Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

Boris Blank's glass eye

Ring the bell, Roll down the street
kiwifarms.net
Ironically a lot of his original fans are more likely to be on the Zizek bandwagon now, and I think that debate was the true watermark for his old audience just moving on forever.
How spicy. Žižek is a very old-school Marxist. While he's probably the closest to what I'd call a "based commie", but he's still a commie.
 

Lemmingwise

Judging you internally
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
That's some out-of-ass talk right there. I come from a family of psych pros. If you know what you are doing and have good training you can have a healthy career.

Not gonna lay down the subtleties of psychotherapy, but let's just put it like this; You get trained not to identify yourself with the pain of the patient because you are busy doing your job. The technical term is called "instrumental dissociation". Similar examples of this happen when you hear people taking war photography and saying "I was not scared, I was just busy getting the shot with my camera." It's training that gets you there.

Also, to add to the discussion, I think we should not underestimate how much the Zizek accelerated Peterson's decent. We cannot take it at face value that his benzo addiction is just because of his wife.

Befroe the debate Peterson was undefeated vs Cathy newman and Vice, etc. The match was promoted as the match of the century. But push comes to shove against a "colleague" profesor and Peterson was not only unable to land the "death blow" to Marxist-communist theory, but Zizek played around him. Getting bossed around by a disgusting sniffing european who barely pronounces english would make me a benzo-fiend too.
I think the mechanics of his popularity are somewhat different. When I look at people who know were fans, they all were fans at different times, but all for roughly the same time. It seems Petersons ideas had a short shelf life of a little less than a year.

But that was enough when he was gaining more fans than he was losing and when he was breaching more and more of the mainstream.

I think it's because he offered people an alternative promise of reward. He seemed particularly attractive to people with poor families/absent or poor fathers. Most of his ideas are just basic good body stuff, basic discipline. Work for stuff like it matters. Clean your room.

Like the guy that started a channel where he was going to follow Jordan Peterson's advice and make it his life creed for a year. He even had a stream with Peterson. But he lasted about 3 months until he succumbed to his bad habits again.

It's the old conundrum. You try to help the people that need it the most. But they don't just need it the most, they're also the neediest. The least likely to succeed. And then when they realize it's pretty hard to completely transform your habits, they're likely to fall back.

I think that's what happened to a large number of Peterson fans. They believed his stuff. They tried it out. It wasn't as good as they'd hoped. Cleaning their room didn't lower their mortgage.
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
How spicy. Žižek is a very old-school Marxist. While he's probably the closest to what I'd call a "based commie", but he's still a commie.
I think that's why he's attractive to so many people: old-school Marxists have been out of style for decades after they moved from class-consciousness to oppression-consciousness as a slight of hand to introduce the racial dynamics we have now. Zizek is more concerned about soulless corporate media, manipulative storytelling, and globalist elites which has a far more varied reach. Also he's pretty funny and Peterson is incapable of telling a joke. Even imagining him telling a joke is funny in itself.
 

Lemmingwise

Judging you internally
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I think that's why he's attractive to so many people: old-school Marxists have been out of style for decades after they moved from class-consciousness to oppression-consciousness as a slight of hand to introduce the racial dynamics we have now. Zizek is more concerned about soulless corporate media, manipulative storytelling, and globalist elites which has a far more varied reach. Also he's pretty funny and Peterson is incapable of telling a joke. Even imagining him telling a joke is funny in itself.
I thought he was pretty funny when he compared himself to standup comedians.
 

Sweetpeaa

kiwifarms.net
I think the mechanics of his popularity are somewhat different. When I look at people who know were fans, they all were fans at different times, but all for roughly the same time. It seems Petersons ideas had a short shelf life of a little less than a year.

But that was enough when he was gaining more fans than he was losing and when he was breaching more and more of the mainstream.

I think it's because he offered people an alternative promise of reward. He seemed particularly attractive to people with poor families/absent or poor fathers. Most of his ideas are just basic good body stuff, basic discipline. Work for stuff like it matters. Clean your room.

Like the guy that started a channel where he was going to follow Jordan Peterson's advice and make it his life creed for a year. He even had a stream with Peterson. But he lasted about 3 months until he succumbed to his bad habits again.

It's the old conundrum. You try to help the people that need it the most. But they don't just need it the most, they're also the neediest. The least likely to succeed. And then when they realize it's pretty hard to completely transform your habits, they're likely to fall back.

I think that's what happened to a large number of Peterson fans. They believed his stuff. They tried it out. It wasn't as good as they'd hoped. Cleaning their room didn't lower their mortgage.
Boot straps, welfare queens and the communist threat has been talked about to death since the early 1980's. What ideas did JP ever had that were new? I really do wonder. It's hard to believe most of his fans were actually Gen Z'ers.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SPX5kzy

Steamboat_Bill

Going to beat the record of the Robert E. Lee
kiwifarms.net
How spicy. Žižek is a very old-school Marxist. While he's probably the closest to what I'd call a "based commie", but he's still a commie.
It was kind of a blow to be defeated by a Marxist, though, wasn't it?

Boot straps, welfare queens and the communist threat has been talked about to death since the early 1980's. What ideas did JP ever had that were new? I really do wonder. It's hard to believe most of his fans were actually Gen Z'ers.
You make it sound like Peterson was pushing warmed-over Reaganism.
 

BiggerChungus

that'll hold em alwight
kiwifarms.net
How spicy. Žižek is a very old-school Marxist. While he's probably the closest to what I'd call a "based commie", but he's still a commie.
How did he "beat" Jordan exactly? I didn't watch it, but considering Marxism is complete and total bullshit through and through, I doubt he actually said anything of value or made any kind of concise counterargument to Jordan. At most he probably said some typical Marxy drivel that got some college kids cheering.
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
Boot straps, welfare queens and the communist threat has been talked about to death since the early 1980's. What ideas did JP ever had that were new? I really do wonder. It's hard to believe most of his fans were actually Gen Z'ers.
They don't need to be new ideas to be valid, he was popular because it was a mainstream return to what people actually wanted to hear and his popularity was what shielded him from the repercussions that would befall anyone else who did the same. I have to remind people that this all started in Canada which has extremely strict rules about what you can say about certain groups, and comedians have been sued in extrajudicial courts before for making light jokes about trannies. It's a whole different minefield up here and you can get fucked over way easier than the US or most of Europe.

In a society where Conservatism merely means being a Liberal from 5 years ago, his rise can best be described as a validation of the value of traditional ideas, norms, and conventions.
This is also why he was treated by the Left as such a thread and not someone like Glenn Beck or Ben Shapiro who arguably wield more political influence. He was riling up the people, not playing the same subversive games they are familiar with, and having such a wide swath of people on his side was a direct torpedo to their claims that they were on the side of the people.
The Dirtbag left was particularly gunning for him, and you'll notice phrases like "carpetbagger" and "charlatan" used a lot. These words - and only those words - used by people who would never use words like that, just repeated again and again. It was just a script that was spread to take him down since day one and it wasn't over any particular point, it was that he represented a genuine populist uprising against the people whose only goal was to convince everyone that they were the only true populist uprising.
 

Lemmingwise

Judging you internally
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
How did he "beat" Jordan exactly? I didn't watch it, but considering Marxism is complete and total bullshit through and through, I doubt he actually said anything of value or made any kind of concise counterargument to Jordan. At most he probably said some typical Marxy drivel that got some college kids cheering.
The way these things always work. By being more charismatic and making your opponent look like a fool. Yes, what he said was mostly bluster, but he didn't say anything obviously moronic. Peterson did make some obvious mistakes.

The biggest problem was it was a very boring debate and I know someone just said it was the beginning of his downfall, but I peg it as a couple of months before that. His numbers were already declining and I don't think zizek debate got as much views as the munk debate a year earlier against a blogger and a sociology professor
 

Steamboat_Bill

Going to beat the record of the Robert E. Lee
kiwifarms.net
How did he "beat" Jordan exactly? I didn't watch it, but considering Marxism is complete and total bullshit through and through, I doubt he actually said anything of value or made any kind of concise counterargument to Jordan. At most he probably said some typical Marxy drivel that got some college kids cheering.
Peterson didn't do the work. He only read the Communist Manifesto, not even anything Zizek even wrote. So Zizek pulverized him.

They don't need to be new ideas to be valid, he was popular because it was a mainstream return to what people actually wanted to hear and his popularity was what shielded him from the repercussions that would befall anyone else who did the same. I have to remind people that this all started in Canada which has extremely strict rules about what you can say about certain groups, and comedians have been sued in extrajudicial courts before for making light jokes about trannies. It's a whole different minefield up here and you can get fucked over way easier than the US or most of Europe.

In a society where Conservatism merely means being a Liberal from 5 years ago, his rise can best be described as a validation of the value of traditional ideas, norms, and conventions.
This is also why he was treated by the Left as such a thread and not someone like Glenn Beck or Ben Shapiro who arguably wield more political influence. He was riling up the people, not playing the same subversive games they are familiar with, and having such a wide swath of people on his side was a direct torpedo to their claims that they were on the side of the people.
The Dirtbag left was particularly gunning for him, and you'll notice phrases like "carpetbagger" and "charlatan" used a lot. These words - and only those words - used by people who would never use words like that, just repeated again and again. It was just a script that was spread to take him down since day one and it wasn't over any particular point, it was that he represented a genuine populist uprising against the people whose only goal was to convince everyone that they were the only true populist uprising.
I didn't know it was populist to talk about the eternal values of Disney films.
 

Elescondio20

kiwifarms.net
They don't need to be new ideas to be valid, he was popular because it was a mainstream return to what people actually wanted to hear and his popularity was what shielded him from the repercussions that would befall anyone else who did the same. I have to remind people that this all started in Canada which has extremely strict rules about what you can say about certain groups, and comedians have been sued in extrajudicial courts before for making light jokes about trannies. It's a whole different minefield up here and you can get fucked over way easier than the US or most of Europe.

In a society where Conservatism merely means being a Liberal from 5 years ago, his rise can best be described as a validation of the value of traditional ideas, norms, and conventions.
This is also why he was treated by the Left as such a thread and not someone like Glenn Beck or Ben Shapiro who arguably wield more political influence. He was riling up the people, not playing the same subversive games they are familiar with, and having such a wide swath of people on his side was a direct torpedo to their claims that they were on the side of the people.
The Dirtbag left was particularly gunning for him, and you'll notice phrases like "carpetbagger" and "charlatan" used a lot. These words - and only those words - used by people who would never use words like that, just repeated again and again. It was just a script that was spread to take him down since day one and it wasn't over any particular point, it was that he represented a genuine populist uprising against the people whose only goal was to convince everyone that they were the only true populist uprising.
I think you're reading too much into it , to most media outlets the difference between JP and Shapiro or Glen Beck is that JP is not part of a rival media company , they lost nothing by hosting him and that's it
 

BiggerChungus

that'll hold em alwight
kiwifarms.net
Peterson didn't do the work. He only read the Communist Manifesto, not even anything Zizek even wrote. So Zizek pulverized him.
Why would that matter? If they're debating communism and all Zizek is doing is bringing up shit he wrote, that sounds more like a flub on his part than Peterson's, on top of there being no single solid argument in favor of practical communism at all.
 

Boris Blank's glass eye

Ring the bell, Roll down the street
kiwifarms.net
Why would that matter? If they're debating communism and all Zizek is doing is bringing up shit he wrote, that sounds more like a flub on his part than Peterson's, on top of there being no single solid argument in favor of practical communism at all.
I don't think the implication was "Žižek was only bringing up shit he wrote".
It was more like "Jordan B. was strawmanning like there was no tomorrow, so Žižek could rightfully claim Kermit didn't even know, let alone understand what he was babbling about". Which is pretty much what happened. Here's the full footage of the debate:
 

Jarolleon

kiwifarms.net
I think the mechanics of his popularity are somewhat different. When I look at people who know were fans, they all were fans at different times, but all for roughly the same time. It seems Petersons ideas had a short shelf life of a little less than a year.

But that was enough when he was gaining more fans than he was losing and when he was breaching more and more of the mainstream.

I think it's because he offered people an alternative promise of reward. He seemed particularly attractive to people with poor families/absent or poor fathers. Most of his ideas are just basic good body stuff, basic discipline. Work for stuff like it matters. Clean your room.

Like the guy that started a channel where he was going to follow Jordan Peterson's advice and make it his life creed for a year. He even had a stream with Peterson. But he lasted about 3 months until he succumbed to his bad habits again.

It's the old conundrum. You try to help the people that need it the most. But they don't just need it the most, they're also the neediest. The least likely to succeed. And then when they realize it's pretty hard to completely transform your habits, they're likely to fall back.

I think that's what happened to a large number of Peterson fans. They believed his stuff. They tried it out. It wasn't as good as they'd hoped. Cleaning their room didn't lower their mortgage.
This "short shelf life" is probably because Peterson has a rather short list of things that his content is autistically focused on. Once you've binge-watched about 12 lectures from him there's not much more you can get out of it, so you move on. At least that's what happened with me, I started watching his videos when he initially got famous and also showed up to his Queen's University speech back in 2017 but then found myself watching less and less of his content. Incidentally the QueensU speech had the added "entertainment" of antifags banging on the walls of the cathedral-like venue, I think they were trying to scare us but instead they set the mood, I wondered if Peterson incited them himself for that purpose.

I never took the self-help part of his stuff too seriously (because I have an actual father in my life), I was mostly there for the "Well-spoken guy with somewhat relevant credentials fleshes out the stuff I was already wondering about" aspect. It's rather obvious looking back that he was past his prime when he got famous, and had to recycle material that he had worked on decades earlier for modern public consumption. I wouldn't be surprised if the Benzo arc was partly caused by his growing awareness that his wits weren't quick enough anymore to meet the demands of being the Sagan-tier public intellectual that the fans expected.

Also, JP wrote another National Post article today, so either he's not a vegetable or Mikhaila ghost-wrote it.I'm not enough of an autist to compare the writing style to stuff he wrote 4 years ago though. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jo...sts/wcm/e6e84649-4a24-4ab7-8462-47580d115e25/
 

nohull

Sorry for party ooperating.
kiwifarms.net
Then debate Zizek and win.
There's nothing to debate with Zizek because he's a pseudointellectual and thus doesn't play fair, if you want a taste of how many bullshit he believes in, you should read any of the stuff in which he calls Hegel a materialist. Trying to debate him is like trying to beat up a sniper with boxing gloves.
Also "win"? I suppose you're a commie, since the idea of "winning debates" is dialectic and dialectics are retarded.
 

Justtocheck

kiwifarms.net
There's nothing to debate with Zizek because he's a pseudointellectual and thus doesn't play fair, if you want a taste of how many bullshit he believes in, you should read any of the stuff in which he calls Hegel a materialist. Trying to debate him is like trying to beat up a sniper with boxing gloves.
Also "win"? I suppose you're a commie, since the idea of "winning debates" is dialectic and dialectics are retarded.
I wouldn't want to debate Zizek. First off, I barely understand him. Second, he's got BO (probably). Third, he will get snot on my suit. But honestly, saying that Marxism is total bullshit without any degree of subtlety, considering the power it had on half the world through the last century sounds like an american cult oversimplification.

While I'm not a commie, I think you are wrong, winning debates is great. It makes you look cool, and it makes people clap at you and makes idgits throw you money. And if you don't aspire to look good to idgits, then what the hell is the point of ideas? Hell half the reason for me being here is to give and recieve idgit stickers.
 

nohull

Sorry for party ooperating.
kiwifarms.net
I wouldn't want to debate Zizek. First off, I barely understand him. Second, he's got BO (probably). Third, he will get snot on my suit. But honestly, saying that Marxism is total bullshit without any degree of subtlety, considering the power it had on half the world through the last century sounds like an american cult oversimplification.

While I'm not a commie, I think you are wrong, winning debates is great. It makes you look cool, and it makes people clap at you and makes idgits throw you money. And if you don't aspire to look good to idgits, then what the hell is the point of ideas? Hell half the reason for me being here is to give and recieve idgit stickers.
I can't give you a Kiwifarms gold as an idgit sticker, but here you have the closest thing.
1593058936356.png
:achievement::drink:
And you shouldn't be scared about Zizek snotting in your suit, he only does that to assert dominance as the galaxy brained alpha of the pack, don't let him intimidate you into submission.