Need a plate of generic, insipid platitudes with a giant helping of bad science and misogyny?
You must log in or register to comment.
I would have appreciated if the bottom right panel said “Hold my benzos” instead.
Who is Jordan b Peterson?
He was a university professor in Canada. He stepped into the media light after Canada was set to pass a law criminalizing dead naming someone. Peterson became very outspoken against this law because it wasn’t a law banning speech, it was a law enforcing you to use specific speech.
A video of some trans students confronting him went viral, which thrust him into popularity. It’s an interesting video, I suggest everyone watch it. After that, the law was put in place, and Peterson got in trouble with the university, and (quit? Was fired? I forget which).
There are two notable events after the first that everyone here is talking about. Due to the media attention, Peterson sought out therapy and was prescribed benzos, which he quickly became addicted to. He kinda fell out of the media light for a bit, and it turns out he was not going through withdrawal very well, so he and his family flew to Russia, where they induced a coma and he was able to come off of the benzos. I know that he did a podcast with his daughter where they go through exactly what happened, if you’re curious as yo his experience (though I’m sure there’s a summary on wiki or something)
The second event is that (one of?) his licenses was pulled by a college board of some sort after he criticized Trudeau on twitter over something, and he was ordered to go to “social media reeducation” training. He took them to court over it and the judge ruled that yes, the board’s ruling was an infringement on his free speech, but since they’re a private board they can withhold his license until they see fit.
And that sums up everything as neutrally as I can get.
Wow, that summary is disingenuous to the point of insanity. There was no law that criminalizes dead naming someone in Canada nor has anyone tried to pass one. The law he opposed was adding gender expression to the list of protected grounds for discrimination. Bigots like JP tried to make it seem like this was a ridiculous anti free speech law, but it gives the same protections to trans people as gays and other minorities. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
He was also asked to take the training because he kept calling doctors who help trans people “butchers” and that’s a fucked up thing to call your fellow mental health professionals. He didn’t oppose the ruling on the grounds it was restricting his free speech, he opposed it because he said he “wasn’t acting in a professional capacity” but that’s bullshit. The court said he can’t have it both ways, both being recognised and introduced as an expert due to his credentials, then say that nothing he says is done in a professional context. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-court-rules-against-jordan-peterson-upholds-social-media-training-order-1.6530615
Absolutely ridiculous that your summary is basically “he fights for free speech and everyone hates him for it” when the reality is that he’s a hypocritical bigot who thinks there should be no consequences to saying offensive things in public. I also love that you managed to blame Trudeau for stifling JP’s free speech when nothing even close to that ever happened.
Sorry, I said dead name but I meant pronouns. From your very link:
“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
This was, from what I know of it, the way it enforces people to use specific speech, which is what he didnt like. Its not banning speech, it’s enforcement of using correct speech. There are no protections for gay people along the lines of forced speech, that I know of.
I’m not being disingenuous, I purposely left out my personal feelings on the matter and just reiterated actions taken.
I looked into the judges’ actual ruling some more, and it was a combination of things. I’d heard the college reacted to his tweets based on criticism towards Trudeau, and it is, but also included tweets about Paige and the plus sized model on sports illustrated (or one of the sports mags).
His claim was that the college board was overstepping their bounds and shouldn’t suspend his license due to what he says outside of the profession, and the board claimed that because he says on social media that his qualifications for speaking about his opinions are because he’s a phychiatrist, that he is speaking in a professional manner. The judge said that while it does impact his free speech in a small way, he can’t both claim to be speaking outside of his profession and tell people he has these opinions because he’s a psychologist at the same time.
I never said anywhere in my post that he is fighting for free speech, just that that was the reason he says he spoke up in the first place, and nowhere in my post did I say everyone hates him, nor did I give my personal take on the hatred he receives online. Your response, which is filled with personal feelings, whether right or wrong, is heavily opinionated. Mine was just laying out actions.
And I didn’t blame Trudeau for anything, I just said those tweets are what the collage board responded too. And I was correct, I just didn’t know it included the other tweets I listed here as well.
I get that you hate the guy, but maybe work on your reading comprehension? To take what I wrote and boil it down to what you did is wild.
The law doesn’t create anything for trans people that doesn’t exist for gays. If you repeatedly call someone using male pronouns when they repeatedly ask to be called by female pronouns that’s being insulting on purpose. This is very similar to using slurs or insults with any other protected minority, if you call a brown skinned person an “Indian” repeatedly when they tell you they’re Philippino you’d get into the exact same trouble. It’s not new. Purposefully being an asshole to minorities is, in many situations, illegal especially when you have a position of authority.
I’ve read what your said and I don’t think I’ve been unfair. I feel your presentation of facts was narrow and omitted a lot of important nuance. I feel it created a narrative that is flawed at best and dangerously dishonest at worst. I do agree that my statements are more biased, I don’t like JP and I think he’s a predatory con man, I’m not claiming to be neutral. I also agree that on the surface your presentation of information is more neutral, but your choices on what to include and what to omit create a strong but more subtle bias, and I don’t believe this was entirely accidental.
I don’t think you’re being unfair, I think you are confusing straight up facts with no opinion bias whatsoever as positive, when in fact it’s just neutral. I didn’t put anything that sheds a positive or negative light on him on purpose. The fact that you are so angry and hateful towards him that you can’t see anything but glowing positives from what I wrote is a you problem.
I didn’t say you were claiming to be neutral, I said your perception of what neutral is is skewed. You get mad at me for not using a single opinionated word or descriptor both good and bad, and list angrily a bunch of negative words and descriptors that you’re mad I left out, then tell me yeah I’m more neutral than you are but I should be less neutral and more negative?
Seriously, it’s not healthy or intelligent to be so skewed you can’t tell the difference.
If you’re trying to claim that a series of carefully selected “neutral” facts don’t create a narrative then you’re either being purposefully obtuse or extremely naive.
I note that you haven’t aknowledged that bill C-16 doesn’t create any protections for trans people that don’t already exist for other minorities and I think that says a lot about this conversation.
Lastly, when reality paints a deeply negative picture of someone, “neutral facts” must reflect that reality. Painting a bad person in a “neutral” light is not being unbiased. If I said of the unibomber that he was “an esoteric reclusive mathematician who was eventually arrested due to his anti-technology views” that’s a bunch of neutral facts, but it’s deeply biased to paint a terrorist murderer in a “neutral light”. Unbiased facts must reflect the murderous reality of his actions.
You do you, call me what you want, rail against what I’ve written and have a great day. :)
the board’s ruling was an infringement on his free speech, but since they’re a private board
Free speech applies to the private sphere in Canada? It seems like that would have implications on every social media platform, search engine, and so on.
It’s a bit of a gray area. The issue, as far as I can tell, is whether or not he’s speaking in a professional manor on his social media, as he would be expected to with any patient he sees.
But where is the government in this context? The license is through a private board.
It’s an issue of what a private board can cover and enforce their rules over and what they can’t. Anything they can’t is government.
Step 1 of the depressed teenage boy to tradition-obsessed nutjob pipeline. Also a self-help book/snake oil peddler who says he only eats meat and drinking apple cider made him stay awake for a month.
It’s the worst kind of job. Taking advantage of developing teens and their self-issues to make money like that.
How did you steal my alt account? I thought I was the only dipshit on here.
Realistically, half the economy runs essentially on that.
Fashion, large parts of tech (Facebook, Tinder, Pornhub,…), entertainment, …
He’s so smart and articulate! Yeah, if you ate lead paint chips as a kid, or decided that huffing glue as a past time was a great idea.
Why is it that the cringiest fucking weebs like this guy? Does the suit give him some sort of weird dominion over them? These losers should be case and fucking point as to why you need Critical Thinking classes in schools…and it should also fucking highlight why Republicans are desperately trying to make public schools systematically dumber. A generation of highly educated people is detrimental to the conservative ideology (unless your making literally millions of $$$).
I think it’s partly they see a little bit of themselves in him, so it’s like a “I’m you but better so listen to me” thing. But it’s also because she focuses on the Canadian government, which is really easy to make fun of and ridicule policy wise as of late. So these men see him “owning” the Liberal Canadian government for their many bad policies and they idolize him.
Tell me one thing he says (other than his religious takes or takes on trans) that you disagree with. I am curious why people would be against his statements as his ‘clean your room’ style is very general
I also believe nobody knows what he teaches and likes to circlejerk against him
Tell me one thing he says (other than his religious takes or takes on trans) that you disagree with.
I mean, that’s like saying “tell me one thing Hitler says (other than racism and politics) that you disagree with”…
His “teachings” are completely entangled with religion and culturally conservative dogma. This aspect of his character isn’t really separable from his teachings or his actions.
To be honest, his actual “philosophy” is just a bunch of word salad that individuals can gleem meaning from when it suits them.
Except hitler is known for his politics and racism. The meme was about mens health and how he is a bad resource for that view. I think you can dissect that from his philosophy and religious teachings.
Except hitler is known for his politics and racism.
And Jordan Peterson isn’t famous for his anti-trans dogma, or crazy fusion of religion and “philosophy”?
The meme was about mens health and how he is a bad resource for that view.
And I am staying that his religious and anti-trans attitude is a key reason of why he is a bad resource for that view. His views of religion and trans people are a inseparable part of his world view.
Yeah JBP is famous outside of his mentor crowd for different reasons. Some people flock to him for guidance, and others look at his other takes and judge him as a whole. It would be akin to having a conversation about good leadership skills and bringing up Hitler as a good model for using effective communication skills for uniting his base regardless of the outcome. I am not talking about Hitlers history of racism or politics.
I just want you to acknowledge that many people dont come to JBP for his stance on religion or trans issues. They come for a fatherly role model. I want you to criticize that not his stance on whatever philosophical problem because they can be seperated. If you can show me an example where it needs to be together then that is acceptable.
I just want you to acknowledge that many people dont come to JBP for his stance on religion or trans issues.
That’s kinda how propaganda works… Even if you don’t come for the trans and religion dogma, you will be exposed to it.
Hitler as a good model for using effective communication skills for uniting his base regardless of the outcome.
Lol, it’s the same model… Invent a boogie man, lie, cheat, steal, and hurl abuse at those who oppose you. Yes, it would be like bringing up hitlers “leadership skill”. But, then ignoring the reality of what that “leadership” really entailed.
show me an example where it needs to be together then that is acceptable.
You can’t separate the two because he does not separate them. His philosophy leads him to believe in, and justify his own dogmatic views.
This is not a “separate the art from the artist” as this person’s art is getting people to embody his own philosophy.
Thats not how propoganda works. Im asking you to formulate an opinion on one subject matter. I can talk about the bible on how it is the most important piece of literature of all time and not be indoctrinated.
You can take a quote of his, show me that it is both intended to bolster his dogmatic philosophy while also empowering young men. That would be an acceptable example. If you can show me that he does this I will give this to you.
I see what you’re saying “you can dig through this pile of shit (racism, homophobia, and other bigotry) and find a nugget of gold (basic ass advice on self help and leadership)” and that’s as true for JP as it is for Hitler.
I think what everyone else is saying is “WHY?!??” why are you fighting so hard to dig through the shit. There are many people handing out that gold with very little shit digging required.
When you fight so hard for the right to dig through that much shit to find small amounts of easily accessible gold, people are going to rightfully start to think it’s not just the gold you’re after.
Im losing confidence that you have anything to bring to the table other than dog whistle style messages. I am not trying to defend the guy on all moral positions, i am just looking for this one thing. Its either you know or you dont.
Women wear make up ONLY to signal sexual arousal. Healthy women want kids (so do unhealthy women; healthy women can also want kids). “Sorry, not beautiful” about a woman. Telling people on Twitter to off themselves.
The dude is in trouble for calling himself a neuroscientist and evolutionary biologist ffs. I mean, do I need to go on? Or do you think it’s fair to say that his religious and trans arguments aren’t the only issues he’s currently facing removal of his licensure over?
This has nothing to do with empowering young men.
This comment has nothing to do with your original comment, but if you need me to tie together how his misogyny hurts young men that follow him we can go over that
Show me an example of misogyny, please
“The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”
About Alek Minassian, a man accused of killing six people after running them over with a van in Toronto: “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Oh, some incel murdered 6 people, must of been a woman’s fault somehow…
Is defending a literal misogynist terror attack enough evidence for you?
Send link if you can
Show me you can read my first comment, please.
That wasnt in respnse to what I said though. You just started spewing misogyny stuff
Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn’t empower young men? That is literally telling young men that women are subservient to them…
Who exactly is stealing the power away from these young men? And what exactly are they taking away?
Can you give us a example of how JP actually empowers men?
Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn’t empower young men
I have never heard JBP say this. I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable… but thats not the same thing.
Dont turn this on me. I asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men(which is the point of this meme). You cant reverse uno and ask me the same question
have never heard JBP say this.
I mean you asked for a quote and someone provided a quote. You can look up the quote and find articles about it.
It’s just one of the misogynistic lies he spews on the regular. I believe in the same interview he stated that high heels were invented to lengthen the legs of women to make them more attractive… In reality high heels were first worn by men to keep shit from getting in their shoes.
I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable… but thats not the same thing.
Lol, so much better… It’s your fault you are being stepped on, not the generations of oppression and systemic disenfranchisement. Does that apply to everyone? Is he saying that Africans were just to agreeable so we had to enslave them… Broken as logic.
asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men
Yes, I’m going to first prove God doesn’t exist, then I will work on proving the negative with JP … You can’t prove a negative my dude. If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it’s up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.
If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it’s up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.
Im just going to respond to this because im kinda over this. The claim was initially made by the meme. I am questioning this, yet you are here asking me for proof of the contrary.
Without writing a thesis and deepdiving into his rhetoric - He’s not a philosopher, yet often makes references to well known philosophical platitudes from people like Gödel in efforts to argue conservative and religious viewpoints. For example: Argument on Existence of God Notice how he takes a common sense observation, and then applies it to an idea. That’s okay, your supposed to do that. My issue with him is that he then makes another assumption, then another…then another. And soon, he’s making conclusions built upon a shaky bridge of assumptions that lead back to a small kernel of actual wisdom.
If your paying attention to him, it’s very similar to how conspiracy theories are created, you take a solid kernel of truth or seed of wisdom that you can use to anchor the idea…to someone that doesn’t know better, that’s all they need to believe everything else.
Jordan Peterson is not always wrong, I think he makes genuine points on some subjects when it’s based on his actual areas of expertise, but he’s sort of a smart sounding jack-of-all-trades when it comes to anything else. For example, he’s a psychologist…why did he come up with an all/mostly-meat diet? Because it worked in a niche case with his daughter? It’s entirely anecdotal, not researched, divergent from common sense dietary advice, and frankly dangerous.
It’s been years since I listened to or read a word from him, but doesn’t he also love to use circular logic to rationalize that the Christian religion is the natural order, while failing to have any understanding of ecological systems or evolutionary biology?
Even at the time I thought he was one of the agents that manufactures the nostalgia for a fictional era that fuels fascist populism. I’m pretty tuned out now, but in retrospect I reckon I wasn’t far off the mark.
I said dont give a religious example as that is open to much criticism. I am talking in reference to his points on self-improvement and how everyone here believes they should be ignored. Please give an example on that.
A lack of visible positive role models is a big part of it. When nobody else wants to engage with isolated and directionless young white men, people like Peterson will fill the vacuum. Couple that with amoral algorithms of social media generating engagement at any cost, and they soon have an audience.
Ensuring everyone has opportunities and and a sense of inclusion would go a lot further than just trying to teach everyone to recognise false shepherds. That’s just treating the symptom and not the cause, and would likely end up with them falling prey to another wolf with a better sheepskin.
Oh, I don’t disagree. There’s many systemic failures that have to occur for this to happen. YouTube thankfully has gone through efforts to remove it’s radicalization issue, so hopefully we’ll start to see it slow down or peter out over the next decade or so. However, I’m worried that the damage is already done.
Be careful with that second sentence. Keep in mind that there’s an age everyone experiences, not just white men, where people feel isolated and unheard. Believing that it only applies to young white men is a slippery slope into the mindset that creates these whackjobs.
Keep in mind that there’s an age everyone experiences, not just white men, where people feel isolated and unheard. Believing that it only applies to young white men is a slippery slope into the mindset that creates these whackjobs.
OK, but young white men are Peterson’s target demographic and he doesn’t really appeal to anyone else (broadly). You’re correct that everyone experiences that feeling but it’s not really relevant to this conversation.
The person you replied to did not imply in any way that only young white men experience that feeling of isolation. Rather, the point was that they are the group most affected by Peterson’s rhetoric.
Most of his fans have never really read his more academic works (like the one with the grandma sex dream). So, I guess they like his vibe. But his vibe is weepy alcoholic. What’s so great about that?
I don’t know whether he recognizes it but 20 something disenfranchised dudes are uniquely subsceptible to aphorisms without context and if there’s one thing JBP does well it’s that
He’s a university professor. That’s their bread and butter. It’s a skill they learn to prevent undergrads from nodding off during their lectures.
I recently had a fairly high fever and became pretty emotional over absolutely mundane shit. JBP talks and acts like has a brain damaging fever every day of his life.
I like
How he’s started
Making all
His tweets
Like
This
He dresses like a comic book villain on purpose now, too.
His brain is just too powerful for us plebs to comprehend
Do you know how he got those scars, bucko?
spoiler
Apple cider.
He’s just posting through it lol
Weepy alcoholic is coded tragically cognoscent in America.
There’s only one weepy alcoholic I’ll stan and it’s
Most of his fans have never really read
his more academic works (like the one with the grandma sex dream). So, I guess they like his vibe. But his vibe is weepy alcoholic. What’s so great about that?Actual real world Guy Maddin character
I just want to say that if you are/were a young man, and found some value in some of what this guy was saying to you…thats’s OK. Don’t feel bad, or embarrassed or mad at yourself or whatever. We are all learning all the time, and doubly so when we’re young. Never think that you can’t take what is useful and reject what isn’t. Fuck knows there is plenty to reject about what this dude says!
I don’t know if it’s a new trend or something, but lots of people have something interesting to say, and say lots of hogwash besides and everyone gobbles it all up including the hogwash. You don’t have to go all in when reading someone’s work. For example, I read Freud and it was quite interesting. Most of it was horseshit (although historically interesting), but he still made the point that we don’t do all that we do consciously , which was hugely important.
Ideas and memes (in the original sense) are there to be examined and weighed against one another, not followed blindly.
So Petersen (I’m not really sure who that is), why not, he might have some salient points, even though he seems to be a controversial figure, apparently rightly so.
Something something broken clocks.
“Clean your room, bucko” is advice many people’s moms tried to give them but too many of them had to hear it from a cryptofascist crank LARPing as the world’s father figure before they listened to it.
I get it. I’m actually thinking of a particular friend of mine. He lost his father at 14, and his mom isn’t the greatest parent. He told me Peterson was kind of exactly what he needed at a tough time in his life. Fortunately, he’s always been a smart kid, and saw through the toxic shit. Five years later and he’s a queer communist! I guess I’m just saying that if you really needed to hear “clean your room” from a father figure, and it helped you… don’t feel bad that Peterson was the guy who filled that role at the time. Obviously I’m speaking to people who have grown to see him differently now.
I listened to him for a little bit and sounded sensible, but I see a lot of people hate him and sounds like he found some fans and double down and a shit show to cater to them. I don’t know enough to have an opinion lol
He laces practical advice with misogynistic and bigoted undertones. He tells people to adhere to the “natural order” and you shouldn’t try to improve the world but only strive to improve yourself and be a better worker bee. He stopped practicing psychology and teaching it because what is taught in psychology doesn’t agree with his political views. Recently he has chosen to be a right-wing voice for the daily wire to personally profit off of airing his grievances with society at large. He calls his fellow colleagues in his profession “butchers” for giving gender affirming care and he might lose his license because he is maligning the profession he himself was a part of. He seems that he would rather nuke his credentials to further his career as a pundit. He is a deeply disturbed man that has yet to get his house in order lecturing young people, mostly men, about what it means to be a productive member of society.
he would rather nuke his credentials to further his career as a pundit.
Yep, and to him and the people he takes advantage of, he’d be dumb not to do this. When you value money above all else, it’s a big brain move to do the thing that gets you the most money. He’s good at his game, but it’s an entirely different game than what mature and reasonable adults play.
The problem with him and people like him is that they start off with truth, and then slowly devolve into a conclusion they drew from that kernel of truth and before you know it they’re operating completely on their conclusions and personal ideas instead of the actual data they began with. Teaching as if their conclusions are just as valid.
It’s a similar strategy to how most religious leaders operate, when giving a sermon. They read the text and then change its meaning to whatever fits their narrative and interpretation best, then they spend the next hour preaching their ideas with the root authority of the audience largely unmentioned after that.
Bold of you to assume he started with actual data
Most charlatans do, it’s just cherry picked for the topic with all context ignored. Once again, just like religious leaders.
operating completely on their conclusions and personal ideas instead of the actual data they began with
Do you have a source for Peterson having done this?
Critical thinking and listening to him speak.
So that’s a no.
This video shortly and succinctly shows this a few times: https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo?si=rCJA_3-QaANHSQX9
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/hSNWkRw53Jo?si=rCJA_3-QaANHSQX9
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
shortly and succinctly
The video is three hours long!
90% of his advice is pretty much just boilerplate self help stuff you can find in thousands of books on Amazon. That stuff gets you in the door and is meant to develop a sense of trust because you might see initial improvement and feel good from the advice.
It’s when he does the rug pull and starts introducing trad nonsense into it that determines how willing a person is to keep following through on listening to him.
Like you mentioned, this is an extremely common tactic used by religious leaders as well as cults. Back in the mid 20th century when the whole self help craze started, many cults took to framing themselves as self help groups to attract outsiders. NXIVM is probably the most infamous example of this. The first few meetings should seem like a normal support group but would soon start ramping up into full on cult mode.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/gENRqiaS8xM?si=30TvbyB-l-jelzoU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Completely agree. I initially agreed with a lot of what he said, but he slowly tries to drown you in the deep end.
He’s such an oddity to me in that it sounds like he’s speaking very well and in an articulate manner. But then you try to actually parse out what he’s saying, and realize it’s barely coherent a lot of the time. It seems to be the same model as Scientology as far as I can tell.
Yeah, eloquence only works if you actually have a point to make. He seems like he’s talking in circles for the most part.
I read that in his voice and even my imagination couldn’t make him sound sincere.
And oh, great, now im gonna have “consider the lobster” popping into my head all day. Thanks.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Hdcxi10mduA&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Thankyou. That was thoroughly entertaining.
Att least before his drug auxin, he wasn’t that bad and there were some alright takeaways between the lines.
Now it’s just sick ramblings from a diseased man.
The problem has always been that he took (quite simplistic) valid life advise such as ‘keep your living quarters in order’ and mixed it with ideological bullshit such as ‘hierarchies are entirely natural’ or ‘women should be subservient’.
He got famous for being a transphobe who misrepresented some propsed Canadian law to pretend to be oppressed. He was always bad
I hate it when people bitch about the left “not having gurus to help lost young people” or whatever when the right’s so-called gurus are worthless sacks of skin like Peterson. Also I’m here because I - in very emphatic terms - do not want a guru.
Whatever your opinion on it is, the fact is that young guys are lost to right wing patriarchs. And the left doesn’t really want to outcompete the right for their attention, because the left knows they can’t outcompete the right on this without abandoning some highly treasured principles.
The closest the Left has to a guru is the Spirit Science guy (He’s surprisingly progressive for someone who thinks jews are from space), and I still can’t recommend that in good concious unless you need a short cartoon to explain a supernatural concept. The show’s decent on Spirituality, it’s tying it to Science that causes the problems…
It’s almost like Religion and Science are entirely different concepts exploring different ideas, and shouldn’t be merged together into one unified force anymore than my keyboard and my dresser!
Yeah, the lifestyle coach is an inherently evil breed. Unhappy young people don’t need a talking head to tell them to buy the book and listen to the podcast, they need friends. Even just a discord where you can get relationship advice from people who have actually been in a healthy relationship is way more valuable.
it’s really annoying because personal growth is not even remotely relevant to politics. The left can’t “make you a man” because that’s something you do on your own. It implies a specific set of ideas about maturity, relationships, and various other things which are your own problem. The right wants to fit you into the hierarchy, so they’ll make you a certain thing to fit. We don’t, so it’s your job to figure out if you want to be a man or a woman or something else, and what it means to reach that. We don’t give leftist dating advice because it doesn’t make sense, we’re not writing a script for you to follow. Just respect potential partners and maybe one will become a partner you respect. Whether you start a family or find someone isn’t our political project because we don’t want to make you pump out kids for the factories that obey authority.
because that’s something you do on your own
It may also be something best done with others, because isolated insulated alienated individuals tend to become reactionary too.
Although yes, it should be done as a group, and it would be better done with a group of leftists because they’re more likely to have a positive view of women, minority, work, mental health and so on, it’s just not something that needs to be done as a political project. Like, religious leftists should pray together, or leftists with children should share child care tips, but that doesn’t make it a leftist goal, y’know?
It doesn’t, and it doesn’t have to be a “pure” leftist goal for it to matter at an intersectional level. How good is a community if it’s made up of atomized individuals lacking in connection with each other? How much “pure” leftism is possible with a bunch of “I am the Main Character, everyone else is NPCs, fuck you got mine” contamination?
I don’t see your point. Yeah, that’s not great, but it’s not a political project and there’s not a way to provide specifically masculinity from a leftist perspective. I see a big part of leftist change in society to liberate people from the alienating idea that they’re supposed to grow up into anything in particular.
What you’re demanding isn’t possible by the very boundaries that you demand that it must fit in. If you’re stifling my case, the same limitations make yours basically impossible.
You’re saying it must be a “political project” in some rigid way but at the same time you want some sort of “make boys feel better about themselves” thing which if isolated and non-intersectional is not a political project goal.
“make boys feel better about themselves”
I don’t want something like that, I think inherently the goals of leftist liberation make people feel less pressure to correctly present a gender role, so the utility of a guru like JBP vanishes. You don’t need to learn to play your role, because you decide what it means to be you. So we don’t need to teach boys how to act, we’re by our actions creating an environment where that won’t be a problem. The interrim between current world and that world won’t be flawless, but that’s something best addressed by non-explicitly leftist groups. It’s not something “the party” or whatever needs to work on
That’s precisely why the left will keep losing men. And as I see it, left is going to lose men faster as time goes on unless something changes.
People can’t figure out life on their own. That’s reality. Especially with the current state of economy where the young men are doing very poorly in droves. And then the left just tells them: go figure it out on your own. Well fuck.
Meanwhile, the right will say shit like: go work out, improve yourself, do this and that to make more money, and you will get your life together, you will own a home, you will get a wife, etc. You’re right, these advices aren’t even political. But they are real advices, which people like JBP gives. And for the majority of their main points, they are actually good messages, crazy ones aside. Sure, the political right isn’t actually gonna do shit for men, but they have real advices. Things people can follow and have hope. It’s surely more enticing than what the left preaches.
The rebuttal from the left is often absolutely terrible messages and say things like “just don’t rape women” or “just respect potential partners” which just drives people away further. These are not real advices. These only make sense if you view men already in a negative light. It’s not actionable advice if they’re not a horrible person already. Left demonizes men, like you just did, whether you realize it or not. If a man views themselves as a good person already and the message they get is “just respect potential partners” which they already do, and still clearly achieving nothing. You get two outcomes. At best: you helped nobody. At worst: they now think you think they’re horrible because the reward isn’t coming with the advised action. So one side says you’re horrible and the other side says you have a future. Who will they stick with? Seems obvious to me.
Imagine the gender flip of that message. “Just don’t be bitch.” How would that message be perceived by women?
Even Andrew Tate has objectively better actionable messages for the men than the left. He constantly says stuff like go to the gym and work out. Does that actually help in the goal of dating? Fuck yeah. Actual cause and reward. These are real advices for men.
You can’t expect people to write their own script. Vast majority clearly can’t. They need guidance. And left has none to give. Until that time comes, people like JBP and Andrew Tate will continue to sweep in the young male audience, especially in an era where fatherless boys are more bountiful than ever.
The gurus normal people trust have this pesky tendency to have advanced degrees and call themselves things like “doctors” and “therapists” as if either is better than being screamed at by a car salesman in a room full of sweaty divorces.
The problem is the sell outs. The vaccines cause autism guy, scientists who publish about global warming being fake, Peterson himself has multiple degrees. Unfortunately in this day and age you even have to vet people with qualifications to make sure they arnt the jack ass who disagrees with the remaining 99.99% of the scientific community.
Chopra has a PHD and is a doctor, he’ll never tell you that it’s in endocrinology and not Quantum Physics however…
I used to like him. I fell for the crap. To my 16 year old brain what he said made a lot of sense. He had a handful of good points, and it made me believe the rest of the shit he peddled.
I see him now, I look back on how I hung onto his words like a lost lamb, and I can only facepalm.
I realised that the only thing he is good at is marketing, not psychology…
Being 16 is the best excuse you could have for believing anything that cretin says. You’re good bro.
He has some good advice (and some batshit crazy certainly), but not anything stoics weren’t saying 2300 years ago. And he sprinkles on top of that a weird religious-adjacent theories that are perhaps due to his psychedelic use. People seem to confuse that rambling with wisdom, like they usually do with cult leaders.
Still, I think it’s quite probable that he was a fine psychologist and was completely capable of helping individuals in whatever their struggles were. It’s his moving to a youtube stardom that caused all the problems.
As the maoral-less L. Ron Hubbard would say…
“You don’t make money selling a book, if you want to be rich, start a religion”Peterson is just running a dumb cult of generic (kinda bad for most people) advice that hinges on the shared identity of sad lonely boys.
Peter Pan in the books is sad as shit, advice to never grow up and never try to be better just makes people more lonely and miserable.
Peterson is just running a dumb cult of generic (kinda bad for most people) advice that hinges on the shared identity of sad lonely boys.
Peter Pan in the books is sad as shit, advice to never grow up and never try to be better just makes people more lonely and miserable.
Isn’t Peterson’s advice exactly the opposite of Peter Pan’s, though?
Meh, all of the good advice he gives you can get from some other internet guru that isn’t such a grifter.
“clean your room” and “wash yourself” really aren’t that profound.
I didn’t believe him, I believed the positive messages he send and implanted. I don’t care about him nowadays, but I also don’t regret internalizing certain stuff he preached. It wasn’t totally bullshit of what he said, until a point where he completely drifted off.
Thankfully I stopped watching any of his stuff quite a while before that happened, so I dodged this whole mess and only saw the burning ship wrack from the distance. I understand the hard feelings of others who are more involved in this topic though.
To agree, that something someone said, was correct, isn’t a bad thing. Even if the stuff that follows is off the mark.
To regret that, would also mean regretting failure, but without failure there’s no progress.
I’m still pissed that because he badly quotes and misinterprets Jung all the time, people assume Jung is bullshit by association.
lots of people thought Jung was bullshit way before JBP came around.
I think that Jung is bullshit for reasons entirely unrelated to JBP. His ideas are interesting, but not scientifically sound.
I mean a lot of Jungs work is sorta bullshit.
I like jp.
[I got a bot to automatically delete all my comments over 1 month old so you can’t see this comment anymore]
So brave.
I’m genuinely sorry to hear that
Never take advice on personal responsibility from a guy who intentionally put himself in a coma to avoid taking responsibility for his addiction to a narcotic with zero medicinal properties.
It’s so weird for me that he seemed surprised that benzos are, in fact, highly addictive with severe withdraw symptoms. Isn’t he a psychologist and potentially someone who is allowed to prescribe such drugs?
Yes, he’s just a liar
I don’t think psychologists are allowed to prescribe medicine/ drugs. Psychiatrists yes, but not psychologists.
Your ignoring 2 facts about him. He’s a liar and he likes taking drugs. A simple Google search will tell you how dangerous it is to abuse. J-dawg didn’t care because he likes taking drugs.
The fact that he got addicted to an antianxiety medication when his personal philosophy involves fighting monsters and dragons is hilariously pathetic.
Also, I dare you to Google “Jordan Peterson Grandma”.
Why…
Seriously what does it mean. He needs to be checked by a Freudian psychologist.
You couldn’t torture that shit out of me. St. Peter could ask me to admit to it to get into heaven, and I’d walk straight past him into hell.
Probably thought pill addiction was just a moral failure so couldn’t possibly apply to him.
Fortunately only psychiatrists can prescribe drugs and they’re actual physicians.
That’s an important distinction that too few people understand:
Psychiatrists: medical doctors with a specialization in mental health who can prescribe drugs
Psychologists: trained professionals with an academic degree who provide mental health care by (generally) talking with you
Both are important health care providers, but they generally do very different things, and in a mental health crisis you best have one of each at hand.
Wasn’t it benzos? They are used to treat anxiety.
deleted by creator
Oh? I had heard it was ketamine
Yeah, benzos are not too be fucked with but saying they have no medical purpose is just flat out wrong
I can help you as well. Just turn to Hedonism, which is pretty much the opposite of what Jelly B Peanutbutter tells you to do.
Quit your job, become an artist. Heck, become a twitch streamer, I don’t care. Try to do what brings you joy. And remember to eat the rich.Turns out, the way you learn to take care of others, is by learning to take care of yourself. Play, experimentation, and meaning are critical for well-being. When you’ve experienced the healthy state, it becomes much easier to recognize what would bring happiness to others. The individual is not antithetical to the community… the individual is the building block of community. And sick individuals, people who have lost sight of the bigger picture and their own happiness, create sick communities.
But don’t try to get into art school! That’ll end bad.
So many of these awful grifters are actually just failed artists because not everyone can be what they want… It’s why there is a slight failing to that age old leftist argument of studying art.
Tucker Carlson once wrote his college thesis on why a certain senator was the only true American and how the ideals of Bernie Sanders would be the social, pro-working class answer to Americans need for a better country. And then he was told his paper was boring, his writing credits barely made it anywhere and then he got insulted for wearing a bowtie.
I hate the little weasel fucker but he wasn’t born this way he was made through choices and interactions that he failed to take in a way that lots of others would fail at. Society really makes it’s own enemies.
Well, Carlson wasn’t exactly the person I had in mind, and calling this person grifter might be an understatement. But maybe I’m biased.
“Lifestyle coaches” are almost entirely facets of reactionary cryptofascist bullshit, and that sucks.
You need to find yourself, you try to let someone else find you for you and you’re inviting trouble.
