The Jordan Peterson Thread

women liked to be dominated, an example of this is when Lisa liked Nelson the bully in one episode of the Simpsons. I am a brain genius

Another important character of note is the self-made mogul Hank Scorpio, whose vision has transformed the town in which his company’s headquarters is located into a safe, secure paradise (a paradise only undone by government interference.) The streets are clean, homelessness has been eliminated, and under the benevolent yet firm guidance of Scorpio, Homer flourishes. He earns Scorpio’s respect so much that when he decides to resign (because of Marge’s shrill resistance to domestic ease, Lisa’s weak resistance to allergies, and Bart’s resistance to his perhaps correct diagnosis as a special needs child), Scorpio not only understands but subsequently gifts him with that most masculine of imprimaturs: an NFL team. Most interestingly, the team Homer is handed is the Denver Broncos, a squad which was regarded as the perpetual losers of the league. Homer initially regards the gift as a disappoint but, as history showed and as perhaps Scorpio was whispering to Homer via this franchise: “every loser wins eventually.”

lmao liz

xp christ almighty, talk about missing the point

(a paradise only undone by government interference.)

Love that authoritarianism!

hell yeah our boy is building his international profile

Large Saudi social media account cites "world famous psychologist" Jordan Peterson to justify gender segregation. Peterson is crossing the language barrier, inspiring misogynists the world over. https://t.co/I2I4StcibG

— İyad el-Baghdadi | إياد البغدادي (@iyad_elbaghdadi) June 9, 2018

“every loser wins eventually.” lol

love to live in a world where adults take this guy Very Seriously

wait the hank scorpio bit is a real quote?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T47opnLyFw

omfg

wait the hank scorpio bit is a real quote?

No! But maybe it’s real in Peterson’s terms...

Obv the simpsons bit that Peterson calls to mind is Albert Brooks’s charlatan who calls Bart “rudiger” and doesn’t realise he’s being owned by an 8-year-old but who still manages to bluff his way to a sizeable following

You see, if Superintendent Chalmers was forced; policed by an authoritarian government, perhaps, into referring to Skinner's disastrous meal as "steamed hams", it would result in a moment of cognitive dissonance so profound that any competent society would demand his immediate resignation from the school system. Furthermore, by asking to see the "aurora borealis",

it's over for JP

How had Jordan Peterson never heard this extremely basic counter argument to his position before pic.twitter.com/gTdLm166Hj

— PeterNorway (@classiclib3ral) June 21, 2018

what a chump

as i just said on twitter in response to that tweet, aside from the fact it’s p embarrassing he’s treated as a celebrity thinker and really we should just let him get back to being angry about the politics on his particular campus, his entire thinking is bamboozled by the civil rights movement.

Not sure it's bambzooled, as such - he just can't admit in public, at this stage, he would have opposed the civil rights movement.

That's true, but one thing I've wondered, do you think he can admit it to himself? Not that it's important, just wondering.

props to Jim Jeffries for scoring the first (long, LONG overdue) clean hit on this asshole on television (that I've seen, anyway)

jim jefferies DESTROYS jordan peterson with pure logic

I mean it should really happen every time he gets interviewed but for some reason his dope-a-dope act trips people up every damn time

On an incredibly long elevator ride this morning, wedged next to a guy with bad posture and loud earbuds listening to, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, a muppet lecture.

you have to watch another six JP videos to understand that MORALLY it's right to make people bake cakes but MORALLY you did wrong by forcing someone to do something

there's no way to pin down a specific ideology across the board because his magic flow charts support whatever point you want to make in the minute. if you contradict yourself later, you are correct now but were still correct then. flawless logic.

i guess that's why jefferies' approach is so successful - don't give him the chance to retreat into circular bullshit, just ask very basic questions about what he allegedly believes and he'll trip himself up in no time

Xpost to Simon - I think Peterson rarely gets destroyed in interviews is cuz he’s often matched with people who are maybe worker bees or not as equipped to argue. It’s like if you have a room full of dumbasses but one guy that’s slightly smarter, by default he’s the idiot king

xpost -- Jeffries' one weird trick is that he treats JBP as an equal, makes him crack up twice (just to reiterate... Jordan Peterson. Laughing.), and *then* asks him very basic questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0

We can all learn so much from this interview.

I hate that it takes his definition of the "pronoun law" at face value

and it basically sides with him w/r/t "political correctness is out of control!!" and also tries to embarrass a local activist with 1/1,000000th JBP's influence so fuck him tbh

no it's true, I forgot to say "xir" once and now i'm in forever jail. in fact I'm posting from there right now

I'm extra salty about this cause I've seen enough of that activist's work to know she is absolutely capable of expressing a nuanced position on the nature of free speech and censorship, but was instead reduced to a cheap punchline

stick to an entirely erotic-bakery-related line of questioning, and watch him squirm

jordan_peterson_cakefarts.avi

https://gfycat.com/HalfRewardingAndeancondor

Fuck

Maybe because there's only 5-6 articles about him this week rather than 80 or 90,000 as usual, it feels like his momentum is dying down a bit

In 5 years this guy will be as irrelevant as Camille Paglia

I'm hoping it's more like 1 year.

lol

Something I've noticed with this guy. You can take to a stage, and say 'women must not be treated as equal to men because it will offend the great ancestral spirit serpent'. And you'll actually be taken seriously as long as you remember to say 'the timeless mythical archetype of the great ancestral spirit serpent'.

Anyway I thought the deal with Jung is, you thrash around your experiential life being mad and horrible, then sit down and study mythology and think to yourself 'Aha, all this time I've been behaving like such and such a being in such and such a story, that really nails how mad and horrible I am', and then seeing it laid out like that (mad horrible people like me are as old as the pyramids already) you get your shit together and start being alright with people. (Am I anywhere near it?)

Whereas with JP the idea seems to be more like you're supposed to become a mythical monster because it is your true nature and this has been brushed under the carpet by feminists or something.

But it's mostly striking how easy it is to use rhetoric to get people thinking in dumb atavistic ways and worshipping graven idols, simply by throwing in the magic ingredient of psychological/academic diction. The psycho-babble seems to function as a notional guarantee of detachment and distance from the mythic dictation of taboos as in pre-modern societies ... even while the speaker argues precisely for the mythic dictation of taboos.

The rule seems to be, if you are specifically invested in any one mythology (say, Islam, Christianity) and go around enforcing the taboos of it then you're a savage. But as long as you can source your taboo in all mythologies, and show that it's a universal archetype, then you're enlightened.

This idea, though, this axiom that we need to 're-connect' with some dangerous part of ourselves that the nice liberal part has disdained, and this is what psychic healing consists of, didn't originate with Peterson and has been hanging around in the culture for some time now. That might need some investigating?

great posts that nails the core of the jp phenomenon

I still think that long piece written by his former colleague is all you need to know about JP. Wannabe preacher, histrionic, idiosyncratic, opportunistic, well educated & smart but all over the place, intellectually lazy, persecution complex. That piece should be everyone's introduction to this guy.

I'm surprised it hasn't come up more often that JP's representation of "Jung" bears zero resemblance to the real thing. If you've actually read Jung the idea of gleaning JP's bog-standard right wing authoritarian talking points from it is fucking ridiculous! It's not really difficult material, but Joseph Campbell did a great--and honest--job of making it even more accessible.

Some kind of Garfield without Garfield where Peterson doesn't to lean on ancient myth to make his points

now suing a university for defamation, in a case he can't win but it might get him in the news for a few days.

Is there any precedent at all for someone winning a defamation suit over opinions that were stated in a private meeting? Also, how does someone reconcile this kind of lawsuit with a purported belief in freedom of speech?

None of these people believe in freedom of speech.

nobody does