which affect his confidence and so it's much more difficult to explain how the main self-help message is more harmful to him than it is helpful. And then he keeps going back to watching this stuff.
Cus it's quite a benign message and one that seems helpful on the surface, but as you say it's reprehensible once you put it into context of what it's actually trying to do and say. And it only seems to make people more anti-social and paranoid of other humans.
A lot of common sense stuff that is just that. Nothing new, and nothing rich nor specific in info. Anything else is speculatory BS on his part.
Contrarian's a good read on it. That's where the "dark" of it comes from, also related to the "Dark Enlightenment" which takes issue with pretty much all western philosophical development since the 1700s, an intent to roll back the enlightenment and its secular humanism and egalitarianism.
It's tied to the "alt" right in the sense that it's a loose coalition of ideologies that were outside the sphere of mainstream conservatism (or at least mainstream conservatism of the 2000s and early 10s). Whereas orthodox conservatism assumes the validity of modern ideas on a superficial level (putting a right-wing spin on things like diversity and feminism, on democracy and big government, on internationalism and multilateralism, and on intellectualism), the alt-right is anything outside of that, embracing racism, rejecting democracy, hardcore libertarianism or objectivism, anti-intellectualism and isolationism.
The unifying theme is reactionary ideals. All of those widely disparate ideologies (as what sort of tent would put Ayn Rand and Andrew Jackson and Mussolini under the same roof?), but it's all considered "dangerous."
And this is why I really hope people are side-eyeing posts like this
The guy specifically mentioned darkweb. That is an instant red flag for misoginistic xenophobic racist incel qanon rhetoric. There is no intellectual darkweb for being a better person. If he mentioned intellectual darkweb in a positive light he is absolutely a piece of shit, no more evidence needed. There's no good side to it. Which I'm sure you know, seeing how your schtick here seems to be to ignore that darkweb bit and try to distract with theoreticals about how a self-professed fan might not be aware of the supposed bad points of Peterson and his ideology (not that you know what those would be, as you haven't read his books. I mean, they might not even be that bad, why don't we move discussion to Peterson books and maybe we'll find some of these ideas aren't that bad afterall if we apply some reason and logic).
Ironically Peterson's teachings and bigotry are the exact explicit opposite of the message that Raleigh learned in Pacific Rim.
Peterson would never let an Asian woman pilot a Jeager.
kind of a weird thing to be unironically blurting out during an interview... or anywhere
it's just so...stupid.
it's just so...stupid.
I think part of the, "problem" isn't the right word, but "issue" is too weak, so I'll just say "thing" about all of this is that people prescribe all of these people on a same line to the alt-right or white terrorism, when in reality, some are steps along the way, or branches off of it into other hateful nonsense. Peterson, for example, might not get you to the alt-right, but he could be a branching path to MGTOW or Red Pills (eventually Incels), and such. So, they're bad, but bad in different ways, I guess?
It's not about looking at a good side but rather that it's important to explain why Peterson's wrong in spite of what on the surface seems good about what he preaches.
Because that's how the right works these days. They don't come full out with their bigotry, rather they build up fake trust and ease people into viewpoints. The blatant right wing loons are not as bad as the likes of PewDiePie or Peterson who provide a seemingly trustworthy and sugarcoated springboard into far right extremism.
Oh please. First of all, I specifically mention that what he said is concerning, but not enough to pretend to know him enough to ascribe to him all that which you so ludicrously lumped together in your first paragraph. There are tools designed for edge cases like this, such as confronting him about it, asking for clarification, etc. Besides, I hope you realize that as shitty as Sam Harris can be, and certainly as shitty as Shapiro is, their views are almost completely incompatible? Same can be said of Peterson and Harris to a very large extent. So to act like this is some buffet, just strolling around picking up some qanon, then going to take some of that incel shit, put it all on a plate and then proclaim that this is what Hunnam believes is borderline insane.
"no flippancy, no triviality" Has this man actually ever read or listened to Peterson?
What about their irrational hatred toward Muslims? Their need to justify biggoted race science that was disproved 30 years ago? You know, all their popular talking points.
What about their irrational hatred toward Muslims? Their need to justify biggoted race science that was disproved 30 years ago? You know, all their popular talking points.
Thats one area where they certainly seem to be compatible.
