Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve

[BocoDragon]

Jordan Peterson himself said "I accidentally found a way to monetize social justice warriors", so it really gives me pause as to whether getting worked up over him is helpful.

He wouldn't have a career if not for the left's reaction to him. He simply isn't that interesting in a pure right wing sense and has generally thrived in being a martyr of the left. The gender pronoun stuff is right-appealing without the left's reaction, sure... but now he's on this self-help trip? Let's see how long the shitlords find that appealing...

I'm not saying don't criticize or discuss him, but just take stock of that point. He's kind of a Chinese finger trap, and the harder the left struggles against him, the more popular he is. Just take care not to fan the flames. I can categorically say that the person who showed up to protest him with a garrote (!!) helped his pocketbook and that of the right in general.

 

[Clefargle]

Oh I see we are back to talking about the (((REAL))) problem of the left taking people out of context and calling them names. Glad we can dispense with any pretense of backing up claims with evidence and move staright on to whining about not being given a "fair shake" and the "so called tolerant left".

Edit: not referring to you bocodragon

 

[Jader7777]

Stop being willingly daft. Just asking questions is a tactic used to provide hot takes without taking the heat.

Again, another example of Peterson defenders ignoring what he is saying and creating their own narrative to defend literal words out of his mouth while propping up his more generalities that he spouts.

Click to shrink...

You're the one sweating bullets over it, why are you upset that this is being talked about? What is your horse in this race? Just another example of Peterson haters ignoring the actual narrative and falling back on their rockbottom constructions of Peterson.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Jordan Peterson himself said "I accidentally found a way to monetize social justice warriors", so it really gives me pause as to whether getting worked up over him is helpful.

He wouldn't have a career if not for the left's reaction to him. He simply isn't that interesting in a pure right wing sense and has generally thrived in being a martyr of the left. The gender pronoun stuff is right-appealing without the left's reaction, sure... but now he's on this self-help trip? Let's see how long the shitlords find that appealing...

I'm not saying don't criticize or discuss him, but just take stock of that point. He's kind of a Chinese finger trap, and the harder the left struggles against him, the more popular he is. Just take care not to fan the flames. I can categorically say that the person who showed up to protest him with a garrote (!!) helped his pocketbook and that of the right in general.

Click to shrink...

This is nonsense, he explicitly has a career because he started going off on Bill C-16. Like he has a career because he provides conservative pablum in deniable form. This idea that all right wing reactionaries wouldn't succeed if the left just shut up about them is counter-factual. Dude makes money calling the idea of white privilege a marxist lie for pity sake.

And like it's kinda much to go it's the left fault and then point to the crazy guy who wanted to kill him... I mean unless you think the left is murderous...

 

[Fauxpaw]

This really is part of why so many people talk over each other in the thread, JP never says "Thou shalt" he just says "It's playing with fire" "Be careful" "Things are complex" which people immediately think means "BAN IT". If you haven't noticed he hates legislation. :)

So if anything he is saying he is, in fact, offering the responsibility to 'you and me'. That's why I like JP he's a real you can pick up what I put down kinda guy.

Click to shrink...

What this means, though, is that Peterson acts like he's at the forefront of deep thought, but doesn't actually offer any real answers. It's very convenient, because it means it's harder to actually debate and parse what his ideas are. By saying there is a line, and by saying he doesn't know where the line is, it means he can't really be proven wrong. It also means that he hasn't actually brought to the table any deeper discussion, because anytime someone does, he claims he's being misrepresented, claims his ideas weren't meant to be thought of that way (yet doesn't properly clarify or redefine his ideas), and he changes his definitions based on his usage of the word "truth".

He offers the responsibility to "you and me", but doesn't take any on himself.

 

[Clefargle]

You're the one sweating bullets over it, why are you upset that this is being talked about? What is your horse in this race? Just another example of Peterson haters ignoring the actual narrative and falling back on their rockbottom constructions of Peterson.

Click to shrink...

Nah dude, it's because we've seen hucksters before and they follow a script. No one here is "upset" that any conversation is happening short of concern that so many on this board fall for snake oil. Personally, I would like to see academia and media hold "gurus" like him under more scrutiny, and part of getting there starts with rebutting unwitting suckers on websites I frequent. Because I care about the facts and discourse about reality and history in an evidence based manner.

 

[David Ricardo]

Heels are another example of professionalism enforcing certain dress codes.... also a fact.

Women are not wearing those things to work by in large to be more sexually attractive, they are wearing them because that is a societal standard for what is deemed professional dress for women in the workplace.

That both of these can also be used to be more sexually attractive does not mean that's why they are worn in the workplace (and this question was about sexual harassment in the workplace going to women wear makeup to attract men is not acceptable detour on a question about sexual harassment in the workplace.)

He openly said women worried about sexual harassment but wearing makeup and heels are on some level hypocrites.

Yes he was just asking questions, because it allows him to plausibly deny everything he says (outside of postmodern neomarxism is going to destory Western Civilization). He's just asking question because his ideal on men/women relations is retrograde 1950s nuclear family. He just knows he can't actually say that, dog whistles are a thing for a reason.

Click to shrink...

Make up and heels is standard dress code for women working in an office, I agree. It also makes women more sexually attractive to men. Petersons point is, if you are worried about sexual harassment, and removing makeup makes sexual harassment less likely to happen, why not stop using it in the workplace?

I don't think it's a detour. It's just one of multiple ways of looking at it. I don't think it would work, and going by what Jordan says, he neither. But you must be able to speak about any aspect of the problem freely if you want to come up with a good solution.

About family, I think he believes in a man and a woman having children and a lifelasting relationship. He says the marriage is not for the couple, it's for the children.

 

[Deleted member 3058]

You're the one sweating bullets over it, why are you upset that this is being talked about?

Click to shrink...

Is--is this an example of "pwned the lib" in action?

 

[Clefargle]

Is--is this an example of "pwned the lib" in action?

Click to shrink...

More like:

TRIGGERED?

 

['3y Kingdom]

Jordan Peterson himself said "I accidentally found a way to monetize social justice warriors", so it really gives me pause as to whether getting worked up over him is helpful.

He wouldn't have a career if not for the left's reaction to him. He simply isn't that interesting in a pure right wing sense and has generally thrived in being a martyr of the left. The gender pronoun stuff is right-appealing without the left's reaction, sure... but now he's on this self-help trip? Let's see how long the shitlords find that appealing...

I'm not saying don't criticize or discuss him, but just take stock of that point. He's kind of a Chinese finger trap, and the harder the left struggles against him, the more popular he is. Just take care not to fan the flames. I can categorically say that the person who showed up to protest him with a garrote (!!) helped his pocketbook and that of the right in general.

Click to shrink...

You talk as if the left not engaging in discussion would leave Peterson without a means to amplify his views. Peterson doesn't require anyone to fan the flames. He is both the fan and the flames, a hot-air generator attached to a Roman candle.

In such a scenario, ignoring him is only allowing his views to choke everyone else out.

Spoiler

See how vaguely applicable metaphors can be used to argue anything? :P

 

[Deleted member 3058]

More like:

TRIGGERED?

Click to shrink...

Yeah.

Aren't those synonymous, though?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Make up and heels is standard dress code for women working in an office, I agree. It also makes women more sexually attractive to men. Petersons point is, if you are worried about sexual harassment, and removing makeup makes sexual harassment less likely to happen, why not stop using it in the workplace?

I don't think it's a detour. It's just one of multiple ways of looking at it. I don't think it would work, and going by what Jordan says, he neither. But you must be able to speak about any aspect of the problem freely if you want to come up with a good solution.

About family, I think he believes in a man and a woman having children and a lifelasting relationship. He says the marriage is not for the couple, it's for the children.

Click to shrink...

Because women don't make the dress code rules. Women have to wear those frequently because if they don't they won't get hired, or they risk losing their jobs for dressing unprofessional. Peterson's entire focus is what can women do to avoid being sexually harassed, there's no talk of what can men do to not do it... largely because Peterson sees the workplace largely as a male sphere that women are changing. Also not wearing makeup and heels does not actually reduce sexual harassment.

I'm baffled that you can seriously try to argue that Peterson is expressing sincere concern when he labels women conforming to societal expectations of dress in the workplace a being hypocrites because they also don't want to be sexually harassed. He's not actually acknowledging that makeup and heels are part of societal expected dress codes. He's identifying them as direct signifiers of sexuality, as direct appeals to attract men, because Peterson seems to believe women are making these choices for that purpose, hence why he calls them hypocrites for also caring about sexual harassment. Ultimately because Jordan Peterson's worldview is largely based on him and what he can relate to, and since he doesn't have to wear makeup, why would women.

Peterson believes in women staying at home, while men sacrifice to earn the bread, he's just smart enough tot not say that out loud. There's a reason he points to the 60s and 70s as the focal point when things started to change for the bad.

 

['3y Kingdom]

Make up and heels is standard dress code for women working in an office, I agree. It also makes women more sexually attractive to men. Petersons point is, if you are worried about sexual harassment, and removing makeup makes sexual harassment less likely to happen, why not stop using it in the workplace?

Click to shrink...

Why not take the opportunity to lay out how we can more effectively curb sexually aggressive behavior? Why not address harmful male views of women? Why not talk about instilling female-positive thinking in men? Why not discuss how society can raise men to treat women with respect, both in and out of the workplace?

But no, let's get rid of makeup. That's clearly the real issue.

Plus:

Also not wearing makeup and heels does not actually reduce sexual harassment.

Click to shrink...

 

[ArmsofSleep]

The reason people are able to call BS on Peterson so easily it because he's not unique, and neither of his followers. The only difference between Peterson and, say, Ben Shapiro, is 9 inches in height. He's a "philosopher" who's made a career out of middle school level observations about sex in society (theories that were founded and expanded decades ago without him) and whining about children's movies. He's just a guy around to make 15 year olds feel smart.

 

[Clefargle]

Yeah.

Aren't those synonymous, though?

Click to shrink...

Sure, either way it's trolling

 

[lmcfigs]

This really is part of why so many people talk over each other in the thread, JP never says "Thou shalt" he just says "It's playing with fire" "Be careful" "Things are complex" which people immediately think means "BAN IT". If you haven't noticed he hates legislation. :)

So if anything he is saying he is, in fact, offering the responsibility to 'you and me'. That's why I like JP he's a real you can pick up what I put down kinda guy.



I had no idea 'kill all the poor' was in the same league as 'so makeup is interesting, yeah?'

The only thing I'm interested in is talking about how weird it is that people even wear makeup and I noticed how colourful this thread was about it, so I commented on it. I'm sorry you don't agree with the interpretation I put forward but if you really really would like me to I could put together a fun listical 'top 10 reactions to something JBP said'.

Click to shrink...

I don't see the value of him bringing it up if he doesn't have a problem with it. Like if I said, "schools have only been desegregated for 60 years. We don't know the rules for having black and white people working together." Do you realize why perhaps a statement like that would raise some eyebrows?

 

[BocoDragon]

This is nonsense, he explicitly has a career because he started going off on Bill C-16. Like he has a career because he provides conservative pablum in deniable form. This idea that all right wing reactionaries wouldn't succeed if the left just shut up about them is counter-factual. Dude makes money calling the idea of white privilege a marxist lie for pity sake.

And like it's kinda much to go it's the left fault and then point to the crazy guy who wanted to kill him... I mean unless you think the left is murderous...

Click to shrink...

Fine don't take the point. I'm just telling you why a nebbish intellectual dork who rambles about post modernism is a hit in shitlord circles: because they all have a big laugh about the SJWs who overreacted to this mild mannered nerd this week.

They don't care much about his actual ideology at all. He never talks about C-16. He plays the role of the "kindly dork professor who gets steamrolled by angry leftists gone amok". And to be fair to him, there is a tip of the left that gives it to him on the regular.

So my advice is, don't play into his narrative. Eyeroll and move on. He'll disappear. Criticize away. Write articles why he's wrong. But don't play into the role of the leftist who freaks out over him like he's a grave threat. It helps him. I dont want to help him.

 

[Deleted member 22490]

I don't understand how he can say that we don't know what the rules are. We all pretty much know the general rules.

 

[Deleted member 15737]

Because women don't make the dress code rules. Women have to wear those frequently because if they don't they won't get hired, or they risk losing their jobs for dressing unprofessional. Peterson's entire focus is what can women do to avoid being sexually harassed, there's no talk of what can men do to not do it... largely because Peterson sees the workplace largely as a male sphere that women are changing. Also not wearing makeup and heels does not actually reduce sexual harassment.

I'm baffled that you can seriously try to argue that Peterson is expressing sincere concern when he labels women conforming to societal expectations of dress in the workplace a being hypocrites because they also don't want to be sexually harassed. He's not actually acknowledging that makeup and heels are part of societal expected dress codes. He's identifying them as direct signifiers of sexuality, as direct appeals to attract men, because Peterson seems to believe women are making these choices for that purpose, hence why he calls them hypocrites for also caring about sexual harassment. Ultimately because Jordan Peterson's worldview is largely based on him and what he can relate to, and since he doesn't have to wear makeup, why would women.

Peterson believes in women staying at home, while men sacrifice to earn the bread, he's just smart enough tot not say that out loud. There's a reason he points to the 60s and 70s as the focal point when things started to change for the bad.

Click to shrink...

Doesn't he have some hot takes relating to the pill too? Which I think was first approved of in the 60s.

 

[JasonV]

Jordan Peterson himself said "I accidentally found a way to monetize social justice warriors", so it really gives me pause as to whether getting worked up over him is helpful.

He wouldn't have a career if not for the left's reaction to him..

Click to shrink...

No this is bullshit. He makes money by digital panhandling to bigots who shower him with patreon bucks.

It has nothing to do with the left's reaction to him.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Fine don't take the point. I'm just telling you why a nebbish intellectual dork who rambles about post modernism is a hit in shitlord circles: because they all have a big laugh about the SJWs who overreacted to this mild mannered nerd this week.

They don't care much about his actual ideology at all. He never talks about C-16. He plays the role of the "kindly dork professor who gets steamrolled by angry leftists gone amok". And to be fair to him, there is a tip of the left that gives it to him on the regular.

So my advice is, don't play into his narrative. Eyeroll and move on. He'll disappear. Criticize away. Write articles why he's wrong. But don't play into the role of the leftist who freaks out over him like he's a grave threat. It helps him. I dont want to help him.

Click to shrink...

He talks about C-16 all the time, he still talks about it and how principled he is for taking a stand against his bullshit argument of compelled speech, you know he literally was called to testify against it by conservatives eh? Like he took an active step in trying to deny me human rights protections.

This guy got a national newspaper to give him column space to call gender neutral pronouns the same strain of marxism that killed 100 million people, SJWs didn't do that, conservative desire to fuckover trans people did.

This weird assumption that conservative thought isn't in itself popular is utterly bizarre.

Milo got famous for shitting on a female game dev for existing and then got more popular for shitting on trans people for existing.

 

[Arkeband]

This is nonsense, he explicitly has a career because he started going off on Bill C-16. Like he has a career because he provides conservative pablum in deniable form. This idea that all right wing reactionaries wouldn't succeed if the left just shut up about them is counter-factual. Dude makes money calling the idea of white privilege a marxist lie for pity sake.

And like it's kinda much to go it's the left fault and then point to the crazy guy who wanted to kill him... I mean unless you think the left is murderous...

Click to shrink...

He literally said on Joe Rogan's show "I shouldn't even say this but... I've found a way to monetize social justice warriors", confirming that he says things to elicit a reaction from "the left" and then uses that reaction to churn out more books and paid appearances to the right.

It's kind of like fishing with dynamite, every other fad charlatan has been doing it recently, which is why you can see former liberal, possibly sane individuals like The Mooch suddenly do complete 180's and become ultra-conservative mouthpieces, because that's a goldmine right now. The right is frothing at the mouth for representation and morons like Peterson are ready and willing to take their money.

No this is bullshit. He makes money by digital panhandling to bigots who shower him with patreon bucks.

It has nothing to do with the left's reaction to him.

Click to shrink...

It's not the left's fault that he twists their reactions to appeal to his base, they're doing the right thing. But to claim that he doesn't recruit using (justified) outrage is not true.

 

[Ursus007]

Problem is, you never gave any evidence to back up your assertions. when you've done that, we can move on to criticizing other avenues that should be explored. You haven't gotten past step 1. (You made a claim)

Click to shrink...

You quoted my post with assertions about hypersexual society earlier, then you moved goalposts from hypersexualised society to women harassment for no reason without addressing my points and now you state I never backed up my assertions in the first place.

You're trolling. Please stop of find another thread where we're not trying to have a decent discussion.

 

[BocoDragon]

No this is bullshit. He makes money by digital panhandling to bigots who shower him with patreon bucks.

It has nothing to do with the left's reaction to him.

Click to shrink...

Then I think you've missed the nuance of how he rose to prominence. The martyrdom is a top 3 reason. It sure isn't "clean up your room".

You can think the left wing reaction is well and just, by the way. But you don't know how the other side perceives him if you think he's only popular for what he says. He's their pet martyr, not their ideology hero.

 

[Deleted member 15737]

He literally said on Joe Rogan's show "I shouldn't even say this but... I've found a way to monetize social justice warriors", confirming that he says things to elicit a reaction from "the left" and then uses that reaction to churn out more books and paid appearances to the right.

It's kind of like fishing with dynamite, every other fad charlatan has been doing it recently, which is why you can see former liberal, possibly sane individuals like The Mooch suddenly do complete 180's and become ultra-conservative mouthpieces, because that's a goldmine right now. The right is frothing at the mouth for representation and morons like Peterson are ready and willing to take their money.



It's not the left's fault that he twists their reactions to appeal to his base, they're doing the right thing. But to claim that he doesn't recruit using (justified) outrage is not true.

Click to shrink...

What people on the left are giving him money? He hasn't monetized me, he's monetized the reactionary bigots.

He said what you mentioned on joe rogan because it's the sort of 'owning the libs' rhetoric his gamergate fans eat up, and then subsequently donate/subscribe.

And he didn't come up with it. Portraying libs/the left as some boogeyman to be feared and fought is part and parcel to the conservative machine.

 

[excelsiorlef]

He literally said on Joe Rogan's show "I shouldn't even say this but... I've found a way to monetize social justice warriors", confirming that he says things to elicit a reaction from "the left" and then uses that reaction to churn out more books and paid appearances to the right.

It's kind of like fishing with dynamite, every other fad charlatan has been doing it recently, which is why you can see former liberal, possibly sane individuals like The Mooch suddenly do complete 180's and become ultra-conservative mouthpieces, because that's a goldmine right now. The right is frothing at the mouth for representation and morons like Peterson are ready and willing to take their money.

Click to shrink...

It's classic JP to claim he discovered something that's already been discovered and present it as something brand new. It's also classic of him to be wrong.

He's just another Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Milo, etc.... And they all get bank because they shit on diverse groups' existence, this idea that if the left just didn't say anything the right wouldn't pay them is nonsense. Peterson gets money because he stands up against trans people's human rights (and yes he frames it much more nobly but I'm cutting through his just asking question dogwhistle nonsense)m he gets paid because he says things like women haven't been historically oppressed and women are hypocrites for wearing makeup and complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace, he gets paid because he opposes concepts like institutional racism, he gets paid because he sells right wingers on the idea that entire left wing concepts are going to cause the end of Western Civilization.

This idea that if the lift just didn't protest him he'd go is ridiculous, and frankly lets batshit right wingers off the hook for their own hatred.

 

[Clefargle]

You quoted my post with assertions about hypersexual society earlier, then you moved goalposts from hypersexualised society to women harassment for no reason without addressing my points and now you state I never backed up my assertions in the first place.

You're trolling. Please stop of find another thread where we're not trying to have a decent discussion.

Click to shrink...

The points you made in the quote I responded to didn't provide evidence for your position. Saying "women are wearing makeup more because it is cheap" doesn't support your claim of "women wear makeup as a sexual display" that's your premise, you cannot or will not provide factual data to back up your initial claim. You want to move past it and discuss the margins or wording. Let's stay away from nebulous descriptors, show me evidence for your position about why women wear makeup.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Then I think you've missed the nuance of how he rose to prominence. The martyrdom is a top 3 reason. It sure isn't "clean up your room".

You can think the left wing reaction is well and just, by the way. But you don't know how the other side perceives him if you think he's only popular for what he says. He's their pet martyr, not their ideology hero.

Click to shrink...

The martyrdom is created by opposing entire ideas and declaring them violent, he is popular because he sells trans humans rights as a gateway to murderous marxism. He sells his followers on the idea that certain left wing legislation and political thoughts are going to destroy civilization and kill you.

 

[lmcfigs]

He literally said on Joe Rogan's show "I shouldn't even say this but... I've found a way to monetize social justice warriors", confirming that he says things to elicit a reaction from "the left" and then uses that reaction to churn out more books and paid appearances to the right.

It's kind of like fishing with dynamite, every other fad charlatan has been doing it recently, which is why you can see former liberal, possibly sane individuals like The Mooch suddenly do complete 180's and become ultra-conservative mouthpieces, because that's a goldmine right now. The right is frothing at the mouth for representation and morons like Peterson are ready and willing to take their money.

Click to shrink...

lol he's found a way to monetize young conservatives and the alt-right. "The left" (lol) aren't the ones giving him 80k on patreon, buying his books, and listening to his lectures. There's a definite disconnect here. Like others have said, Dave Rubin is doing a similar thing, Sargon of Akad and perhaps Colin Moriarty is as well. They're capitalizing on a young, right-leaning audience - I'm sorry if that's news to you.

 

[Messofanego]

Ursus007, simple question. Have you ever asked women why they wear makeup?

 

[Arkeband]

What people on the left are giving him money? He hasn't monetized me, he's monetized the reactionary bigots.

He said what you mentioned on joe rogan because it's the sort of 'owning the libs' rhetoric his gamergate fans eat up, and then subsequently donate/subscribe.

Click to shrink...

But that's what he was describing - he uses the left to gain further profit.

Essentially, this all leads back to the idea of deplatforming. I don't think that we can simply ignore him and he will go away, but the problem with fascist and extreme right wing speakers like Peterson are that they automatically win the moment they're invited anywhere. He even found a way to spin his disastrous Vice interview into "the lyin' Libs".

It's the same as Spencer showing up anywhere, he wins the moment he's given a microphone. In Peterson's case, he has all of the foundations for a cult, so it's even harder for people who have converted to his snake oil to break free - you've seen it from pro-Peterson people in this thread, they or someone they know feel like they owe him a personal debt, which is why they just can't bring themselves to abandon him.

 

[excelsiorlef]

lol he's found a way to monetize young conservatives and the alt-right. "The left" (lol) aren't the ones giving him 80k on patreon, buying his books, and listening to his lectures. There's a definite disconnect here.

Click to shrink...

No he's apparently claiming that he gets money because the SJWs hate him and that if the SJWs just didn't talk about him he'd not get paid, which is nonsense. Dave Rubin gets paid and he's not targeted by SJWs, Breitbart gets paid, the idea that there is no market except because SJWs exist is just giving far too much appology for the people who follow Jordan Peterson

 

[Deleted member 8561]

You're the one sweating bullets over it, why are you upset that this is being talked about? What is your horse in this race? Just another example of Peterson haters ignoring the actual narrative and falling back on their rockbottom constructions of Peterson.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, I was driving to work so I couldn't respond to you before you got axed.

Yea, you really had me on the ropes, my hands were trembling while I was writing out my posts. Phew, man you almost had me

 

[excelsiorlef]

But that's what he was describing - he uses the left to gain further profit.

Essentially, this all leads back to the idea of deplatforming. I don't think that we can simply ignore him and he will go away, but the problem with fascist and extreme right wing speakers like Peterson are that they automatically win the moment they're invited anywhere. He even found a way to spin his disastrous Vice interview into "the lyin' Libs".

It's the same as Spencer showing up anywhere, he wins the moment he's given a microphone. In Peterson's case, he has all of the foundations for a cult, so it's even harder for people who have converted to his snake oil to break free - you've seen it from pro-Peterson people in this thread, they or someone they know feel like they owe him a personal debt, which is why they just can't bring themselves to abandon him.

Click to shrink...

Right because what he does is sell himself as an SJW killer but what he actually does is paint everyone and everything as SJWs in the exact same way he paints everything as marxism (hence Vice and Cathy Newman getting that label), it's pretty easy to be fighting SJWs when everyone gets called on.

 

[Clefargle]

Just like creationists, you beat back hucksters by countering their nonsense every time it gets presented on any platform. Then you have to invest in education and safeguarding platforms from bad actors trying to rile up a profit.

 

[JasonV]

He literally said on Joe Rogan's show "I shouldn't even say this but... I've found a way to monetize social justice warriors", confirming that he says things to elicit a reaction from "the left" and then uses that reaction to churn out more books and paid appearances to the right.

Click to shrink...

He found a way to monetize white supremacist simpletons by pandering to their idiocy.

But he's not going to say that is he?

 

[BocoDragon]

The martyrdom is created by opposing entire ideas and declaring them violent, he is popular because he sells trans humans rights as a gateway to murderous marxism. He sells his followers on the idea that certain left wing legislation and political thoughts are going to destroy civilization and kill you.

Click to shrink...

Sometimes. He's usually rambling about symbolic meaning and other philosophical crap as his right-wing hosts try to steer him back to how dumb SJWs are.

Let me put it to you in a more open ended way: I don't the left folding their arms and shrieking about him works well. It either has no effect or it has a Streisand effect of bringing attention to him. Is there a jiujitsu move that we could make to reduce his popularity?

For me it's "dont feed the troll". Is there another answer?

 

[Ursus007]

The points you made in the quote I responded to didn't provide evidence for your position. Saying "women are wearing makeup more because it is cheap" doesn't support your claim of "women wear makeup as a sexual display" that's your premise, you cannot or will not provide factual data to back up your initial claim. You want to move past it and discuss the margins or wording. Let's stay away from nebulous descriptors, show me evidence for your position about why women wear makeup.

Click to shrink...

This example was in support of the argument that the world is hypersexualised. Nothing else. I think the person I was debating got at least part of my logic because he/she didn't respond with moving goalposts like you did. Once again stop trolling and read better.

 

[Arkeband]

No he's apparently claiming that he gets money because the SJWs hate him and that if the SJWs just didn't talk about him he'd not get paid, which is nonsense. Dave Rubin gets paid and he's not targeted by SJWs, Breitbart gets paid, the idea that there is no market except because SJWs exist is just giving far too much appology for the people who follow Jordan Peterson

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying that - but he was not as popular as he is now back when he first gained notoriety. His entire game is to create a boogeyman out of the left, and it's helped him to recruit by playing victim.

His subreddit's subscriber count spiked HARD after the Newman interview. To deny this is silly. He's actively seeking out these opportunities to grow his brand.

 

[JasonV]

Then I think you've missed the nuance of how he rose to prominence. The martyrdom is a top 3 reason. It sure isn't "clean up your room".

You can think the left wing reaction is well and just, by the way. But you don't know how the other side perceives him if you think he's only popular for what he says. He's their pet martyr, not their ideology hero.

Click to shrink...

I think you've missed the simple mindedness of the alt-right. There's no martyr complex. He provides a pseudo intellectual veneer to their bigotry. Even if he was ignored by the left, the right would still shower him with praise and money because he can spout his nazi conspiracy theories about whatever is right is frightened of this week.

 

[Deleted member 15737]

But that's what he was describing - he uses the left to gain further profit.

Essentially, this all leads back to the idea of deplatforming. I don't think that we can simply ignore him and he will go away, but the problem with fascist and extreme right wing speakers like Peterson are that they automatically win the moment they're invited anywhere. He even found a way to spin his disastrous Vice interview into "the lyin' Libs".

It's the same as Spencer showing up anywhere, he wins the moment he's given a microphone. In Peterson's case, he has all of the foundations for a cult, so it's even harder for people who have converted to his snake oil to break free - you've seen it from pro-Peterson people in this thread, they or someone they know feel like they owe him a personal debt, which is why they just can't bring themselves to abandon him.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I agree with not giving him extra attention. I disagree that would lead to him not making money off his unique brand of bootstraps, transphobia, and meandering hogwash.

He was ignored before he became the poster boy for misinterpreting and shitting on the bill.

But he doesn't win at all. He makes money off hate. He takes money from people attempting to justify their own hate. Ill never call that a win. Hes a hateful, bigoted, loser. Hes not the first rich hateful, bigoted, loser to get rich off it and sadly probably won't be the last.

 

[Morrigan]

So, can any Peterson defender explain how he can both be a champion of free speech and yet claim people shouldn't be allowed to make new stories that have a "political message" (note, "political message" here is actually "any kind of message at all that makes Jordan squirm a bit)? Because he literally, explicitly said those things, and they are quite jarring from a so-called free speech defender. (But not so jarring from a reactionary bigot using defense of free speech as cover for selling his bigoted views to gullible simpletons, of course.)

It is so much easier to dodge and obfuscate verbally. It also is what enables the whole "linking to a 2 hour video as the totality of one's argument" phenomenon to occur, with written academic you are forced to, or well better expected to, provided quotes, provide arguments, with a verbal superstar like Peterson that force/expectation isn't there. It's also why counteracting him is difficult, with written work you are expected to be a bit more concise, with verbal work critics are forced to engage with several talks over several hours and hours to properly ascertain what his argument is before they can rebut it, and there being so much content also creates the appearance that someone who speaks so much must have something ground breaking to say.

Click to shrink...

Good point. He's a master of the Gish Gallop, and worse, Gish Gallop in verbal form which is harder to take down than in written form.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Sometimes. He's usually rambling about symbolic meaning and other philosophical crap as his right-wing hosts try to steer him back to how dumb SJWs are.

Let me put it to you in a more open ended way: I don't the left folding their arms and shrieking about him works well. It either has no effect or it has a Streisand effect of bringing attention to him. Is there a jiujitsu move that we could make to reduce his popularity?

For me it's "dont feed the troll". Is there another answer?

Click to shrink...

I mean look at this thread, I wrote and wrote and wrote, pure academic style, pure deconstruction and not a single one of the few supporters have really shifted away from him or even really engaged with my points, look at the reactions to things like that Vice interview which is pretty damning, the responses are literally the same everywhere (oh it's cut down, oh that's out of content, oh you need to watch 200 hours to understand him). Debate doesn't work (Sam Harris bodied him like 3 times and now they're going on tour together to sold out shows).

At some point you have to accept that there is a market for these ideas, Peterson is borderline a cult leader and that's not because of SJWs. He's their smart guy, unlike the Milos and Shapiros, he's got respectability, hence why the National Post gave him column space. At this point he'll live or die by his own and I'll mostly engage by mocking him and deconstructing him...

You sy don't feed the troll but we don't they do, you just keep assuming there's no market but there is and it's not because the left protests him. It's because the left has ideas that right wingers hate and Peterson is very adept at not being overt and thus seems more respectable.

 

[Arkeband]

Yeah, I agree with not giving him extra attention. I disagree that would lead to him not making money off his unique brand of bootstraps, transphobia, and meandering hogwash.

He was ignored before he became the poster boy for misinterpreting and shitting on the bill.

But he doesn't win at all. He makes money off hate. He takes money from people attempting to justify their own hate. Ill never call that a win. Hes a hateful, bigoted, loser. Hes not the first rich hateful, bigoted, loser to get rich off it and sadly probably won't be the last.

Click to shrink...

If his goal is purely profit and to be lauded by total fucking idiots, it doesn't necessarily matter whether we consider it a win or not.

I'm also not saying he wouldn't make money, that's ridiculous, but he would make less of it.

Deplatforming by itself won't "solve" or "defeat" this brand of right-wing extremism, that is true. But platforming it, thus far, has not helped.

If we look at Milo's fall from grace, a lot of people mistakenly believe it was because he was called out on Maher's show (including Maher), but it was actually because of his own book that made him look like a pedophile advocate and sympathizer that made him seem toxic. Platforming him wasn't the solution, and Peterson's own behavior is likely to be his own downfall, probably from his own Twitter activity, which is spooking even his subreddit.

 

['3y Kingdom]

Once again stop trolling and read better.

Click to shrink...

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm not saying that - but he was not as popular as he is now back when he first gained notoriety. His entire game is to create a boogeyman out of the left, and it's helped him to recruit by playing victim.

His subreddit's subscriber count spiked HARD after the Newman interview. To deny this is silly. He's actively seeking out these opportunities to grow his brand.

Click to shrink...

But the Newman interview wasn't the SJWs left it was just a journalist not doing a good job.

That's my point.

 

[Clefargle]

This example was in support of the argument that the world is hypersexualised. Nothing else. I think the person I was debating got at least part of my logic because he/she didn't respond with moving goalposts like you did. Once again stop trolling and read better.

Click to shrink...

My original post in reply to you a couple of pages back was actually asking for you to back up BOTH claims. And you haven't done that for either of them.

Saying that ads and porn leads to a society that sexualizes makeup is just another assertion. You haven't provided any supporting data for this. Again, compared to what "normaly sexual" culture? Where is the baseline? You never answered me.

Saying that you know why women wear makeup is the one you keep avoiding. How do you know why women wear makeup at work? Show us how you know that.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think you've missed the simple mindedness of the alt-right. There's no martyr complex. He provides a pseudo intellectual veneer to their bigotry. Even if he was ignored by the left, the right would still shower him with praise and money because he can spout his nazi conspiracy theories about whatever is right is frightened of this week.

Click to shrink...

Ding!

 

[lmcfigs]

I'm not saying that - but he was not as popular as he is now back when he first gained notoriety. His entire game is to create a boogeyman out of the left, and it's helped him to recruit by playing victim.

His subreddit's subscriber count spiked HARD after the Newman interview. To deny this is silly. He's actively seeking out these opportunities to grow his brand.

Click to shrink...

He's doing fraudulent shit. When he calls every professor in the humanities neo-Marxist postmodern, etc. He's playing towards already existent reactionary dog whistles. This isn't new stuff and many others have the same formula. Take the Cathy Newman interview - there wasn't a "left outrage" over it. There were a bunch of young conservative, or an anti-feminist audience who loved that he "owned a lib". Those are the people who he owes for his success.

 

[Arkeband]

But the Newman interview wasn't the SJWs left it was just a journalist not doing a good job.

That's my point.

Click to shrink...

But to him and his audience they're all SJW's.

My point is that he clearly indicated to Rogan that his monetization scheme right now heavily involves provoking a reaction from his non-followers to create more followers. It is not simply pandering to his audience.

To ignore this and do nothing with it seems wrong to me. It's the villain laying out his master plan.