Every day now, I get several messages/emails from Jordan Peterson fans. Nothing could convince me more that we’re dealing with a cult-like network of bewilderingly brainwashed people. The messages take several familiar forms.
-
“It’s his opinion and belief. Science and evidence don’t apply.” They are desperate to carve out an exemption from minimal standards of evidence for him. This is a common refrain from defenders of religious belief as well.
-
“Technically, he might be wrong about that one thing, but I like what he’s saying anyway.” My personal schtick in dealing with Peterson has been to focus on specific false claims and scientific misrepresentations. They don’t matter. His followers don’t care. The pseudo-scientific veneer is just that, a game to borrow the respectability of science while not caring at all about rigor.
-
“He has done so much good for young men!” How do we know that? Because he says so. It’s an ‘end justifies the means’ kind of argument with no evidence of a positive result. Again, this is a very religious defense, where we’re supposed to accept the conclusion as valid because of an assertion irrelevant to the truth-claim.
-
“You’re just criticising him for the hits!” Somehow, that someone is popular has become a defense in itself — you’re only reason for criticizing the cult leader can’t possibly be because he’s wrong, but is simply an opportunistic attempt to get the attention of his crowds of followers (never mind that those zealous followers are annoyingly thick and I’d rather they went away.)
-
Meaningless drivel. You would not believe the lengths they go to to justify Peterson’s claim that a Chinese painting of intertwined snake-gods is an actual representation of the structure of DNA. An example:
First, keep in mind that a representation doesn’t need to be a detailed model of how something functions, just a portrayal of that function. Which, DNA is essentially just a carrier of genetic information used to structure the development, appearance, and function of living beings. Passed on to children, in many species, from two parents.
The image, is of Fuxi and Nüwa. In Chinese mythology, they’re credited with either being the first humans, or otherwise the creators of humanity. Which they made together, out of clay. In the image shown by Peterson, they also strongly represent (although I don’t entirely understand why, something to do with who they are, how they are arranged, and the things they are holding) the male-female and yin and yang interrelation. This duality of yin and yang is somewhat unique compared to many other dualistic systems, in that the two parts are also together a whole that is greater than the parts.
All together, the image seems to me, to represent the idea of two beings coming together, to create something new, similar to themselves, but also with variation, as in the story, they are going from being half-human, half-snakes, to just humans.
So, by my view, it’s not a model of DNA with any understanding of what the molecule is, it’s parts, or even that there is such a physical thing (And I don’t believe this is what Peterson was saying either). But it is a representation of DNA’s actual effect and function in the world, as it appeared to the people passing along these myths and creating these images. A sort of first-conceptual glimmering of an idea, that has grown to our current deep and detailed understanding of DNA.
Now, Peterson seems to put a special emphasis on the two snakes being intertwined, I’m not sure of the mythological significance of that, and it shows up in far to many different cultures for me to research it easily. But like I said previously, you could always try asking him?
-
“Debate him.” Jesus christ, but I hate the debate obsession. Creationists do this, too — they desperately want a contrived situation where their ideas are placed on a par with the bulk of the scientific consensus, even if they haven’t earned it, and they want it personified into a one-on-one conflict. It’s trial by combat. I have zero interest in debating J. Random Crackpot on a stage where he has rigged the game to give him every advantage, and I have nothing to gain.
That’s just noise. Long-winded ahistorical noise. Our understanding of DNA did not evolve out of contemplation of mythology. This person seems to believe that contriving a post-hoc rationale is just as powerful as making observations and testing hypotheses.
I regret ever trying to address any of Peterson’s crappy arguments, but that’s exactly what they’re hoping for — they can’t win on reason and evidence, so they resort to a war of attrition with endless hordes of delusional fanboys bombarding me with garbage logic. I hate it, but years of conflict with religious fanatics has made me stubborn, and they’re nothing different.
Based on the title, I thought this was going to be a post about Elon Musk. Cult of personality is very popular these days.
They do it so easily because they have no intention of going in on good faith, so they have nothing to lose from such an engagement. It’s all about the “ownage”, mindlessly spewing half-truths and outright lies and bigoted slurs meant to invoke an emotional reaction to “destroy” your opponent until they’re “rekt”; not about getting to anything hinting at reality. Not to mention that debate has now devolved into little more than endless repetition of arguments and talking points since we are in a cultural climate where drawing a definitive conclusion on anything seems verboten and a sign that one is an extremist and irrational unless- by mere coincidence, I’m sure- said conclusion favors a retrograde ideology and system which benefits populations which are losing some of their unearned and undue deference and societal advantages.
It’s as if your correspondent was writing from some alternate universe in which, instead of saying “I believe this is a depiction of DNA,” Peterson had said something like “these artworks illustrate a myth in which there are dual creators, and one point of interest is that ‘dualism’ in this case does not just represent good vs. evil but rather a combination which results in something greater than the sum of its parts.”
Of course, if the Peterson of this universe had said that, pretty much nobody would have argued with him; my own attitude would have been, “Interesting, tell me more about dualism in ancient Chinese art and philosophy,” because that’s a neat topic. You have to wonder if any of the dozens of scholars who could tell us interesting things about dualism in ancient Chinese art and philosophy are kicking themselves for not trying to parley this into a career as a Dark Sage.
“He has done so much good for young men!”
Works the same for all prophets / preachers / life coaches: have large enough crowds -> life gets better over time for some -> confuse correlation and causation -> claim it was your awesome help -> profit.
Peterson stressed that he really does believe that the Chinese image in question is “a representation of DNA”. What’s more, we know why he believes such drivel: he’s a Jungian, and this is exactly the sort of nonsense that Jung’s claptrap about “archetypes”, the “collective unconscious”* and “synchronicity” encourages.
*By the way, did you know that “The ‘Aryan’ unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish.”?
What’s more:
And of course, as Peterson complained, manly, masculine men are at an unfair disadvantage arguing with women, because they’re not supposed to hit them.
So how do we tell which DNA strand is yin and which is yang?
I also particularly like how this guy (I’m going to go out on a limb and assume it’s a guy) admits that he doesn’t understand why the two dragons represent yin and yang (hey, it’s only the most fundamental concept in ancient Chinese philosophy…), or what the mythological or semiotic significance of their intertwining is, but nevertheless feels confident enough to explain what the image means.
“He has done so much good for young men!”
Is a lot like what is said about priests discovered to have been putting their penises into people who didn’t want it. Vile excuse.
But he sold so many Pudding Pops!
Oh, sorry. Wrong guy.
I have written a defense of Peterson against Myers’ critique: http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2018/04/jordan-peterson-on-lobster-hierarchy.html
Peterson hates atheists!!!
This was discussed 4 days ago by Martin Hughes over at Patheos.
BTW, his thread was overrun by Peterson fanboy trolls.
It’s a trash heap of written garbage so watch where you step.
Peterson claims you can’t be an atheist and be a moral and good person.
1. This claim is centuries old and still frequently made by xians.
2. It’s factually wrong.
The cold hard statistical data says the exact opposite.
3. The data says you can be a xian and be a good person.
It just gets a lot harder and some of them don’t make it to that state.
4. Xianity isn’t a source of morality and never has been. At best it is a source of rules and obedience.
I’ve been spending a lot of time actually reading Peterson’s garbage.
He is just an alt right conperson reflecting hate and bigotry back to his troll base for big money.
His hates include women, atheists, trans, Muslims, nonwhites, the educated, normal decent males, and Progressives.
Add them up.
This is most of our society!!!
Peterson quite literally hates most of the people around him.
I’m on his hate list in several places myself.
This is why there is such a pushback against a dangerous demagogue and hate merchant.
Society in general and the targets of his hate and bigotry campaign have the right and responsibility to defend themselves.
Oh, but you seen, the loon has the magic ability to ignore rationality, evidence, specifics (especially verifiable), meaning, and cheese, either not-addressing or misrepresenting or waving-away. Therefore, the loon must be correct — according to the hair furorian ethos, which is obviously the only one possible (ignoring rationality, evidence, specifics (especially verifiable), meaning, cheese, and law). QED, non-worshipers !
Quoted for truth.
I’ve been dealing with the fanboys on a few threads.
I’ve never yet seen a Peterson fanboy who wasn’t a troll out of a dozen so far.
They remind me of the forced birthers, creationists, fundie xians, and medical quacks I’ve had to deal with over the last two decades.
I haven’t gotten any death threats yet from this crowd yet but it is probably just because all they can do is throw them over the side of the internet. But other people have. Cathy Newman interviewed Jordan Peterson recently.
Wherever you have hate speech, you will sooner or later have, hate violence. There is always someone who doesn’t know it is just supposed to be for fun.
I have written a lengthy defense of Peterson’s reasoning in the Cathy Newman interview: https://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2018/04/jordan-petersons-darwinian-aristocratic.html
PZ: “I have zero interest in debating J. Random Crackpot on a stage where he has rigged the game to give him every advantage, and I have nothing to gain.”
I wish you would reconsider this. I think you ought to routinely accept requests to debate this, creationism etc., subject to YOUR conditions. Suggested conditions:
Topic is agreed upon in writing.
Order of responses is based on a random future event, such as the last digit of the DJIA on the day after the challenge is accepted.
All debate materials are in writing, maximum word count specified. Linked sources/documents do not count toward the maximum word limit. All links must be to peer-reviewed documents indexed in [source?]
There is a specified time and place to post debate essays. Responses are due x days later.
There are several advantages:
– You occupy the moral high ground when you accept the challenge.
– Most of these assholes will abandon the request rather than compete on these terms.
– You get to crowdsource the response. Minimizes the heavy lifting. Given the interests and background of your readers, your biggest problem might be deciding which of the crowdsourced documents to submit as your official response.
It’s amazing how someone who specifically commands his followers to “Be precise in your speech” is constantly misunderstood.
And as for the “debate him” trope, Peterson is the guy who keeps saying that no Marxist will debate him after canceling a debate with a Marxist and refusing to reschedule.
arnhart@9,15,
Why the fuck would anyone be interested in reading your fanfic? If they want Petersonspew, it’s all over the intertubes.
I took a quick look at arnhart’s first defence of Peterson but quickly realised it’s just a variation on the standard ‘you’re misrepresenting him!’ defence so beloved by the lobsters.
arnhart, #9, 15
I have written half a million words of mournful poetry about my beloved and how unfair it is we’re not together.
I won’t provide a link. Nobody likes wallowing in someone else’s self-indulgent hero-worship and pathetic, grim-countenanced wankery.
My posts on Peterson include many criticisms of him for his faith in Jung and in Nietzschean atheistic religiosity: http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2018/04/jordan-petersons-unscientific-faith-in.html
So I looked at the start of arnhart @15. I didn’t get further because:
Peterson’s position is Darwinian, because he explains human nature through evolutionary psychology.
Well, there’s a problem. Need I say more? I shall say no more.
It is aristocratic, because he sees that the hierarchical structure of human society is rooted in evolved human nature.
Yeah, right. (The well-known double positive.) See all evidence of early human culture.
It is liberal, because he argues that a liberal social order conforms best to that evolved human nature.
So he invented human nature and then defined liberalism to fit his fantasy.
Reader, I closed the tab and tiptoed back.
Coding fail! Whaddya want, care and citations? Not worth it.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the writer quoted in the post used to have nothing but scorn for the woolly humanities thinking they are now employing. All that cross cultural semiotic inter-texuality they use in communications studies was nothing but post modernist horseshit for English majors until a guy who hated feminism and all that started using it.
arnhart, #21
My tedious love poems include many exasperated sighs at the unfairness of the universe and self-flagellating invocations of my own unworthiness.
I tried to unpack the ramblings of the emailer in the OP.
AFAICT, he is saying the two snakes are yin and yang, which is male and female.
When the boy snake and the girl snake get together, something happens.
This is how babies are made!!!
While this is true, it is also trivial.
You don’t have to have brilliant insights or huge leaps of logic to figure out how babies are made.
The average person can not only figure it out, they can and will actually…do it.
This is reminiscent of brainwarp, who on another thread recently said some reasonable things, just as many banal things, and many more unreasonable things. The constant refrain was that we were misunderstanding Peterson, but other than correcting a misimpression born of the NYTimes’ misunderstanding (where Peterson used “enforced monogamy” as a technical academic term without, apparently making it clear to the NYT who then passed the ambiguity on to readers), most of what brainwarp wanted to say was that
1. we didn’t understand Peterson
2. Peterson is really bad at making himself understood if you don’t listen to him for more than an hour at a time (in reading, I suppose he’s bad at making himself understood in less than a chapter at a time?)
3. we desperately need to understand peterson because of his popularity and thus influence
4. we’re going to lose some zero-sum war for power with Peterson’s regressive followers because we’re mean on the internet
Which is all fine, of course, but when we repeatedly made statements dismissing Peterson as a crank who played no useful role in any public debate, brainwarp insisted that Peterson’s ideas were useful and that it was merely our tribalism combined with our aforementioned misunderstandings of Peterson that led to our willingness to treat his arguments as worthless.
I was curious, so I asked for examples of what Peterson has said that is worth reading/ hearing/ learning/ knowing. What did we get from brainwarp? That Peterson’s truly valuable statements aren’t on monogamy or trans* rights or human rights law or evolutionary psychology, but Peterson says some really, really valuable things about Dostoyevsky (and, I think, Nietzsche). Of course, since brainwarp had said that Peterson is a bad communicator except in limited formats, brainwarp didn’t link to any of that or even explain any of the insights in brainwarp’s own words. Now, in brainwarp’s defense this was well into an already overlong thread, but it just seemed so perfectly fanboy.
The problem is that Peterson’s communication style is prone to miscommunication and is thus widely misunderstood? Don’t make Peterson understandable. Just yell at people about how they misunderstand the great miscommunicator, then when 400+ comments exhaust all reasonable possible interpretations of Peterson & they all come up bad, insist that Peterson wasn’t even any good on that topic anyway and that the real Peterson value is in this other topic which just can’t be examined today (and for such reasonable reasons! We all were, after all, fairly exhausted in that thread by that point!)
The more I write about it, the more I think that PZ should have included the Courtier’s reply in the list of fanboy responses: Yes, yes, the statements for which he’s been widely pilloried might be wrong, but they weren’t widely pilloried *because* they were wrong. They were widely pilloried because of your provincial closed-mindedness, and if you really want to be taken seriously in your opinions of Peterson, you have to sample this other, rarer preparation of Peterson that’s found over here. You haven’t tried this Dostoyevsky-flavored Peterson, have you?
@raven:
Even educated fleas do it.
arnhart,
If you have a point to make, you can make it here.
That is, if you’re desperately in need of another asshole.
To Peterson’s followers, you can’t understand him unless you agree with him.
I’ve been trying to stay away from everything Jordan Peterson, BUT today I was skimming through Area Meetups and I noticed a “Jordan B Peterson” meetup.
Like, for real? A Meetup dedicated to a single person!?
“Cult” and “worship” were the first words that came to mind.
I have literally seen youtube comments (I know…) from Peterson fans acknowledging not only that he’s vague and obfuscatory, but also that he’s deliberately so. Because, and get this, because he’s afraid of being misinterpreted.
And they think this is a totally rational thing that makes sense.
(Meanwhile, of course, Peterson would never misrepresent or strawman anyone. It’s not like the whole basis of Peterson’s schtick is the assertion that Marxism and postmodernism are actually the same thing or something. An assertion so ludicrous it goes way beyond being any kind of honest misreading or misinterpretation of either Marx or postmodernists. It goes beyond being an incompetent misreading. Its so far down the road, it really only works as a lack of any reading whatsoever.)
(If it’s not just a lie. Could be a lie, too.)
@jack:
That is a thing of beauty. Thanks.
@F.O.
Just to be clear, we’re not talking about a thing where Peterson is swinging through town for a gig and folks who want to meet him in person can grab a couple tables at a bar and chat. This is all just fanboy-to-fanboy fap time?
Well, I guess everyone has their own kinks, y’know?
jack lecou
I got the same thing from one of the cultist when Ed Brayton dared to bring up Peterson and Dispatches blew up. Except they claimed it was to “trick” people. Seriously. This was said in his defense!
Absolutely baffling. Why would anyone waste their time trying to discern what someone is peddling when they engage in this behavior? I wouldn’t care to follow him even if he had the exact same ideology as me. Not worth the effort.
opus #16
PZ is already there.
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2015/03/16/pz-myers-debate-requirements/
Notice that like Cathy Newman, Myers is engaged in a dominance contest with Peterson. For Myers, an intellectual discussion like this is an opportunity to show his superiority over those with whom he disagrees, as shown by his smug insulting dismissal of Peterson: “he is a loon!” So Myers gives us a good illustration of what Peterson identifies as one of the eight kinds of conversation–the dominance-hierarchy conversation. This debate over the idea of hierarchy is itself a manifestation of the natural human inclination to hierarchy.
Arnhart#37, nothing bafflegaff (drivel). Try again.
Jordan Peterson: Not even wrong.
Wrong is correctable. Bullshit is immortal.
Wow, way to perfectly demonstrate how culty Petersonians are, Arnhart.
“Well I know this scientist has actual facts that contradict me, but if you read the Holy 12 Steps at a 45 degre angle, Lord Peterson will beam clarifications that only I can detect right into my head! The lobster works in mysterious ways!”
Arnhart, this might be a troubling concept to you but…. not everything in life is a dominance battle. Someone can dislike someone else without it being an attempt to be ‘dominant’. I know, I know… it’s baffling to you, but really it’s true.
Can’t reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into. Peterson’s flock didn’t want reason, they wanted justifications for thinking they were right and everyone else was wrong; they wanted excuses to never change while expecting everyone else to accommodate their sense of entitlement.
It’s easier to just make fun of them and move on. They aren’t worth taking seriously, because they don’t really even take themselves seriously. It’s all just childish selfishness and tantrums.
So…. People argue sometimes. In doing so, they try to show that they are right and the other person is wrong. Therefore… Lobsters!
From Arnhart’s blog heading
The evo psych trope accusing critics of believing in tabula tasa. Is that a free space on the bingo card?
So what? This is the common ad hominem fallacy.
He doesn’t address PZ’s data or logic but claims PZ and Peterson are playing a primate game.
The Peterson trolls use the ad hominem fallacy over and over again.
The other fallacy they use often is the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
“Peterson has a fancy title before his name, i.e. Dr.”
Big deal.
So does Dr. Myers. So do I. So do a lot of people on this blog.
So do thousands of Peterson’s critics.
They are just as qualified as he is and most are more qualified in their own fields.
The Peterson fanboys clearly have not had any education or practice in critical thinking.
I think the problem here is that for a lot of young men, Petersonianism has been their first explicit ideology, and so they’re in a “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” situation.
They try to view everything through the Petersonian lens, no matter how unsuited the intellectual toolset actually is to that task. And so you get absurdities like arnhart here framing an intellectual-ideological disagreement as a lobsterian struggle for dominance.
Arnhart, so far you haven’t impressed anyone on this thread.
1. You spammed it for your own blog which many blog owners would consider rude.
2. And this claim is very close to a lie.
I’m sure PZ called Peterson a loon.
He has also put up 10 or so detailed posts criticizing Peterson over the last few months. You can find them easily through Google. It’s around 3 this week alone.
Try to sound slightly more intelligent and capable of some sort of actual thoughts that anyone would want to read. If you can, because these kinds of mistakes are boring.
.
I think the problem here is that for a lot of young men, Petersonianism has been their first explicit ideology, and so they’re in a “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” situation. They try to fit everything into the Petersonian grand narrative, no matter how unsuited the intellectual toolset actually is to a task. And so you get absurdities like arnhart here framing an intellectual-ideological disagreement as a lobsterian struggle for dominance.
(Apologies if this comment ends up showing twice, btw.)
The old “disagreeing just proves I’m right about Everything!” argument huh (or in this case “proves him right”). That’s always a doozy.
PZ is engaged in a ‘dominance contest’ with Charlatan Heston (aka Moses)? Oooh, there must be smiting in the offing.
Sure, you didn’t have to even ask.
It’s also a very flimsy strawperson, so flimsy it needs a sign so people know it isn’t just a pile of straw.
I’ve been alive since the 1950’s and I’ve never actually heard anyone say that. Or read it.
IIRC, this might have been something from the Soviet Russian commies of my grandparents generation but everybody dropped it long ago.
“He doesn’t address PZ’s data or logic.”
In my blog post, I restate and then respond to all four of PZ’s objections to Peterson’s lobster hierarchy argument.
@44
Hypocrisy is kinda baked into the pie with Petersonians.
Hence him rambling about the evils of postmodern critical theory while making videos where he analyzes and breaks down the symbology in Frozen as being the product of directed social forces with a specific negative goal in mind.
Him being Peterson, in that case.
#37 arnhart
Do you understand that this post by PZ is about the fanboys and not Peterson directly? This is a case where it really is about you.
Look, physics tells us that there are only 8 types of conversations. We know from physics that there are obviously only 6 fundamental colors of the rainbow, so the types of conversations are
1. Ones which mention red.
2. Ones which mention orange.
3. Ones which mention yellow.
4. Ones which mention green
5. Ones which mention blue.
6. Ones which mention purple.
7. Ones which mention a color which is made up of a combination of fundamental colors.
8. Ones which mention no color at all.
PZ called Peterson’s arguments “crappy” which is an obvious reference to red, as human feces gets ALL of its coloration from bilirubin, which is named after the Etruscan word for “red”. So PZ is engaged in conversation #1.
But I was engaged in a completely different conversation type, so none of his criticisms apply!
And before you physicists start yammering on about how the plank length means that space shifts red into other colors, it’s metaphorical you idiots, you’re engaging in some gotcha “truth” game instead of studying how what I’m saying is really, really intelligent!
As for those linguists who challenge my etymology, I’ve looked into this deeply, and I’m certain that my interpretation is correct because the Etruscans built boats before Rome even existed.
I think we’re done here.
@5-KG
Peterson’s views on archetypes don’t stand or fall based on whether Jung was a Nazi sympathizer or had racist views. Jung’s views on archetypes don’t stand or fall that way either. That enters genetic fallacy territory.
I was quite struck (via Noll’s work?) by the bizarre case of the solar phallus man as a putative demonstration of primordial images. That was weak tea. Diffusion and ecological convergence must be addressed. Jung’s phylogenetic unconscious was a somewhat mystic precursor to evolutionary psychology which itself cannot deal adequately with Gould’s spandrel monkey wrench. If archetypes exist, for the sake of argument, are they adaptions or nonadaptive byproducts of adaptions, such as a large brain or human love of narratives that tend toward themes due to hyperbole or embellishment pulled in certain directions? Maybe Dan Sperber’s cultural attractor notion applies.
As for the Nazi thing:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/06/carl-jung-freud-nazis
Jung had become an agent of the OSS along with just about everyone else alive at the time. Julia Child? Doesn’t absolve him of any negative qualities or sympathies though.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shrink-as-secret-agent-jung-hitler-and-the-oss
That’s an interesting twist to Jung’s story that struck me when reading Deirdre Bair’s Jung bio. Sure the connection was to the spook Dulles who would go on to screw with Guatemala and Iran badly. Dulles was involved in the Bay of Pigs too which echoes Jung’s meaningfully coincident quote: “Don’t you know that if you choose one hundred of the most intelligent people in the world and get them all together, they are a stupid mob?”
Not quite the groupthink notion Janis proposed as explanation for the Bay of Pigs.
I give you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzDRge6P0U
I don’t know if the Peterson fans are the tether ball or the sheep, but either way, I expect they imagine they’re ‘winning’.
Dang, checkmated again.
There is no question that you must be the most dominant scientist here. Therefore, what you say can only be the truth!
Speaking of bilirubin.
If your system of thought leaves you unable to notice that Nazism promptly is a compound of the absurd and the evil, there’s obviously something badly wrong with it. And as the link I gave (which is to an article by a Jewish Jungian analyst) shows, Jung’s notion of the “collective unconscious” was closely tied to his beliefs about the intrinsic differences between “nations”. (Also, of course, there’s the fact that Jung’s beliefs are utterly implausible, and completely unevidenced.) I’m not impressed by your links, the first of which is a standard apologia, while the second is unverifiable, and a best shows that Jung realised which way the wind was blowing in 1942. As that article says itself of Jung “He played both sides”.
@What a Maroon:
Just finished listening to it. Going through the lyrics now, slowly, as I speak like 4 words of Spanish. Fun song, though.
“notice that Nazism promptly” -> “promptly notice that Nazism” @60.
@What a Maroon:
HOLY FUCK THAT SONG IS NSFW!
After going through it with a friend who speaks spanish + google translate, then my contribution that bilirubin is the yellow bile of the medieval “4 humors” theory of personality/emotion, we finally figured out that
May be literally talking about “elevating” levels of “yellow bile” but in context this is talking about “elevating” something much more noticeable to the naked eye, if you know what I mean, wink wink, nudge nudge.
@Crip Dyke #34
Nope.
That’s people meeting on a more-or-less regular basis for hard fapping.
Link: https://www.meetup.com/Jordan-B-Peterson-Berlin-Meetup/
(I’m not in Berlin. I love Berlin. There’s plenty of great meetups in Berlin. This is not one of them.)
Crip Dyke,
You think that’s NSFW? Try this.
@WaM:
I am laughing so hard right now. “I want to put my nose in your fish bowl and blow all the bubbles you desire”? Just. Too. Awesome.
scuse me. “love bubbles” not just “bubbles”
Crip Dyke,
Sounds better in Spanish. (Though I’d quibble a bit with that translation: “hacer burbujas de amor/ por donde quiere/ y pasar la noche en vela/ mojado en ti” roughly “blow bubbles of love/ all over/ and spend the night/ soaked in you”.)
CD @54
Plank length is only important if you need to build a functiinal boat (or backyard deck large enough to hold that table and 6 chairs, for that matter). Don’t know what all this ‘shifting to red’ nonsense is, but I think this means your sailorly Etruscans were well aware of the fundamental fabric of the universe and discovered black holes thousands of years ago. Go ahead, TELL ME I’M WRONG!!!
I know this is true because it came to my wife in a dream.
There was also a dragon. That must have been a neutron star.
@60- KG
Samuel’s article does take Jung to task for things he had said and done and stands as an uncomfortable reminder to Jungians that Papa Carl had serious blemishes in his past. Yet Samuels remains a Jungian (or post-Jungian???) who must find value in Jung’s oeuvre, while acknowledging his problematic views on race and nationalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/25/carl-jung-century
I lean more towards your assessment in judgement of Jung’s work and despise Peterson, yet think saying ‘Jung had Nazi proclivities therefore Peterson is wrong about archetypes’ falls short of the mark. There could be a connection relevant to judging Peterson’s political outlook, character, or components of his worldview. Could reflect authoritarian bent. But factuality of archetypes or anything of academic bent he may have written not so much.
We could question the validity of ethology (innate releasers or fixed action patterns, etc) because Konrad Lorenz was an actual Nazi? Or not.
As for the verifiability of my second source it cites Deirdre Bair’s painstaking biography and this review:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/books/in-the-jung-archives.html
“Bair makes a convincing case that Jung was neither personally anti-Semitic nor politically astute. Rather, he played all sides: letting himself be used by the Nazis to legitimate their racial theories, belittling Freud (”insofar as his theory is based in certain respects on Jewish premises, it is not valid for non-Jews”), even as he tried to help other Jewish analysts…Bair occasionally goes too far, as when she insists that the man — so canny and manipulative in every other dimension of his life — was naïve in his dealings with the Nazis. In this respect, Jung’s case resembles that of another charismatic intellectual, the philosopher Martin Heidegger, who was much more of a collaborator than Jung. These ambitious men were not naïve; they were overconfident about their ability to manipulate the Nazis and were hopelessly outplayed.”
But perhaps from the POV of Dulles and the OSS it was of benefit that Jung had some connections to the Nazis and useful knowledge that Dulles could relay elsewhere. That has no relation either to validity of Jung’s (or Peterson’s) ideas, but makes for one bizarrely intriguing backstory of OSS operations in WWII. Almost as crazy as OSS agents training the Viet Minh. Jung believed in ghosts and was also a spook. His vision of God taking a dump on a cathedral is a most poignant primordial image which I find more valuable than Nietzsche’s parable of the madman.
It isn’t mythologically significant. That’s how snakes fuck. Not a difficult thing to find out.
Wonder what Peterson would make of snake orgy images:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/red-sided-garter-snakes-mate-themselves-to-death-telomeres/
Or the plight of male snakes getting way too much sex. Celibacy has its benefits.
Keep up the good fight PZ.
Is ‘misunderstandificate’ in common usage? If not, maybe Peterson can bring it into vogue.
It’s a portmanteau term, combining ‘misunderstand’ and ‘pontificate.’ Used most often to describe the arguments of so-called experts whose fans resort primarily to “you don’t understand “ when defending his/her statements.
Also has derivative terms: misunderstandification and demisunderstandification. For example, “I put arnhart’s defense of Peterson’s misunderstandification through a demisunderstandification protocol and ended up with a tabula rasa.
hemidactylus, Antechinus.
I agree with Peterson.
Speak plainly.
I wish he did.
@76-john
If I were a member of a semelparous species and achieved awareness and realized my fate I would swear off sex.
Since lobsters tell us about status, dominance, and serotonin, salmon tell us to never ever swim upstream and to enjoy celibacy. Is differs from ought. Incels should take heed.
As Huxley realized we must not heed selection. Though not celibacy per se, childfree is a choice for some that may uphold flourishing over fitness. Personal selfishness may overtake gene selfishness. Or it may be altruistic to limit your carbon footprint by not contributing to population growth.
Crip Dyke @34:
I think they get together in someone’s (freshly cleaned) basement bedroom, put on lobster-themed pajamas, and ask each other questions like, “Which of Dr. Peterson’s 12 rules is your favorite?”
opus @75:
I thought a misunderstandificate was something Peterson awarded to his most loyal followers.
> That’s just noise. Long-winded ahistorical noise.
In fairness, also something Peterson himself produces a lot of.
Here is a debate.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/a-politically-incorrect-debate-about-political-correctness-1.4683963
I heard part of Peterson’s turn and all of Dyson’s on the car radio.
But at home, my iPad can’t handle the CBC website, so I’ll listen to the rest on the real computer tomorrow.
spoilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Peterson was ill-informed, incoherant, and boring.
Dyson was articulate, witty, and a wee bit tricksy.
I really liked him.
To add to the line of experts scolding Peterson, a historian chimes in on the difference between serfs and slaves. Peterson claims that “everyone was a slave” so certain races need to just get over it [paraphrase]. The historian explains: “Jordan Peterson advance this notion that supposes any and all anger at the lingering legacy of slavery is based on imagined slight, they are – usually intentionally in the case of educated men like Peterson – doing their part to uphold and promote the racial ideology that continues to hurt…” I’d give it a read not because Peterson is mentioned but that it is a great post.
[Peterson is mentioned at ~30th paragraph down].
https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8n19s0/suffering_slaves_and_suffering_serfs_whats_the/dzsqky1/
It’s like watching a new religion being born. Fascinating!
This doesn’t seem that dissimilar to the white dudebros who swarm around guys like Sam Harris or Hitchens, etc., or the Ron/Rand Paul libertarian fanatics, or BernieBros for that matter. There’s a willing flock of youngish white dudes who need some white man with a degree to use long words to tell them every bigoted thing they think is totally justified and correct. When they find him, they will contort themselves and all logic and rational thought into pretzels to protect their savior.
@85
How does “using long words to justify bigoted beliefs” apply to Bernie Sanders? Genuinely curious, I wasn’t aware of him doing such.
Speaking of ‘cults’…isn’t this interesting:
“Trump Says He’ll Pardon Dinesh D’Souza, Who Pleaded Guilty To Campaign Finance Fraud”
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/31/615759943/trump-says-hell-pardon-dinesh-dsouza-who-pleaded-guilty-to-campaign-finance-frau
As mentioned in the tail of that article: a “celebrity-driven pardon system.”
I’ve worked around psychologists for three decades. Peterson is losing/has lost it. His current stuff is word salad. Cognitive decline is awful, and in psychologists doubly so because they usually have enough command of the rhetorical devices to conceal it longer than people where it becomes visible immediately. The denial that there could be anything wrong with his point of view will only deepen from here. I’ve watched this happen to several people over the years, and it’s profoundly disturbing and awful for everyone involved.
skybluskyblue@83, Thanks for the reference ! That is indeed a very interesting post, and I second the suggestion to give it a read (it’s a long one (5-parter)). The loon (Peterson), whilst being the motivation for the question which lead to the posted reply, and then eviscerated (eventually) in the reply, is nonetheless almost an afterthought. The posted reply is about historical methods, serfdom, slavery, and related. It’s quite a fascinating read.
Peterson looks, sounds, thinks and writes like a very unappealing person. It’s rather dispiriting that anyone takes him at all seriously, let alone becomes a fan. Oh well. This too shall pass.
hemidactylus@71,
Which of course I didn’t say.
Indeed we could, and should. There’s no simple deduction of the form “Nazi (or Nazi sympathiser), therefore wrong about everything”, but the former should certainly alert us to be sceptical, and to look for possible connections. In Lorenz’s case, some of these are evident in On Aggression, where he’s almost as obsessed with, and simplistic about, dominance hierarchies as Peterson. Similarly Heidegger could not have become such an enthusiastic Nazi so quickly if he had not been “pre-adapted” by his racist and reactionary view of “traditional German villages”, free of corrupting (read “Jewish”) influence.
@54 Crip Dyke
No Discworld reference? (The Colour of Magic, and the significance of the number 8).
I’m disappointed.
I don’t get the fuss about Peterson. There is nothing special about his psychology, it’s basic textbook 101 level stuff. And his philosophy, such as it is , is plain old Catholic presuppositional apologetics. He tries to disguise it by wrapping it up in postmodern double talk so thick he sounds like “Professor” Irwin Corey with a delivery reminiscent of The Amazing Kreskin. He’s a fraud.
“I have written a defense of Peterson against Myers’ critique”.
And I have written 43,404 words (and counting) of fanfiction in which Daria Morgendorffer meets Dream of the Endless.
Mine has more serious science and philosophy than yours.
@woozy:
I’m a traitor to my kind: I’ve barely read any disc world just a couple of Tiffany Aching books.
well Alanmac at least the professor was funny not so with this Peterson ……..
uncle frogy
woozy
Not good enough? Or is it missing the proper context and/or nuance? ;)
(And yes, another non-Pratchett reader here, so maybe I just can’t truly understand the depth of your disappointment. :( )
so
Indigo and Violet are now “Purple”?
.
huh
#deeprifts
Violet is a purple, as are all but the last of the sample sha…hue….fucking VERSIONS of “indigo” on this page.. Indigo dye is blue.
KG
Of course he’s also on record saying that he never said that, so his Fans will simply pick one or the other and claim that you’re lying.
arnhart
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Have you considered, that it may actually be a debate about harmful bullshit?
rq@98, Octarine, the colour of magic (the name of Prachett’s first Discworld book), is described thusly:
Rincewind is a former student wizard who has failed to achieve even the first step of hierarchal wizardry. We know this because he has a hat which says “Wizzard”. He, other wizards, and a few others can sense Octarine, but it is invisible to almost everyone.
Octarine really should be № 8 on the list (specifically № 8). An interesting take on it is Octarine: The Imaginary Color of Magic: “Octarine has been likened to a fluorescent greenish-yellow purple, a combination impossible to perceive with normal human eyes.”
it’s PHYSICS you people.
Sheesh.
blf
See? Greenish purple, therefore #7. Ha!
rq, No, no, not 7, Octarine has to be 8. There are deep magical reasons — literally magical reasons — for this, which go far beyond mere roundworld “physics”. Thinking Octarine has anything to do with physics is like believing in that ridiculous “story of a race of people who lived on a blue world in the shape of a sphere, and how they watched massive asteroids slam into a neighboring planet, and then did NOTHING ABOUT IT because that sort of thing only happens in outer space… [A]ny race that stupid would have never been able to discover slood.”<1> Slood, of course, is well-known, “a natural substance that could be discovered by intelligent beings. It was said to be much easier to discover than fire and only slightly harder to discover than water.”<2>
<1> Slood.
<2> Slood.
Yeah but CD is always right and she listed it as #7. Clearly there is dissonance and these things aren’t as clearcut as you’d like them to be.
Aaah! Aaaah!
Cult of personality!
Besides, has CD declared herself infallible? Huh? Is she the Papessa eternally pronouncing ex cathedra now?
Owlmirror
I didn’t say ‘infallible’, I said ‘always right’! That is not the same thing at all. But I’m sure I can find a quote somewhere and take it out of context, if must.
If she did, I might turn religious again.
I thought you already worshiped potatoes ?
Do you also have a fear of being turned into an oyster — if so, then your potato-worship seems like the Potato Cult of Mr Tulip. Not to be confused the Blue Öyster Cult, who probably aren’t as tasty.
Potatoes are life and must have their sacrifices, but it’s got nothing to do with organized religion!
Porivil Sorrens @86 – sorry, I was unclear. I didn’t mean Sanders was one of the people spewing stuff, I was comparing the illogical fervency of devotion of some of his followers to the cult-like adoration and defense of JP.
rq: “I’m not religious: I just love potatoes.”
As one of our great philosophers once said, “You can’t have like a light without a dark to stick it in. You know what I’m saying? You can’t have one thing without the other thing.”
So, given that, who is the anti-C.D.?
Seem to have borked the link. Trying again.
Richard Of York Gave Battle Pointlessly?
D.C. federal politicians ?
(I misspelled “federal”, and a suggested correction was “feral” — I was seriously tempted…)
Shouldn’t CD be the judge of that?
Excellent! I can once again proclaim defiance as Heresiarch and Public Enemy № 1. ‡
I like this plan, and I am excited to be a part of it.
________________________________________________________
‡: Praise Philosophical Zombie Jesus, and thank him every day for your qualia, without which you might see colors but not experience them.
Me! I’ve got Philosophical Zombie Jesusism and Quantum BoltzmannLandMegalodonism.
I should probably add Octarine Colour Theory to my list of heresies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROYGBIV
So does the turtle move ?
chigau@120, Ah, so that’s what the reference to Mr Plantagenet by Rob Grigjanis@116 was all about — Thanks !
CD #104
Oy!
I thought you were a LAWYER?
What’s going on here?
@123: Physics has Laws (Gravity, Conservation of stuff), albeit, oddly, nothing involving Slood.
ℌ𝔪𝔪, 𝔡𝔬𝔢𝔰 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰 𝔰𝔱𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔨?
𝕰𝖝𝖈𝖊𝖑𝖑𝖊𝖓𝖙!
Another possible heresy: turtle-less discworld.
The world is round and flat as a dinner plate, and rests on the back of four giant lobsters, which in turn stand on top of an even bigger . . . whelk.
The lobsters fight for dominance, which is why earthquakes.
if that is your real name:
P-zombie Jesus couldn’t have given us qualia, since he doesn’t have any qualia to give, as he is a p-zombie. If he did anyway, and if he knew that he did, he’d have no experience of knowing that he did.
So why don’t we thank Quantum Boltzmann Land Megalodon every day for this instead? Does it not deserve our gratitude? We could thank p-zombie Jesus (every 13.627 hours) for ensuring that the Quantum Boltzmann Land Megalodon doesn’t exist.
WHAT IS THIS, YOU HAVE TO THANK THE POTATO AND THEIR ULTIMATE FLAVOUR OF DILL!!! What is this qualia, Jesus, nectarines and Plantageneticisms? You’re all doing it wrong! It’s not a religion or a cult, it’s just how biology IS!!!!??!!!!! The lobsters, though, they know what’s going on. This, too, came to me in an excessive-potato-eating dream, so it must be right.
(One moment, I’ll have to check with CD on this.)
Sigh. Look, this is all explained in scripture, in the book of David of Sha-Llama-Ers, as interpreted correctly (which is to say, by me). We learn that everyone, including Jesus, was a philosophical zombie, until the Transfiguration, when the heavens opened and the Wholly Spirit filled Jesus with Qualia; a superabundance of Qualia, in fact. This was why the crucifixion had to happen; the kenosis, or emptying, was the superabundance of Qualia leaving Jesus and entering everyone else. Jesus got Qualia back with the resurrection, just like everyone else.
So Jesus was a P-zombie, then he wasn’t, and now no-one is. Sophistimacated theolology!
You don’t thank Quantum Boltzmann Land Megalodon for qualia; you thank him for not eating you.
Yet.
May I mention at this point that some 15 years ago or so my husband accidentally founded a new religion?
So far the only known tenet of that religion is that the first commandment is not that you shall not overload your car.
Everybody welcome.
I do not declare myself to be infallible.
Rather, I declare myself to be InContextible. If one believes a statement of mine to lack the clarity of perfect truth, it is because the statement is an incontextible statement that has simply not yet been sufficiently removed from wrong contexts and not yet sufficiently embedded in right contexts.
Of course, this is only true when I speak ex cathedra rotae, which may explain certain failures to correctly interpret my seemingly incontextible statements while clearly not excusing the laic failures to correctly interpret my actually incontextible statements. I could tell you which are which, but I’m not currently in my cathedra rotae, so that wouldn’t solve anything anyway.
Now, go forth, and do not suffer a lich to wive. Likewise, do not have sex with a man as you would have sex with a woman. Also, do not have sex with a man as you would have sex with someone of any other gender. Or any other man, really. Your sex partners are individuals, people: don’t generalize from gender to anything about your sexual relationships and how they are or should be, especially not consent.
Right. Now have a good day everybody, and remember the immortal words of Anyanka: Bunnies. Bunnies. It must be bunnies!
As you wish, Your Incontextibility
Honestly, PZ goes away for one week and we all start setting up cults and having schisms and seeking moral pronouncements from on high. It’s not what I signed up for, so it isn’t. I demand to either have my membership fee refunded or be awarded a more elaborate clerical hat than I’m currently allowed to wear in this organisation.
Also, might I point out that a cathedra rotae is something that will only have you going around in circles. A cathedra rotarum is what you want to make your ethical pronouncements from.
The ways of CD are indeed mysterious. Evidently she wants us to have sex with bunnies.
It may well be that the dizziness induced by the cathedra rotae is a prerequisite for divining the desires of the universe.
Cheese has not yet been mentioned. Nor have MUSHROOMS! Nor vin. Nor peas, albeit no-one expects the peas…
Heresy ! The ultimate flavour is, of course, cheese.
Do not be distracted by different cheeses tasting like different cheeses, that is, of course, part of being the ultimate flavour. Not-ultimate flavours do not taste of cheese, and therefore lack the different tastes of cheeses, proving — proving! — they are not cheese, and hence cannot be the ultimate flavour. (Or so says the mildly deranged penguin, who is the self-acknowledged multi-universe expert on everything, especially cheeses and walruses.)
cartomancer
What is this ‘demand’? Have you not learned anything from lobsters? You must struggle for dominance! Rearrange the hierarchy and take whichever fancy hat you want! Has PZ subjugated your natural instinct for dominance so easily??
blf
I never said that I agree that dill is the ultimate flavour, but if you analyze the world from the view of Potato, there is obviously an element of truth in dill. Cheese is always a candidate for ultimacy, Potato has never denied this, and supports the use of cheese, but there are clear arguments in favour of dill. Like the colour green.
Look at poopyhead’s title for this thread.
Dark, damp, and full of earthworms… At least until one is literally ripped out of the earth by one’s roots, and eventually dunked into boiling water or hot fat, possibly after being dismembered.
All this talk of boats makes me think of the article I read earlier today about Neanderthals going sailing through the greek islands.
They probably ate dominance hierarchies of lobsters when they were there.
A bunch of circle jerking dumb fuck prostrating at the helms of feminism as they claim that Peterson’s ideas are unsupported.
Trolls Bane… is it actually possible for you to be more boring? Like… I’m actually impressed. Being that boring had to have taken hours, carefully choosing each word for maximum effect.
How is it possible for you to be this much a dumb fuck?
@Trolls Bane
If you can’t metaphor, could you at least try to master sufficient literacy to grammar once in a while? Maybe even start with how many trolls you’re baning?
No, sorry. That’s not more boring. That’s just more bland. Half an hour clearly isn’t enough time for you to achieve more boring.
There are free thesauruses online, if that might be useful in your future attempts at increasing your levels of being boring.
But Trolls Bane proves a point – “the helms of feminism” has got to be an Etruscan sailing metaphor. (The ship Feminism was the largest Etruscan ship ever built, and had several helms, but due to a preponderance of dominance displays among the several helmspeople, and a lack of rigid yet overthrowable hierarchy, it struck an ice berg and sank off the coast of Gibraltar and got sucked into the Bermuda Triangle.)
Peterson’s ideas are supported by lobsters. Maybe we should be worried for him? When lobsters endorse your ideas, you might be a pawn in their latest attempt for dominance in the hierarchy.
Aw, how cute… a sniny new toy — but I think a pea got to it first. Seemingly-surprisingly, the Caps Lock key is broken, and there is a severe deficit of shriek bangs (“!”), along with coherence. Insufficient data to estimate the logic, or lack thereof, albeit there are suggestions it’s quite superficial, and not usually employed. As previously noted, rather boring.
That’s the cover story. Whilst it is incontestably true the iceberg did sink in the vicinity of Gibraltar and latter resurfaced off the coast of Central America, this had nothing to do with the Feminism. Instead, it was one of the wooden Jaredite submarines en route to the Americas which snagged the iceberg. The submarine’s design allowed for fresh air — holes in the top and bottom of the hull allowed air to circulate — but there were no provisions for fresh water. The designers had assumed seawater was potable. They were, of course, quickly debased on this notion and so sent out a Mayday signal.
The Feminism towed in a surplus iceberg from the storage depot said to be in Mongolia — a rather impressive feat given all the helms — but upon seeing the submarine laughed so much they crashed into Atlantis, promptly sinking both. This was rather embarrassing for both the crew and the Atlantians, so a number of different tales were circulated. (Other cover stories include a raging attack of Cooties, Venus(the planet) zipping by after leaving Jupiter(also the planet), and that reliable standby, a Flying Walrus.)
It’s rather ironic early Mormans were saved by Feminism.
How the fuck do you dull cringeworthy hacks manage to write anything outside of your small circle of nodding feminist fuck? Boring? Wow. Your self-awareness is as non-existent as your brain.
Haha, nice
Peterson’s troll followers are almost all angry young males but this is robbing the cradle.
Troll has the vocabulary and mental age of a 7 year old.
Yo, troll. Go play with your toy trucks or something.
The adults are having a conversation.
raven you moronic shitstain, how can someone be a troll when they hold a position that they agree with? Conversation? How can you have a conversation when you are already agreeing with each other? No, how fucking stupid are you?
Wow, Trolls Bane
Such sharp logic, such convincing arguments, really, we must be the stupid ones!
Peterson must be so proud to have people like you defending him.
On the other hand, you people are paying him a 500k salary, why should he care.
Hum… Conversation requires disagreement. No, no, back up… The commentators here all agree, presumably with each other, and also with poopyhead. No, back up even further… something about trolls agreeing with themselves.†
This one might actually be able to cook Mr Baggins and friends — Baggins et al would all be laughing too hard to escape. Beyond that accidental possible competence, and what could be an inability to type without referring to feaces, this one is very observant. Lots of evidence, and well-presented, well-constructed reasoning. Avoids attacking the person, and only concentrates on refuting the person’s claims. (There is some exaggeration here. (Statement inserted to help the troll.))
† My guess is “Peterson’s troll” was misinterpreted as meaning “trolls Peterson” — hence the gibberish about cannot troll if agrees — rather than the intended “Peterson fan trolling others”.
I can’t believe you unironically wrote that verbal vomit.
Lack of intelligence seems the most likely cause. Please upgrade and come back once the task is completed.
I wonder if Trolls Bane will comment again when he gets back from church?
Nah Chigau, they’re simply cleaning their room, making it all shipshape and Bristol-fashion prior to engaging the enemy as per Commodore Peterson’s standing orders.
FossilFishy
We should bake some cookies for him.
@ trolls bane, #150.
See. I knew with more time you could do better. Not quite as fantastically boring as your first comment, but it’s close! I know it’s frustrating when someone believes you can do something but you just can’t seem to. But fret not. I am patient. When you feel ready to try to surpass that masterwork of a first comment, do so.
Did you two dumb fucks actually had that back and forth? Was that actually fucking real? Was it to prove further that this is a conversation between “different” people about points and disagreements? Fucking amazing. Bake some cookie? How the fuck do you even make this shit up?
Fossil Fishy
See, that’s why women are aweful, because mum told him to.
if it really were ship-shape in the Bristol fashion, our wannabe-trol† would not be on board. (Speaking as someone who used to live in Bristol.) I’m unsure, but I suspect they would have been kneel-hauled whilst still in the harbour — which have been exceptionally unpleasant, since at the time kneel-hauling was still practiced, Bristol harbour was not floating. (Quick translation: The harbour was tidal. When the tidal surge was out, the ships rested on their kneels on the mud.)
† This “commentator” — I use that term so loosely it could be applied to a seasick shipworm — has yet to earn a second “l” (lower-case letter ell, in case yer font is ambiguous).
I didn’t know cringe could possibly be lethal until you came along, blf.
tell me you didn’t write that with a straight face.
My dear Mr. Bane(yeah, it might be Ms. Bane, but I’m 99.9 percent sure Mr. is appropriate), all your posts will do is get you subjected to the Red Letters of Banishment/Vanishment. If you made an actual point you might be allowed to stay for a while. Of course that is perhaps your point, that you want to get banned so you can brag about it to your friends. We’ve seen this before.
Trolls Bane
Do you think that Jordan Peterson would piss on you if you were on fire?
Have you thanked Philosophical Zombie Jesus for being able to actually experience the qualia of being a dumb fuck? Have you acquired the special octarine shades that allow you to see lizard-people, sapient pearwood boxes, feminist helms, and other phenomena perpendicular to the mundane electromagnetic spectrum? Has a giant lobster moved the earth for you recently?
Even a rage troll can have other hobbies besides screaming impotently.
By having imagination, intelligence, and a sense of humour? Wild guess, there.
Also knowledge. As an example: I did live in Bristol and know what “ship-shape in the Bristol fashion” actually means (as well as “cash on the nail”, another common idiom from Bristol). The current chew-toy, whose sniny has worn off and is now exceptionally dull, could, of course, know what one or both means, or even have visited / lived there, but as yet has not offered any hint of leaving the family home’s basement.
Owlmirror
Do you actually speak in dumb fuck circle jerk?
The point has already been made. Oh, what a cult Peterson has.
Is Trolls Bane actually a bot?
I mean, there’s nothing but seemingly random insults, so…?
Yeah, I get sent to the stupidest circle jerking forums to make observation, Youtube comments, The_Donald, Stormfront, Flat Earth Society. Apparently, this particular one is so dumb that it thinks one can be a troll while holding onto a point that it agrees with, and doesn’t understand irony, seem to also be a hivemind but it keeps replying with different accounts. It’s pretty mystifying.
Na, bots have better sentence structure these days.
Interesting hypothesis. If so, it is just a (very poor) contextual-bot, as it does include (harvested) specifics — the handles of commentators — but beyond that, I don’t note any actual engagement, understanding, consideration, or indeed, as said, anything beyond “seemingly random insults” (and laughably poor ones at that).
Test, Trolls Bane, what is 1 + Daurade ?
Most of my computing power went to not being as fucking dumb as the circle jerking forums I browse.
Apparently, that was an insufficient effort on your part.
Perhaps. Most of the obvious bots I’ve seen from not-obviously-English(-language) sites aren’t all that convincing. Of course, there could be convincing ones from such sites, so this anecdotal observation is itself not too convincing (and overlooks (native-)English-language sites).
There continues to be a lack of engagement or understanding, a reliance on (a small set of?) insults, and a noticeable absent of context. It does seem to be either a very very poor Peterson-supporting (supposedly) trol, or a exceptionally transparent bot.
Test, Trolls Bane, what is 1 + Daurade ?
1 + Daurade = Cringeworthy dumb fuck that is still continuing his cringeworthy schtick. Bot wonders if his other cringeworthy companion will actually be kind enough to join him in it else he embarrasses himself alone.
I follow a couple of micro short story bots on Twitter. All in all a more pleasant and satisfying experience.
Also, I prefer my dorade grilled with a filling of garlic, onions and parsley.
Yes, I also like that. Lunch today wasn’t Dorade but Lotte with a similar accompaniment, and a local vin blanc.
I see the troll has responded with enough contextual-“understanding” to plausibly suggest it isn’t a bot. Oh well, it was a sensible idea, nicely explaining perhaps most of the troll’s currently-demonstrated behaviour. Nonetheless, the general observation seems to still hold: “There continues to be a lack of engagement or understanding, a reliance on (a small set of?) insults, and a noticeable absent of context.”
This once I think “don’t feed the troll” is the correct idea, because there’s no toy to chew.
Lotte is also delicious. I still have some left over paella from last night, although there were no mejillones (aka moules) to be had.
@rq
Have I mentioned lately that I love you?
@Giliell
Exactly my thoughts.
I almost bought some Moules in the market this morning, but didn’t, and so am now wondering what to do for dinner.
The really annoying thing is last(?) week the same market stall appeared to have some Couteaux de mer — which I don’t see that often — but I failed to investigate… and of course, there weren’t any this morning. Bugger… (not that had I been less silly it would have helped with tonight’s dinner!)
─────────────────────────
Indeed, watching a troll get indigestion, whilst it can be amusing, is not a satisfying meal. Or indeed, a meal at all, unless one is partial to well-chewed eejit.
Bot do hope one day the dumb fucks understand the definition of a troll and basic irony or common sense for that matter.
But it would be ever so sad if they ever one day have to come out of their little circle and engage with another person -alone- without another one of their dumb fucks screeching “troll” in the background, or having another to the rescue when their idiocy is exposed, or making that pointless small talks. It would never happen however for this is where they belong, and leaving the echo chamber would mean a certain death.
Pffft tells me that another name for lotte is “the lawyer”.
It doesn’t say why, though.
God knows I never leave my little circle without 3-5 pharyngulites with me. It’d be real hard to do synchronized dance/fight scenes with the other blog comment sections without a gang.
Trolls Bane @174:
Who sends you to “make observation”?
CD
You don’t have to tell me. You can just sing it to me.
Porivil Stevens
Yah, see, finally someone understands! It’s all in the fingersnap, and without the posse, there’s just not enough RAWR.
+++
Dear me, the moule has left its shell behind – nought but the crusty exoskeleton, and a poorly built one, at that. Thought it was billyjoe for a moment (that reference to the humouring duo of chigau and FossilFishy), but alas. A new low. We’ll never recover the Feminism at this rate, we’re well off the map and beyond our depth.
y’know that makes me think about ship naming in general. While we do, obviously, have the EES Feminism as a counter-example, why is it we can name ships after vague efforts like USS Enterprise which included a slave ship in its various incarnations, but we never get the USS Abolitionism, a more specific effort about which we can be truly proud? When the US navy commissions a special operations submarine, why shouldn’t it be named after a celebrated cover-ops specialist who did work we all admire like USS Harriet Tubman who got a government freighter in 1944 and then nothing until the Constellation Class starships were introduced in the 23rd century.
(I can’t immediately find this reference.†) In English, Lotte is usually known as Monkfish. Today’s lunch was basically grilled medallions drizzled with olive oil, and local vegetables, fortunately not including peas (albeit there was some
courgette) — very tasty ! Dinner, however, was a bit of a damp squib, an ok Boeuf Tagliata, rather indifferent by local standards.
† Note, however, despite the use of the cryptic “Pffft”, and my own inability to find the reference, the quoted excerpt contains more information — verifiable information — then all of the trol’s posts (here) combined.
Aah, but CD, that would be close to being something like an action that is akin to making sense or something else suitably appropriate.
But it would be badass: imagine a fleet of heroes! (Knowing the world, though, They’d probably select well-known, accomplished historical figures like Achilles and Perseus and Jesus Christ.)
The peas are coming along nicely, although they are not quite ripe yet.
And not, e.g., the mildly deranged penguin ? Who, I note, I haven’t bothered to wake up to deal with the trol. (How pathetic of a trol can you be, when even the mildly deranged penguin snoozes through your blitherings?)
Working hypothesis: TrolBarf is a pre-adolescent male, age 8, +/- 1, who has discovered the F-word, mastubation, and the online thesaurus on the first weekend since school let out for the summer.
It all fits together, when examined from that perspective.
Question re keel-hauling. I was familiar with the concept but thought that it required forward motion of the vessel. Otherwise it was just ‘drowning.’ Am I missing a vital piece of information?
Or mojojones, though that will probably get you laughed at outside of Bilbao.
Trolls Boner seems like a real intellectual, capable of much rational argument and sparkling wit. Do they have fake orange hair too?
Everyone wave bye-bye to Trolls Bane! He’s been banhammered.
By the way…check your email, CripDyke.
partypooper
rq
Yes, but’s it’s actually all part of the nefarious feminist agenda. We loaded the Feminism with a cargo of serotonin, and sent it down to the lobsters. This should signal the lobsters to begin Operation Marxist Gynocracy, which will start with the crustaceans and eventually spread to vertebrates.
The proof of concept experiment with Marbled Crayfish was wildly successful.
That’s what I want to be: a
*nefarious* feminist
beats the bjesus out of feminist
I prefer the idea of beet feminism. Revolutions just ain’t fun without some good music and random poetry.
and borscht
Sock puppetry at its finest.
Bummer. I love Vogon poetry.