The Jordan Peterson Thread

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

The Dark Professor indeed! https://pressprogress.ca/jordan-peterson-was-an-expert-witness-in-a-murder-trial-the-court-called-his-expert-opinions-dubious/

Also, how does someone reconcile this kind of lawsuit with a purported belief in freedom of speech?

Indeed. I'd love to see this specific question put to him and his answer. I guess he'd be tempted not to answer because if he did, the answer would be something like 'Yes I believe in freedom of speech, but there should still be penalties for those found to be using speech for bad ends ...' and in that instant he'd have given away a lot of ground.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhgQ0hYV4AAmT02.jpg

marxist regularly trolling a jordan peterson meetup, what’s on yr ipod

transient random-noise bursts with announcements

https://img.discogs.com/R_6BLi_lH-N0_2zIQbaGx1YSIC0=/fit-in/300x300/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/R-1704074-1491876381-2077.jpeg.jpg

i am shocked that this was a regular group of guys

let’s leave their bowel movements out of this

has this guy tried standing up straight

Can you find the meetup marxist? https://www.meetup.com/Napa-Jordan-B-Peterson-Discussion-Group/members/?sort=join_date&desc=0

was really hoping there'd be a "Brace B." in there

Where the focus is on learning and growth I suppose. I don't really know how that would work. I can barely even conceptualize it.

Some kind of a safe... space... for JBP discussion

very funny conversation between two young women sitting opposite each other on the tube the other day. One leaned forward and pushed the Standard under the other's nose and said, 'Look'. Other looks down at an article with a picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg in his fucking top/silk hat etc and says 'Who the fuck's that?'. Other one goes, 'You know it's that bloke you were going on about today.' Looks at picture again, 'What? Who is it? I've no idea who that is.' 'You *know* Jacob thingy, Rees-Mogg'. 'Literally, never seen him before... Oh hang on wait, do you mean Jacob Peterson?' 'Oh *yeaaaaah* that's who I meant' 'Yeah, Jacob Peterson, and his name's not Jacob it's Jordan.' They both start pissing themselves laughing. But,' (gestures at pic) 'that's not him, he's some other dickhead.'

A+

our boy drinks some cider, is allegedly felled by feelings of impending doom for an entire month due to ‘sulphites’ in the beverage, joe rogan of all people seems skeptical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfoKwQ2Cw6A

definitely not some kind of mental breakdown, oh noes

25 days without sleeping, you say

Throughoot humanity's existence, there's been a deep understanding, it can be seen in some of our foundational mythoalogies, that consumption of apple proaducts precedes a dire fall of some kind.