Jordan Peterson becoming feral...

Post Reply New Topic

... there's a scene in the latest lars von trier film, "the house that jack built", in which matt dillon is tying up a female victim, about to cut off her breasts and then murder her, while mumbling MGTOW slogans of the "if you're born a man, you're automatically guilty. You needn't do anything, you're guilty by default, just by being a man"-kind. The scene - as is the whole film- is hilarious. The reviews on this film vary wildly - some agree with my view, and some find it outrageously misogynist. ....

I wondered for a while where that figure of speech came from (ie. House that Jack Built). I always think of 'Jack had a groove' or 'house music - it's a spiritual thing!', so I feel like I should be breaking out glowsticks rather than headbanging.

Don't even know the guy.

Didn't know him when he was tame.

Maybe the wolfbane is in bloom!

Allow me to take a moment of schadenfreude.

I think I may know where you are coming from, but in the words of Pauline Hanson: "Please explain..." noch einmal...

Owen Benjamin and Vox Day vs Peterson and a few other things. 70 mins long, I suspect only techstep will have the stamina to watch it all. Skip to 47:03 for the main Peterson bit.

I came across another recent video (his hair is grey) where he is even worse...

I think Peterson has adopted the: "Peter principle..."
Or in his case, the "Peterson principle..."
Looks like a new meme has been born...

I think he is starting to over reach in areas in which he is not competent...
Fame going to his head...<shrug>

I tried, got to 65:30 before it seemed like the pattern was repeating itself. Took time-stamped notes but there wasn't even enough meat to criticize.

Guess I'd like to ask why you thought this was a good representation of whatever it is Vox thinks of Peterson. The only semi-useful thing I got is that Owen is a born-again Christian and takes things quite literally, I have to guess on some level Vox does because the whole thing gets cast as a Jewish conspiracy.

From some of the other Vox videos you PM'd I didn't expect to be smarter, I at least hoped I'd get some better sense of what main arguments Peterson makes that Vox has a problem with and the details on that but I didn't get any farther there either. It was like watching two Stephanie Millers criticize people they don't like.

I'd say I raise you Jordan Peterson and Jocko Willink but I get the impression that I'm probably just punishing shlaifu since he's the only one (that I know of) who watches these.

It was a friendly and relaxed chat that hit on a few Vox talking points re. Peterson. I thought some might enjoy it and it seemed relevant to the thread. His views can only really be known by reading the book he was plugging.

You know, I would love it if you could review Jordanetics for PPR, I suspect you are the most qualified here.

I'd have no reason to touch it or finance it because I have no reason to believe that it's going to anything deeper or in any way more direct to his core points than what I've seen in the videos you've been sending me.

What might be a more realistic request is that you watch (Youtube) Jordan Peterson's 2015 Maps of Meaning course (before anyone knew who he was) from start to finish and tell us on what details Vox got it right or got it wrong. If you haven't read Jordanetics yet you at least seem like you would enjoy reading it to compare against 2015 Maps of Meaning and it's a much more reasonable request than asking you to read Peterson cover to cover.

It's interesting you are keen to direct me to 2015 Maps of meaning. I'm currently slogging through the 1999 book version of maps of meaning (is there much difference between the lectures?) before I read Jordanetics. I may also skim 12 rules. Naturally I skipped ahead at first to see if JP did indeed write about dreams of cannibalising his hot cousin and grandma's pubic hair paintbrush.

They were standing upright, on their hind legs. They were thin, like greyhounds, and had pointed noses. They looked like creatures of ritual – like Anubis, from the Egyptian tombs. They were carrying plates in front of them, which contained pieces of seared meat. They wanted to trade the meat for the cans. I took a plate. In the center of it was a circular slab of flesh four inches in diameter and one inch thick, foully cooked, oily, with a marrow bone in the center of it. Where did it come from?
I had a terrible thought. I rushed downstairs to my cousin. The dogs had butchered her, and were offering the meat to the survivors of the disaster. I woke up with my heart pounding.

I dreamed I saw my maternal grandmother sitting by the bank of a swimming pool, that was also a river. In real life, she had been a victim of Alzheimer’s disease, and had regressed, before her death, to a semi-conscious state. In the dream, as well, she had lost her capacity for self-control. Her genital region was exposed, dimly; it had the appearance of a thick mat of hair. She was stroking herself, absent-mindedly. She walked over to me, with a handful of pubic hair, compacted into something resembling a large artist’s paint-brush. She pushed this at my face. I raised my arm, several times, to deflect her hand; finally, unwilling to hurt her, or interfere with her any farther, I let her have her way. She stroked my face with the brush, gently, and said, like a child, “isn’t is soft?” I looked at her ruined face and said, “yes, Grandma, it’s soft.”

Hm. I'm guessing that wasn't in the 2015 lecture series?

I will, for your sake, post a brief summary of Jordanetics when I finish. I would have thought, given your demeanor, that you would be more interested in the thoughts of critics.

I need to hear them actually make an a point that makes sense rather than these weird out-of-context surface blows. If that's all I get then I don't have reason to believe that they have anything.

That said I've heard Gabor Mate make some criticisms of Peterson, some of which I agree with. I've heard Iain McGilchrist criticize some of his ideas, most of his criticisms I agree with. I'd note that Jordan is also on good terms with Bret and Eric Weinstein as well as Jonathan Haidt and I know that at least Eric has had some disagreements with Jordan, Bret seems to see a lot in what Jordan is saying but would suggest that he wasn't articulating it that well in the beginning. Sam Harris largely thinks well of him albeit he disagrees on some aspects and also worries about the slavishness of some of Peterson's fan base.

None of the above would ever suggest that he's a hack, a fraud, or a charlatan and the few who have had that question put to them flatly said that such a claim is ridiculous.

So Vox is off in his own left-field territory, somewhere in the vicinity of TJ Kirk (Amazing Atheist) in calling him a huxter, a fraud, or at least someone that they intellectually despise (and who knows - you might like TJ Kirk's 'Chaos - An Antidote to Meaning').

The point being - I have a host of good reasons to believe that Vox is off the deep end with this, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear him say 'Bret and Eric Weinstein, Jonathan Haidt, Sam Harris - Jews!! !', he already pulled that in the interview with Benjamin Owen about Peterson's friend and sponsor up in Canada. He might be able to design a video game, make some dance music, or write war books but aside from that he's striking me increasingly as a self-absorbed putz with some kind of ax to grind that he wraps in far-right Christian conspiracy theories.

Until I actually see evidence that he has something useful or intelligent to add to the conversation I don't think I'll bother.

I'll dig into the books and produce a summary.

For those wondering, this is the video I linked to techstep some months ago. Intentionally heavy on the rhetoric and viral production values, so no complaining that it's not a dissertation. That's what the book is for.

One of the bigger digs people take with him and his usual explanation, relatively covered in the first five minutes.

Also I REALLY love Owen Benjamin's comment in the thread, it's quite candid and revealing:

Wonder if I should tell him he's a Zionist shill and any denial of that is proof.

You can thank Vox for that. He's pieced together how JP understands the world in Jordanetics from his own words and while Peterson never says "Hail Satan" or anything like that, Vox notes parallels with the writings of Aleister Crowley and that scene. In the mind of dear sweet Owen that becomes "JP is a closet Satanist".

I've only just recently been introduced to Owen. He's quite a character isn't he?