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

Senior Lexmechanic

Shitposting displeases the Omnissiah
kiwifarms.net
Walt Disney was paid by the FBI to spy on hollywood from 1940 to 1966 and he made war propaganda cartoons for the United States.



After that, the CIA helped Walt Disney set up Disney world in Florida, by creating two fake cities among other things:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-cia-helped-disney-conquer-florida


But rest assured, once Disney World was built, the Disney company cut all ties with intelligence agencies forever and never ever made propaganda again.
Two simple questions:
  1. Is Frozen government propaganda?
  2. If yes, what message is it trying to push, and why should I fear it?
  3. Why should I particularly object that, during a war, Disney was paid by the government to make war films?
  4. Many Disney movies of the contemporary period carry strong anti-authoritarian messages, and in many cases portray the federal government as corrupt and inefficient; if Disney were truly still just a propaganda mill for the US government, why would they be allowed to make films that impugn the US government?
 

Lemmingwise

Merry Christmas Kiwis
kiwifarms.net
Two simple questions:
  1. Is Frozen government propaganda?
  2. If yes, what message is it trying to push, and why should I fear it?
  3. Why should I particularly object that, during a war, Disney was paid by the government to make war films?
  4. Many Disney movies of the contemporary period carry strong anti-authoritarian messages, and in many cases portray the federal government as corrupt and inefficient; if Disney were truly still just a propaganda mill for the US government, why would they be allowed to make films that impugn the US government?
These are four questions, but I'll play. Keep in mind as you read this that this is not a defense of either Peterson or the previous posters who were talking about Frozen in the last couple of posts. I think fair questions were asked of people unwilling and laughingly unable to answer them. So seperate this discussion then, from the fanboys of the previous pages. These then are my own, seperate thoughts.

  1. I don't know if frozen is government propaganda. It took 40 years or so before it officially came out that Disney was paid by the FBI. Things that are going on today? We might not have proof until 40 years from now. As such, one can only speculate.
  2. I don't think you, Lexmechanic, personally, would fear it, I think you would regard its ideological message as a positive one. I've been meaning to organize my thoughts on what ideas exactly Frozen pushes, so let me get back on this one in the following week. If I'd go at it now, it would become a long rant and I'd rather make it succint.
  3. Why should you object to war propaganda? I don't see why you should. I was responding to someone who said Disney movies aren't comparable to war propaganda and at least for a period, they certainly were beyond question. I don't think it's farfetched that once they've learned how to affect public opinion, they would do so again, for whatever reason.
  4. It's a matter of public record that at least one one occasion changed FBI agents in Disney movies to random government agents instead at the request of the FBI (and also that they refused on one other occassion).
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/06/movies/disney-link-to-the-fbi-and-hoover-is-disclosed.html
 
Last edited:

Lemmingwise

Merry Christmas Kiwis
kiwifarms.net
There was no Sperg out. End of. Your singular goal is to attempt to make a lolwcow of him based on the fact that you dislike what Peterson has to say in general. To deal with your own self loathing, you lash out in a banal attempt with leftist smear campaign of " Har har har he so lolcow, he sperg!"

The entirety of your 'argument.'
The reason why that Jordan Peterson clip is so funny to watch, is that he defends the idea of frozen being propaganda, by saying it's a religious experience that you believe, because it's an animation, which are pictures that move.

Lol wut.
 

Feline Darkmage

Gamer Gril Queen
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
So if a general feeling of decline is not the cause what is the cause ?
Corruption, division, late stage capitalism... a lot of things.

I notice a trend that people who would otherwise be bashed for being exceptional are expected to be given a free pass if they're "good soldiers in the Culture War". At best they try to casually paint it as an 'enemy of my enemy' thing, but there's a pretty common trend of trying to get people to lay off of people if they're perceived as important assets in fighting SJWs.
It's a phenomenon I like to call Political Trollshielding. It can happen to anyone, but it is most prominent in the right-wing segments of our userbase and on /cow/. It all boils down to "I don't want to reflect on possibly being a cow for agreeing with these out there ideas and please go troll those icky feminazi SJWs instead of me and my internet idols."

Frozen is bad enough, but

The cult of personality seem to hold strong influence with the weak minded or otherwise psychologically malleable.

And children/ angsty teens, are the most malleable.
Why are you searching for little sister TF fantasies on youtube? Is that what you jack it to in your spare time? I hope you just pasted the last thing in your clipboard on accident because that had absolutely nothing to do with anything.
 

queue-anon

kiwifarms.net
People keep talking about "our culture going to shit", but I've seen no proof that they aren't just people longing for a past that never existed. It's not as if things were wonderful in the past and then feminism and gays came along and ruined everything like some folks like to say. What is your big issue with the current culture? Trannies? Despite like what it can seem like they're a very small percentage of the population. Young people are fucking more and praying less? That's been a complaint from old people literally since the beginning of civilization. Political polarization? Yeah, it sucks, but acting just as exceptional as the folks you;re fighting against isn't the answer. Show me how things are actually that bad.
Young people are fucking less, and that's because they're socially isolated and alienated from each other. That's one big cultural shift that's not good for anyone.

I'm inclined to think that social isolation/alienation is causing a lot of other cultural shifts, such as politics getting more polarized, people talking over each other instead of to each other, and people demonizing each other for wrongthink. It's a bit more difficult to demonize someone when you see them as a whole person, and you're not seeing them as a whole person if you're not meaningfully interacting with them.
 

Truthspeaker

Walking that line between victim and ex-lover
kiwifarms.net
Okay. I've finally had the chance to keep my promise.


What is your point, exactly, Prog?
So anything not “traditional” is propaganda?

And let’s say it was created as propaganda? How is it a worse message than “traditional” fairy tales?
I'm calling your bluff: what, exactly, is the evil brainwashing propaganda in "Frozen"?
Appreciate the link to the video, @Kalishnakov. But @ProgKing of the North and @Senior Lexmechanic both called your bluff. Not once in the sixteen minutes does Peterson actually demonstrate what makes Frozen propaganda.

He implies it, but he goes off on so many other tangents ("it's like a funnel", "socialist realist, but they kept their academies open", "Picasso was painting on glass", "Pinnochio gets a little moralistic, but it was the '30s") he never once takes the time to show a detail of why Frozen is propaganda, but Beauty and the Beast is art.

And the thing is, I already like Beauty and the Beast far more than Frozen. I've seen Beauty and the Beast at least a dozen times, and could never imagine getting bored with it. I've seen Frozen once, and I really don't care if I ever see it again. I should be on Peterson's side, but he doesn't bring up any actual examples.

It's the same problem he has with any subject: Peterson goes out of his way to never narrow his focus. Broad scopes have advantages, but they're useless for nailing specific points. Peterson doesn't bring up even a single scene from Frozen, nor any of the other films he mentions, nevermind explaining his objections to said scene he didn't bring up.

Also, who the hell drinks BIG, BLACK DICK? Even non-alcoholic beer has more beveragical merit.
 

The best and greatest

kiwifarms.net
So anything not “traditional” is propaganda?

And let’s say it was created as propaganda? How is it a worse message than “traditional” fairy tales?
People throw that word around at anyone and everyone now. The term is so all encompassing that if you write a book telling the world what it ought do then you're a propagandist. Which I can agree with semantically but it sort of robs the word of any bite if we start considering the likes of Stephanie Meyers a "Propagandist" now.
 

Cheap Sandals

REEEEEEEE
kiwifarms.net
So I watched the entire 2.5hr debate and I'll summarize it to save everyone some time. Just to disclose how I lean, I went in potentially sympathetic to both Zizek and Peterson because both of them are maligned by mainstream academia and both of them seem to 'get' that the West is in a period of crisis. Other than that, I didn't know much about either other than Zizek's sniffles and Peterson's lobsterboys.

Zizek blew Peterson out of the water. Peterson came out swinging with what I'm sure he considered devastating takedowns of Marxism, and Zizek gently reframed the entire debate to be about the failures of hyper individualistic, unrestrained capitalism. He did it so well, Peterson actually admitted that he was kinda undone, and from that moment on, Zizek led the debate (though in a very friendly and cordial way that ended up with both individuals obviously enjoying the other's conversation.)

Zizek came off as much more worldly and mature, and he gently poked at Peterson with little bon mots about lobsters and requesting Peterson name actual Marxist philosophers who subscribe to American idenpol madness. Peterson couldn't, but he made a really interesting remark about Foucault switching out the concept of classes with identity to create the iden-pol movement. It was the single 'point' he scored all night. But it was partially undone when Zizek pointed out that Foucault wasn't a Marxist thinker and, in fact, considered Marxism unrealistic. Womp wah.

Peterson is obviously used to debating angry children and zealots, because a calm and measured criticism of the status quo left him totally unseated. He had no idea how to handle Zizek, no frame of reference for Zizek's point of view and seemed totally fucking bewildered by Zizek's positing that communistic societies aren't poor oppressed peasants under a jackboot heel, but are rather collections of people who allow these regimes to happen because it serves their purposes.

Zizek won, but it wasn't really a 'fight'. It was very friendly.
 

The best and greatest

kiwifarms.net
So I watched the entire 2.5hr debate and I'll summarize it to save everyone some time. Just to disclose how I lean, I went in potentially sympathetic to both Zizek and Peterson because both of them are maligned by mainstream academia and both of them seem to 'get' that the West is in a period of crisis. Other than that, I didn't know much about either other than Zizek's sniffles and Peterson's lobsterboys.

Zizek blew Peterson out of the water. Peterson came out swinging with what I'm sure he considered devastating takedowns of Marxism, and Zizek gently reframed the entire debate to be about the failures of hyper individualistic, unrestrained capitalism. He did it so well, Peterson actually admitted that he was kinda undone, and from that moment on, Zizek led the debate (though in a very friendly and cordial way that ended up with both individuals obviously enjoying the other's conversation.)

Zizek came off as much more worldly and mature, and he gently poked at Peterson with little bon mots about lobsters and requesting Peterson name actual Marxist philosophers who subscribe to American idenpol madness. Peterson couldn't, but he made a really interesting remark about Foucault switching out the concept of classes with identity to create the iden-pol movement. It was the single 'point' he scored all night. But it was partially undone when Zizek pointed out that Foucault wasn't a Marxist thinker and, in fact, considered Marxism unrealistic. Womp wah.

Peterson is obviously used to debating angry children and zealots, because a calm and measured criticism of the status quo left him totally unseated. He had no idea how to handle Zizek, no frame of reference for Zizek's point of view and seemed totally fucking bewildered by Zizek's positing that communistic societies aren't poor oppressed peasants under a jackboot heel, but are rather collections of people who allow these regimes to happen because it serves their purposes.

Zizek won, but it wasn't really a 'fight'. It was very friendly.
Since I'm already familiar with Peterson's material I didn't really hear anything new from his first thirty minutes, basically a refresher of what he's already said. I was amused by his opening remark about tickets for the event being worth more scalped than some other show though.
 

Jmz_33

kiwifarms.net
There was no Sperg out. End of. Your singular goal is to attempt to make a lolwcow of him based on the fact that you dislike what Peterson has to say in general. To deal with your own self loathing, you lash out in a banal attempt with leftist smear campaign of " Har har har he so lolcow, he sperg!"

The entirety of your 'argument.'

Edit: You mad boi?
Dude you are denying that such thing as culture exists ?

The culture of the future is made of what ? Of what people read and watch.

You can't just lol yourself out of this one because it is exactly through movies, music and books, small and big that, that culture changed in the last decades.

Even brainwashing kids to buy frozen mercy is a creating in them a culture of consumerism for example.

So you telling us that movies have no impact on the culture of people ?
Oh boy, do I love me some troll shielding hooligans. Can’t get enough of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheap Sandals

KillThemCrackasBabies

kiwifarms.net
On the serious though, Peterson is vaguely interesting at the very most. How the fuck do so many sad sacks ascribe so much personal meaning to a fucking dip shit leaf on par with Freud in regards to repressed incest shit?
They're losers, and they were never really reached out to and taught shit. I'm not going to accuse all JP fans of having Daddy issues, but it's more than apparent how many of them legitimately see the man as a father figure. The only thing I personally can take away from it is that it's the first time they've really been offered any form of advice from anyone who appeared concerned for them (compared to, say, PUA or dating assistance type communities, which give the impression of being more condescending).
 

RichardMongler

kiwifarms.net
So I watched the entire 2.5hr debate and I'll summarize it to save everyone some time. Just to disclose how I lean, I went in potentially sympathetic to both Zizek and Peterson because both of them are maligned by mainstream academia and both of them seem to 'get' that the West is in a period of crisis. Other than that, I didn't know much about either other than Zizek's sniffles and Peterson's lobsterboys.

Zizek blew Peterson out of the water. Peterson came out swinging with what I'm sure he considered devastating takedowns of Marxism, and Zizek gently reframed the entire debate to be about the failures of hyper individualistic, unrestrained capitalism. He did it so well, Peterson actually admitted that he was kinda undone, and from that moment on, Zizek led the debate (though in a very friendly and cordial way that ended up with both individuals obviously enjoying the other's conversation.)

Zizek came off as much more worldly and mature, and he gently poked at Peterson with little bon mots about lobsters and requesting Peterson name actual Marxist philosophers who subscribe to American idenpol madness. Peterson couldn't, but he made a really interesting remark about Foucault switching out the concept of classes with identity to create the iden-pol movement. It was the single 'point' he scored all night. But it was partially undone when Zizek pointed out that Foucault wasn't a Marxist thinker and, in fact, considered Marxism unrealistic. Womp wah.

Peterson is obviously used to debating angry children and zealots, because a calm and measured criticism of the status quo left him totally unseated. He had no idea how to handle Zizek, no frame of reference for Zizek's point of view and seemed totally fucking bewildered by Zizek's positing that communistic societies aren't poor oppressed peasants under a jackboot heel, but are rather collections of people who allow these regimes to happen because it serves their purposes.

Zizek won, but it wasn't really a 'fight'. It was very friendly.
Thanks for this. I didn't tune into the debate, but it's been said that Jordan Peterson's knowledge of Marxism came exactly from reading The Communist Manifesto. For so much time spent preparing for the big event, the dude was astoundingly underread. He could've spent time reading up on Das Kapital (the absolute minimum for anyone remotely interested in Marxism), The Frankfurt School, Situationist International, The Fourth International, dialectical materialism, labor theory of value, surplus labor, Joseph Dietzgen, Theodor Adorno, György Lukács, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Henri Lefebvre, Guy Debord, Gilles Deleuze, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, et cetera. Yet he was only familiar with The Communist Manifesto, a text that is far from a philosophical treatise.

It had long been speculated that Slavoj Žižek would run circles around Kermit, and virtually every commentary on the debate echoes such sentiments. Even Nick Fuentes was despondent, stating that the right-wing has lots of homework to do before throwing down with the big boys:
 

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