Oh, Christ, not this knob again. The name wasn’t registering at first, but now I recall this asshat and the misogynist wagon he rode in on.
As with every other instance of a high-ish profile MRA getting called out for their BS on BBS, the Red Pill creeps crawl out of every dark corner of the webz to defend their idol. Glad I didn’t enter the actual thread because I’m sure I’d need some brain bleach by now.
Excellent Baffler piece that popped up on fb today
I think he likes to think he is the sort of person who would go around punching people who say bad things about him, but lacks the awareness to know that loudly going around proclaiming that is not always a great indicator that you actually are. Also is idea of being accused of being a fascist is rather off, not to mention a little self-defensive. See New Republic’s coverage of his response to a bad review in the NYRB.
Oh man I hadn’t thought of that Vidal-Mailer feud in quite some time. Once again, words fail… is imho a nigh unparalleled rejoinder.
Oh to be inside Mailers mind for just that moment…
Bumping because relevant given the recent lobster infestation. Sea bugs: angry, miniature sealions with claws.
Reposting from thread.
[quote=the article] In his defence, Jordan told me if he refused to pay the fine he could go to jail. That is not the same as being jailed for what you say, but it did ennoble him as a would-be martyr in the defence of free speech. He was a true free speech “warrior” who was willing to sacrifice and run roughshod over his students to make a point. He could have spared his students and chosen to sidestep the issue and refer to them by their names. And if this was truly a matter of free speech he could have challenged the Human Rights Act, off-campus and much earlier, by openly using language offensive to any of the already-protected groups on that list.
Perhaps this was not just about free speech.
Not long afterwards the following message was sent from his wife’s email address exhorting recipients to sign a petition opposing Ontario’s Bill 28. That bill proposed changing the language in legislation about families from “mother” and “father” to the gender-neutral “parents.”
“A new bill, introduced in Ontario on September 29th, subjugates the natural family to the transgender agenda. The bill — misleadingly called the ‘All Families Are Equal Act’ — is moving extremely fast. We must ACT NOW to stop this bill from passing into law.”
This is not a free-speech issue so Jordan is wearing a different political hat. And what does a “transgender agenda” have to do with a bill protecting same-sex parents? What is this all about?[/quote]
There you have it: it was never about free speech; it was always about bashing Trans folk.
Other interesting tidbit:
[quote=article] Several years ago, Jordan Peterson told me he wanted to buy a church. This was long before he became known as “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world,” as he was described in the pages of the New York Times a few months ago. It was before he was fancied to be a truth-telling sage who inspired legions, and the author of one of the bestselling books in the world this year. He was just my colleague and friend.
I assumed that it was for a new home — there was a trend in Toronto of converting religious spaces, vacant because of their dwindling congregations, into stylish lofts — but he corrected me. He wanted to establish a church, he said, in which he would deliver sermons every Sunday.[/quote]
Ha, there ya go. Just another exploitatively wealthy cult leader, pandering to his braindead flock.
Thanks, I look forward to this piece.
If not I’m sure he’ll insist that the idea deserves serious consideration.
Not really the way you put it. Peterson believes even had ideas merit discussion - that’s how you weed then out
There’s a difference between bad ideas and thoroughly discredited ideas (like those promoted by various factions of the alt-right to which Jordaddy panders). There’s also a difference between discussing both kinds of ideas and giving serious consideration to the latter kind.
[Also, Welcome to BoingBoing. You stand out from Jordaddy’s other defenders in not arriving here via a post on the main BBS]
Today in JBPland:
Peterson held an AMA session on Reddit, and boy, did he ever double down on stupid.
Jordaddy, doubling down on "Women joining workforce halved Male wages"
There’s a lot of stupid in his posts and I heartily recommend nobody but lobsters read it.
His spouting that nonsense in an academic lecture at the University of Toronto was bad enough. I can understand why he keeps going with it, though: for American conservatives it handwaves away a whole raft of their culpabilities for stagnating wages.
The Toronto Star wasn’t messing around in the print edition. Front of the Insight section, and three full pages inside.
My difficulty with that article is that the headline reads as “I was a complete idiot earlier, but now you should listen to me”.
Peterson was blatantly crap from the beginning. A history of supporting him is nothing to brag about.
within his original academic area of expertise, peterson was well-known and respected for the quality of his research. when you’ve established a relationship of respect for someone based on genuine accomplishments it becomes hard to move forward if they turn, over time, into monsters: or even hard to believe that they have become monsters to the extent that it’s easier to believe that those who are calling your respected colleague a monster are being hyperbolic. it’s likely taken this one rather longer than it should have to recognized the change in peterson but it is an understandable human failing.
Which bit? The psychopharmacology or the personality stuff?
Interesting thread here:
https://twitter.com/dearsplenda/status/1000387793787420673?s=21
This is strangely invalid. I’ve listened to a lot of Peterson and his ideas are obvious enough to me. Perhaps you can point, in specific, to where his “drivel” doesn’t make sense to you and I can walk you through his ideas. Peterson doesn’t believe in the redistribution of child production. Peterson has already explained how the enforced monogamy NYT hitpiece got … everything wrong.
Further research has revealed that the NYT itself has previously published articles that used the term enforced monogamy to mean a societal pressure into keeping people from polygamy (i.e. what the term ‘enforced monogamy’ means). Thus, the NYT has no excuse for publishing the hitpiece.
I can’t tell whether or not the enormous levels of Peterson ‘haters’ are actually serious in their criticisms. This was written against JP, but I can’t tell if anyone actually believes it;
Every brain dropping I’ve seen by Peterson reads like Markov chain drivel. He uses matryoshka semantics as a preemptive defense against criticism in order to claim that he’s misunderstood. He is Frankfurt’s prototypical bullshitter 2: someone not only ignorant of the truth but also apathetic towards it, caring only about whether their verbiage achieves its intended aim.
Like, wow. Talk about bias on another level.
Peterson walks in with simple statements. Politicians are polarizing. Okay, we can see that. He speaks of tribalism, and how politicians prey on pitting groups against each other. Then he pulls the bait and switch. He plays up patriarchy as somehow individualistic, when in fact it is just the status quo for the dominant tribe currently.
Sorry to all of you butt hurt men out there, but you’re being played.
