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

Medicated

Not the fun kind
kiwifarms.net
So are we in agreement he isn't a lolcow? People keep giving ideas about what to post, ideas about how this thread could be made good, but nobody does it. There's mention of how he spazzes on Twitter all the time, how his daughter is weird (???) and how crazy his fans are but... Nobody ever posts anything. Nobody has screenshots. Nobody has really posted anything lolcow-tier. A few times he got into spats with Twitter people. Okay?

There's criticisms of Jordan Peterson to be sure, but half of this thread has been about how people are angry at him and hate his fans, and the other half saying how good the thread is going to be. Okay, somebody do it.
Exactly why do you invite your daughter to speak of anecdotes on a podcast anyway?
 

GenderCop

Friendly neighborhood gender cop
kiwifarms.net
Albeit Peterson's academic work is substantially distinct from his pop culture presence. The former is just not very interesting to readers of science reporting - we have metrics that indicate what kinds of articles people read and share, and this just ain't it - and his high impact peer-reviewed work is increasingly retrospective. The latter is not in the wheelhouse of science journalists.

Whom would you like to see interview him, then, and on what topics?
i liked camille paglia interview. he did not interrupt her and his respect was evident. she's very pointed about evolution of social feminism. would enjoy seeing him talk to other 'feminist survivors' who were there at the start & can tell us how a fairly decent concept eventually got all fucked up.

that interview with the smug asshole on vice, when he said that about makeup? jfc. feminists used to say makeup was bullshit & everybody's forgot that now. 2nd wave was not 3rd wave which took me forever to learn (listen to paglia video). 2nd wavers asked about makeup in the workplace too. i 'd like an airing of such things : why would women soldiers or refridge-repairers or cab drivers, wear makeup? excellent question. it pissed me off that they went crazy on him over it. he never pushes on and defends his questions either, which he ought to do : " excuse me but gloria steinem and those bitches asked the same thing."

so from MSM we got "he thinks women shouldn't wear makeup because its too alluring! gahhhhhhh!" no he asked if women are equal, wearing equal uniforms with men, why this one big difference and what is the purpose of it? can non trans male soldiers wear makeup? no.

i never heard another prof-type say something like that & found it intriguing enough to listen to some of his videos. i approve of his tastes also. i like R crumb, dostoyevsky, early tom wolfe.

his food obsession is crazy. sick of hearing keto bullshit from John Galt wannabes. its worst/most predictable thing about him.
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
his food obsession is crazy. sick of hearing keto bullshit from John Galt wannabes. its worst/most predictable thing about him.
He seems to be pretty hesitant to talk about it too, I remember on Joe Rogan when it came up he was really saying it was just something he was doing and not saying it was a recommendation. I've seen some people say he might have like a worm or something that might be causing this shit, which would be gross and hilarious.
But that's where his weird ass daughter comes into play. How she managed to get on JRE is incredible to me, but she's very clearly kooky on social media and is, in fact, telling everyone to eat raw beef all the time or some shit. And then taking loads of videos in her underwear. I really don't get it.

That's gotta be hard though, having a weird adult kid who is getting "famous" on their own and you just gotta deal with it.
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net

I'll just leave this here.
Gay ass seriouspost:

A lot of people were getting pissed off at this and I'm not sure why, he just made the argument climate change will not bring people together. Because it isn't currently, and there's no reason to believe it will soon. If an alien invasion showed up tomorrow I guarantee it wouldn't unite *most* of the world either. The industrialization of Africa by outside interests will not be a green revolution, and just pretending we can throw money at them to coerce them into doing that is naive.

And I think it's true that if you don't actually have a proper course charted, you're just inventing punishments. That's what we are dealing with in Canada right now with a very aggressive proposed carbon tax. Canada's carbon footprint is globally negligable, but because we want to be so progressive and woke we want to lead the charge on it, and the only thing we can come up with is more taxes. But that can't just be it.

That seemed to be the thrust of the response, anyway. And then people are just angry because they have faith the planet can just work together to stop this threat. That utopian response exists in the head of the Bill Nyes of the world because they think, deep down, all our differences and cultural goals and value systems are frivolous. I think in times of chaos those differences maximize. If we're in a climate refugee situation (which we are kind-of seeing now) it's not going to be the middle of the movie's third act where we realize we're all the same. It's just going to be war.
 

GranDuke

kiwifarms.net
And I think it's true that if you don't actually have a proper course charted, you're just inventing punishments. That's what we are dealing with in Canada right now with a very aggressive proposed carbon tax. Canada's carbon footprint is globally negligable, but because we want to be so progressive and woke we want to lead the charge on it, and the only thing we can come up with is more taxes. But that can't just be it.
Doing stuff just to do it is obviously not smartest thing around, but while listening to him I got the feeling that he was advocating for "it is too complex, we can't solve it so we shouldn't try" position. And well, same could be said for most of today's problems. For example, we still haven't cured cancer despite investing fuckton of money and human hours into it. For all we know we might never be able to fully cure cancer, but progress has been made in detection, treatment and awareness. So you know, I don't see anything wrong in trying to reduce pollution even if it is non-solvable situation in the end.

Biggest problem with this situation is that certain political groups have taken "ownership" of this issue when it should be apolitical cause. Worst part of that ownership is that you either accept every single talking point of theirs or you are anti-environment. Imagine if the cancer research became part of the platform for the right, while the left claimed that cancer is natural and we should just get used to it? Sounds completely insane, but I think thats what environment protection is turning into. And well, it was natural for me to hear that Peterson is "sceptical" of the issue, because he (despite what he might claim) is on the right.
 

GenderCop

Friendly neighborhood gender cop
kiwifarms.net
you don't have to like or agree with ppl to want to discuss the ideas they bring up. its the regressive left that won't go on Joe Rogan & refuses to discuss anything with anybody remotely 'tainted'.

"ooooh but if i talk about that i will be quoting a right wing person & that makes me baaaaaad."

that's why we're in the mess we're in right now.

article that expresses how i feel about JBP
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/06/15/on-the-smearing-of-of-jordan-peterson-on-dialogue-and-listening/

Because his ability to critique both the left and the right, Peterson has captured the attention of those from both sides of the aisle who are tired of the relentless call-outs and reductive rhetorical approaches to what many of us deem to be far more complex issues than that of subjugated/oppressor (although this too plays a role). This era’s need to build political arguments upon the presumed guilt of the other based on a series of personal identifications is being directly challenged by Peterson. It is this sort of rehashing of historical wrongs to which the left genuflects and from which the right steps away. We have been doing this dance for some time and it has pretty much gotten us nowhere. The left has replaced the right’s traditionalist liturgy with a political confession where every sentence begins with the culpability of whiteness, maleness, colonial abuses, as well as the savagery of rape, capitalism, and the Patriarchy. While these are realities, Peterson offers a new perspective on how we might view injustices and how we might take our collective history and retell our stories reframing these paradigms in a far more comprehensive way. This analysis has irked many on the left—especially the feminists.

Over the past months, it has been difficult to find many feminists who would seriously engage in a discussion about what precisely bothered them about Peterson without the commentary falling into “douchebag” territory. And I have to confess, that their lack of resolve or ability to explain what troubled them about Peterson had me more concerned that I was trapped in this virtual bubble where the only acceptable response from me to show feminist creds would be, “Yeah, a total douche.”
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
Doing stuff just to do it is obviously not smartest thing around, but while listening to him I got the feeling that he was advocating for "it is too complex, we can't solve it so we shouldn't try" position.
In that sense I totally agree, and we don't actually know the full extent of the problem yet, and what we do know about it seems otherwise uncontrollable for any one party to solve. He probably wants to avoid going down this road, but climate science has absolutely zero proven predictive models and literally every single thing they have ever predicted did not come true. If you're old enough to remember the 90s you'll understand, but even stuff from the early 2000s was just plainly wrong and the dodge they give is "oh, that means it's WORSE than we thought!" So yeah, it's complex, so complex we don't fully understand it, so we run the risk of prescribed solutions doing more harm than good.

So really the problem is: we know something is happening, but we don't have a single action we can do to reverse it other than what we are doing now. His longer argument is: we've only been addressing this problem for like 25 years, and in 25 years we've done as much as is humanly possible. And I think that's true, we've turned our entire industrialization and consumption processes 180 degrees in a short amount of time. And to say "we need to do it faster!" is just causing suffering to the wrong people.

He never once said curbing pollution is useless, he never said electric cars are dumb, he was addressing the larger point. I mean the actual question was "can people come together to fight this global threat?" The obvious answer is no, of course not. The larger point is "can we all agree on what the problem is?" And that answer is also no, I don't think so, and you outlined it with the problem of ownership but I think it goes deeper than that.

And I think what people are troubled by is that an increasing amount of young people are noticing this too. The rhetoric from the left has become so alarmist and urgent and ultimately false, people have tuned it out. The left also has a pathological hatred of its own culture and identity and glorifies everything outside of it, that they will never address the real problems, like India and the Philippines. What we DON'T need to do is punish seniors in America for not recycling, what we need to do is address Filipinos for being responsible for the vast amount of oceanic pollution. Just that one fucking country is responsible for most of it. But we can't do that because it would seem xenophobic. So we are just spinning our wheels, pretending that the Communist Chinese government is "trying their best" when they say they want to go green. That's why Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord made absolute sense but people interpreted it as him wanting to kill the world because they're insane.
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
Peterson just deleted his Patreon for good.

The real headline to all of this is that Peterson was making 33k a month at the time of deletion. I remember checking in awhile back and he had it set to private, but it appears people are running with this news now.
33k a month.

Look I am not on the side of most Peterson detractors, but the idea was that he was supposed to be using a good chunk of these funds towards projects in development.
It cannot be understated how he appears to not have even bought a decent mic and camera for his monthly streams for paying subscribers. And it's not like he is living off Patreon, the book sales and lecture income must be netting him into the millions.
 

Puppet Pal Clem

kiwifarms.net
This is a thread?
So what, he's super tedious and wide-ranging in the points he makes?
It's all absolutely true, even the contentious stuff is true in his qualification of the accuracy of perceived research.
It's only true because he's so tedious and cautious.

The only dubious claim he's made is about the success of his purely carnivorous diet and I forgive him that because it's for his daughter.
Even then, he makes an interesting point about dietary science considering how much diet bullshit is out there and how much we fully understand about what food does to us.
 

Annie

Fire-Bear Cyberbully Girl
kiwifarms.net
The real headline to all of this is that Peterson was making 33k a month at the time of deletion. I remember checking in awhile back and he had it set to private, but it appears people are running with this news now.
33k a month.
That's at time of deletion. He said he lost HALF of his Patrons after they left in protest. He could've been making 66k a month off of Patreon all of last year. Dude could've been making nearly a million dollars a year off Patreon alone, holy fucking shit.
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
That's at time of deletion. He said he lost HALF of his Patrons after they left in protest. He could've been making 66k a month off of Patreon all of last year. Dude could've been making nearly a million dollars a year off Patreon alone, holy fucking shit.
God damn... I was arguing with some of his sycophants today as they claimed he was using it all for his "new platform"... Nigga he's been getting this monthly for like 2 years, and he still has a shit camera and mic. Dude just pay your daughter 10k a month to shut the fuck up.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: lowkey

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino