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

BLASTERRIFLE

kiwifarms.net
I always thought it was hilarious how all the people Zizek loathes are those who are most attracted to him. I think he has some strong things to say, but he should really think about that.

At least Peterson can be proud about the “fans” he surrounds himself with for the most part I suppose. I don’t really hate the guy. I question some of his philosophies, but I think a lot of hate towards him is a little bit disproportionate to who he is or what he does. I’ll always question people who rave at this guy about his ideas.
 

Deathfromabove

Very shame, much dishonor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Not really interested in Petersons philosophy or book shilling just want to know why he of all people had such a strong internet push-back. I haven't seen him touch "scary" topics like race with a ten foot pool and when it does come it he pushes the same egalitarian stuff the left does. And I mean the people who have a problem with his teachings not his lolcow shit.
 

Jarolleon

kiwifarms.net
Not really interested in Petersons philosophy or book shilling just want to know why he of all people had such a strong internet push-back. I haven't seen him touch "scary" topics like race with a ten foot pool and when it does come it he pushes the same egalitarian stuff the left does. And I mean the people who have a problem with his teachings not his lolcow shit.
A combination of him having appeal among the type of obnoxious fools who usually congregate around self-help gurus, SJWs mad that he's using his psych credentials to reveal that their idiocy is little more than a self-destructive outgrowth of their personality disorders, and the far-right mad that he's a boomer conservative at heart who won't name the Jew. Also it's yet another voice from within the academy saying "The humanities are fucked now, don't believe their conclusions!" which undermines their entire grift, especially when he has enough of an established presence to not be dismissed as some Liberty U crackpot.
 

Hellbound Hellhound

kiwifarms.net
Let me be clear, I doubt many people will care that much about Peterson 50 years from now. However, I do think his fans will be around for some time, just to a much smaller degree. Towards the end of his life, Christopher Hitchens gained a large influx of fans from YouTube compilations of him posted at the height of atheism's popularity. Hitchens' fanbase survived far past his death, they're still around here and there, but they've largely moved on. The similarities between the atheists of last decade and Peterson's are obvious, and I think the longevity will be the same. Peterson's relevance will really start to wane in 1-2 years, he'll still be remembered in 10, but in 50 years he'll be a mostly obscure historical figure. He'll mostly be remembered in Canada for his involvement in academic scandals, but in America he'll probably be thought of in a similar light to how we remember A Course in Miracles or pyramid power today.
I think Hitchens was a far more interesting figure than Peterson. Take away the late-2000s online atheist craze entirely, and Hitchens was still one of the most incisive polemicists of his generation. Remove Peterson from the controversies surrounding pronouns and campus deplatforming however, and all you're really left with is banal self-help advice and performative moralizing. I don't think they're really comparable beyond the fact that they both managed to cultivate an obnoxious fan base. In terms of their intellectual contributions, Peterson is the Žižek to Hitchens' Chomsky.
Hellhound is right that Peterson was a flash in the pan, but that it happened unwittingly is false. He had been cultivating a media persona for decades and you can watch the old various attempts.
Peterson may have tried to court media attention for years before he achieved international fame, but I don't think the level of fame he ended up achieving was something he could have anticipated. He certainly took advantage of it after it happened, but I doubt it's something he could have planned.
 

BurningPewter

Chris Chan did nothing wrong
kiwifarms.net
I am not a follower of JP's, but I have friends who have fallen under his spell, and I feel like the "it's just banal regular self-help advice" misses the mark. From what little I have heard from youtube clips and friend's descriptions, JP's advice is Jungian and "Mythical" and "makes you feel like you're the hero in a fantasy story", as someone on reddit put it. I feel like a dismissal of "he's just a regular self help guru like Dr Phil" doesn't deal with how good his ...mindset/advice is ...at fascinating people and pulling them under his spell.
I mean, most regular self help stuff - "7 habits", "Power of now", "Secret of positive thinking" etc, isn't Jungian - and Jungian stuff does have a hold on people, I've read people who follow it like a religion even before JP became famous.
 

GedsForth

Lapsing libertarian
kiwifarms.net
Remove Peterson from the controversies surrounding pronouns and campus deplatforming however, and all you're really left with is banal self-help advice and performative moralizing. [...] Peterson is the Žižek to Hitchens' Chomsky.
Considering Peterson's mediocre record on free speech (the Faith Goldy incident; he rose to fame protesting compelled speech, not free speech) vs. Chomsky's strong record (the Faurisson affair) that analogy is perfect.

I often forget that Peterson is mostly known for his self-help stuff, I only ever knew him for his political relevance.
 

Mr E. Grifter

Suits me.
kiwifarms.net
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
Peterson initially declined in my opinion for two reasons, first because he became stale. He had a lot to say, but he was repeating an awful lot of stuff all the time. Not necessarily an issue, but there is only so many times one can listen to a man repeat himself before you stop listening.

Second, the fame got to his head. I remember watching his Biblical analysis where he would go on stage and speak about the Bible for hours and people would clap. However, it was just guff, stream of consciousness nonsense. Sam Harris pointed this out in their debate, and it's true - his interpretation is just that, interpretation. Ironically, Peterson warned - quite rightly - about how speakers and crowds interact. The speaker excites the crowd and visa versa and this is like a self-confirmatory feedback loop. Peterson liked people to clap for him, and all he had to do was open his mouth and people would clap - so eventually he would just saying anything for his little dopamine hit.

As a result the quality of what he put out declined. His lecture series, prior to going viral, is less flashy but the content is more interesting and grounded. He's not wandering about waving his arms giving a show, it's just a camera in his face and slides.

Obviously, the collapse came with the Benzos, and who knows whether this story about "paradoxical addiction" is true or an attempt to save face.

That said I do like Peterson, but he would have been much better served if he didn't blow up the way he did.
 
Last edited:

Sweetpeaa

kiwifarms.net
Considering Peterson's mediocre record on free speech (the Faith Goldy incident; he rose to fame protesting compelled speech, not free speech) vs. Chomsky's strong record (the Faurisson affair) that analogy is perfect.

I often forget that Peterson is mostly known for his self-help stuff, I only ever knew him for his political relevance.
Not too mention Jordan did several interviews with ''the rebel'' and Gavin McInnes.
 

Lemmingwise

Judging you internally
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Not too mention Jordan did several interviews with ''the rebel'' and Gavin McInnes.
I know you're just interested in fighting for the canadian left wing, but talking with journalist, whatever your thoughts on their quality, is generally a sign of pro free speech rather than the reverse.
 

Absolutego

Middleman who didn't do diddly
kiwifarms.net
I am not a follower of JP's, but I have friends who have fallen under his spell, and I feel like the "it's just banal regular self-help advice" misses the mark. From what little I have heard from youtube clips and friend's descriptions, JP's advice is Jungian and "Mythical" and "makes you feel like you're the hero in a fantasy story", as someone on reddit put it. I feel like a dismissal of "he's just a regular self help guru like Dr Phil" doesn't deal with how good his ...mindset/advice is ...at fascinating people and pulling them under his spell.
I mean, most regular self help stuff - "7 habits", "Power of now", "Secret of positive thinking" etc, isn't Jungian - and Jungian stuff does have a hold on people, I've read people who follow it like a religion even before JP became famous.
JP's Jung spergery and any given reaction to it is actually a pretty useful indicator for who may have read 12 rules and thought it had some good points, and who are the autistic essayists who form his cult.
 

Elescondio20

kiwifarms.net
Not really interested in Petersons philosophy or book shilling just want to know why he of all people had such a strong internet push-back. I haven't seen him touch "scary" topics like race with a ten foot pool and when it does come it he pushes the same egalitarian stuff the left does. And I mean the people who have a problem with his teachings not his lolcow shit.
If i had to guess i'd say most people saw him as an easy target.... which he would be if it wasnt for his ability to form parasocial relationships