Jordan Peterson Event Report

[smartcooky]

shameless bid for Pith nomination.

Nominated.

Why thank you. I am not ashamed to act shamelessly!

 

[Brainster]

Or a promotional tour to sell his products.

That was pretty much my impression, although I didn't see any tee shirt vendors or even DVD or book sales. Maybe the online sales plus his appearance fee is enough.

For those speculating on revenue, I don't know but I'd suspect that the event had local promoters as go-betweens; the lecture and the comedy circuit are much like the rock music circuit. Jordan Peterson or Jerry Seinfeld or Jethro Tull announce that they are going on tour. Local promoters make bids on what they will pay, and they handle the nitty gritty of dealing with the local venues. If the tour sells out, the promoters make some money but if it doesn't they take the hit, not the talent.

 

[Susheel]

I've seen other such accusations, but what exactly do you mean by this? Obviously it's meant as an insult, but do more than that. Actually explain its meaning. Who counts as an incel, what does being a prophet of them consist of, and why is that a bad thing?

I don't think you've actually thought any of this through. I think you're just echoing accusations you've heard others make.

I am going to ignore your attempt at semantic games and will also call ******** on the fact that "you have heard this stated so many times but don't know it's meaning. The meaning is well established."

Jordan Peterson's schtick for over a decade has been to articulate a whingy polemic against what he sees as "toxic feminism" and a crumbling of ye good ol' times when "men were men." I still remember cringing while watching an interview stating that men are greater victims in society because more of them die in wars. He appeals to a large segment of the male populace for whom being called for their toxic masculinity is an affront to the natural order of things.

 

[Norman Alexander]

WAY overthinking it.

He's in the same money-making grift as most tent revivalists, TV evangelists, and Trump et al: Having some sort of whiny polemic that people will pay him a buttload of cash to hear and cheer along with. Not that he believes any of it himself, but it plays big with the cash-paying marks.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

WAY overthinking it.

He's in the same money-making grift as most tent revivalists, TV evangelists, and Trump et al: Having some sort of whiny polemic that people will pay him a buttload of cash to hear and cheer along with. Not that he believes any of it himself, but it plays big with the cash-paying marks.

He started out no believing it. But the problem for those peddling a line of bull droppings is that eventually they'll come to believe what they're peddling themselves.

 

[arthwollipot]

He started out no believing it. But the problem for those peddling a line of bull droppings is that eventually they'll come to believe what they're peddling themselves.

I think it sometimes goes the other way. They start out believing, but when they begin to realise how much of a cash cow it can be they become more cynical about it.

 

[Samson]

The talks I have listened to are steeped in game theory, so there is rigour I certainly acknowledge.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I think it sometimes goes the other way. They start out believing, but when they begin to realise how much of a cash cow it can be they become more cynical about it.

Yeah, this.

 

[Norman Alexander]

The talks I have listened to are steeped in game theory, so there is rigour I certainly acknowledge.

I can give a talk steeped in computing theory that would go for hours. It would still be nonsense.

 

[catsmate]

Sounds like a Cult gathering.

Yep.

Or a promotional tour to sell his products.

Oh absolutely. Appeal to the gullible.

Jordan Peterson: Bellend as well as complete and utter wanker.

When he flounced from Twitter after other users took him to task for a misogynistic post were he criticized the appearance of a plus-size model, he hurled his rattle out of the cot and wailed like a baby. He is also obsessed with the idea of free speech, so long as the speaker is saying things he agrees with.

The only people who admire this total tosspot are other total tosspots!

So he'll be back on Twitter soon then.

Has he added a Russian coma detox package yet?

Is JP actually clean now?

 

[catsmate]

This thread is just as I suspected, divided along ideological lines.

Reality versus Fantasy.

 

[catsmate]

Equally, it's always fun watching all the betas here getting catty about some "nazi" or other.

Meanwhile, back in the Real World....

 

[catsmate]

I find it hilarious when right wingers say that they are "all Alphas".

Except Poxy, he's a Special Sigma.

 

[catsmate]

My theory is that it's sublimated sexual fantasy. Men evaluating their sexual value in relation to other men? Maybe up to a point that's not gay, but after a point it becomes quite gay indeed. And very fetishy.

The BDSM/fetish scene is generally far more pleasant (and fun) than JP and his followers' nonsense.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I tried listening to some of his psychology lectures way back, since that sounded more interesting than whatever his political views may be.

Preamble: I always had this rule of thumb: if someone's talking BS about the topics you know about, you might want to be cautious about taking his word about the topics you don't.

And relatively quickly I run into one of his lectures about how you too would have been a Nazi in '30's Germany, and how Hitler only really became a Nazi by listening to what his audience wanted to hear.

Thing is, I may not be a qualified psychologist, but history is kinda my thing. And it was instantly clear that the whole lecture was 100% made-up pseudo-history. We know that's not how it went about ANYTHING he was talking about. Not only we have actual history records, including the fact that the NSDAP actually had to stop talking antisemitism almost altogether before the elections to have any chance. So much for everyone being a nazi. We even have Hitler's own testimony on the topic in Mein Kampf. The "fight" ("Kampf") was convincing the Germans of his POV. He even goes into stuff like learning to schedule the meetings very late on workdays, so the audience doesn't have the energy to contradict him. We also know that he (at least in the 20's) had problems with convincing people of the backstab conspiracy and of what's wrong with the Treaty Of Versailles. Not everyone, mind you, but there was significant opposition to his ideas. So no, he wasn't just learning what Germans wanted, he was learning how to convince them of something else.

Another lecture on the topic of Hitler, this time during the war, and... yep, he's still just making up pseudo-history. He's not even vaguely interested in the actual historical factors back then (such as financing the war with confiscated wealth), he's just making up his own stuff.

So yeah, Peterson was just making BS up. (I guess, true to Freud's tradition of just making stuff up)

(Side note: Kinda ticks me off when people just make up pseudo-history to support some propaganda point. History isn't just whatever you can make up to support a point, and it's not there to that end. Or any other end. History just IS. It's what happened. Learn from it if you're smart, or don't if you're not, but making it up is neither.)

Then I notice that on the other topics he never actually cites case studies, statistics, anything. He just illustrates them with children's cartoons. Well, I'm not against an illustration, but what if real people don't act like the exaggerated stuff in cartoons? Where is the actual clinical data to support the point? Hell, even the quotes from dead bearded guys, like philosophy does? Nowhere, apparently.

So yeah, he struck me as more of a propagandist than a reliable source on psychology (or anything else,) shall we say. And that's where he lost my interest. I'll look for other more reliable sources, thank you very much.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Peterson is in the Feelings, not the Facts business.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am going to ignore your attempt at semantic games and will also call ******** on the fact that "you have heard this stated so many times but don't know it's meaning. The meaning is well established."

Oh, I know what is often meant by it. And what is often meant is nonsensical. I’m wondering if you can do better. Not off to a good start.

Jordan Peterson's schtick for over a decade has been to articulate a whingy polemic against what he sees as "toxic feminism"

No. Toxic femininity, not quite the same thing.

and a crumbling of ye good ol' times when "men were men."

What exactly do you think Peterson’s vision of good masculinity looks like, and why is it a bad thing?

I still remember cringing while watching an interview stating that men are greater victims in society because more of them die in wars.

That’s one example, not the whole of the argument by a long shot, and a misunderstanding of that argument to begin with.

He appeals to a large segment of the male populace for whom being called for their toxic masculinity is an affront to the natural order of things.

There is less meaning here than you probably think. And what exactly is wrong with appealing to ANY audience? Nothing, actually. There may be something wrong with the message you give to an audience, though you have yet to present any serious complaint about that message (straw men don’t count) but there is no group of humans who don’t deserve to be spoken to. There is something deeply misanthropic about the assumption that there are groups who should never be addressed.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

To be fair, the majority of those who take affront to the idea of "toxic masculinity" have the wrong idea about what it even means, and thus are offended by something entirely imaginary. (But to be fair, some of the people from the other side are equally confused.)

It does NOT mean that being male is inherently toxic.

It means just a subset of harmful behaviours that some people think they must exhibit, to show that they're REAL MEN(TM), lest the others think less of their dick size. You know, drive recklessly like a REAL MAN(TM), be tough and aggressive, get into dangerous situation to show that you have the balls, dominate your woman, show no emotions, only have REAL MAN(TM) hobbies like guns or tweaking your motorcycle, etc. Basically the idea that if you have a dick, you have to be insecure about it, and act like a dick to show that you do have one. Because if, God forbid, enough others think you might as well have a pussy, the Masculinity Police will show up with a pair of rusty garden shears and revoke your right to pee standing.

As a possibly extreme-ish example, there was an interview on some French TV station some 30 years ago or so, with some guys who basically said that they were having a mistress because that's what (they think) society expects from them. Like, not even being dissatisfied with the wife or anything, just not to look like they're not REAL MEN(TM).

THAT kinda thing.

I'm under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that a lot less people would take affront to it if they understood that it never meant "testosterone is bad", but rather "don't act like a bad stereotype of terminal testosterone poisoning."

But then again, some still would. You know, the kind who thinks "soy boy" is the ultimate trump (with or without capital letter) card when it comes to insults.

 

[Ziggurat]

To be fair, the majority of those who take affront to the idea of "toxic masculinity" have the wrong idea about what it even means, and thus are offended by something entirely imaginary. (But to be fair, some of the people from the other side are equally confused.)

It does NOT mean that being male is inherently toxic.

Maybe that's not what it's supposed to mean. But it isn't just people who take affront who are interpreting it that way. There are also people who believe in the idea that being male is inherently toxic, and use "toxic masculinity" to mean that. You can say that they too are misinterpreting what "toxic masculinity" is supposed to mean, but they're part of the conversation whether we like it or not. So the group you refer to sees that group and reacts. And then everyone's angry and nobody is actually listening.

We see that dynamic in this very thread. A few people have put forward substantive criticisms of Peterson. But most of it isn't. Most of it is one line straw men and ad hominems, probably inspired by what others have said about him. If people really listened to him, I think they'd find they disagreed with much less of what he's saying than they imagine. Because a lot of it is really just basic stuff, like take responsibility for your own life, start with small things and work up, that sort of thing. There's a hell of a lot of room for common ground here, if people are willing to find it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, I did say that some of the other side are confused as well. But let's use an analogy. It's kinda like in Pixie Of Key's threads. If two sides arguing about GR are both wrong, well, it still doesn't change what GR actually says.