I’d noticed something peculiar in the last week — a surge of traffic and comments to some old videos I made criticizing Jordan Peterson, and they tended to be the usual smug BS from fanatics who are appalled that anyone (that is, lib cucks) would dare to reject the wisdom of Daddy.
Just today I found out that Peterson is back at work making his videos, dang it. He’s threatening to finish a book about the Old Testament, so get ready for more religious dogma and revitalized fans. The sanctimonious stupidity is back!
Right-wing idiots are faking Snopes reports
He’s like Nosferatu, that one, just won’t stay dead…
Maybe I need a medically induced coma to reboot my career.
Robert Evans is doing a Jordan Peterson biography on “Behind the Bastards”. It’s pretty interesting. He explains “cultural marxism” as a concept more clearly than anyone else I’ve seen, which is nice.
Part two literally came out an hour ago, I haven’t listened to it yet.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/
Why, on earth would I take advice from somebody who fucked up his own life so badly unless it was “don’t do whatever I did”.
Cultural Marxism doesn’t even exist.
It’s simply a few scary words mixed together by morons like Jordan Peterson and spammers like you.
Why should I listen to some guy who managed to get himself hopelessly addicted to benzodiazepines and has spent the last few years wandering around Eastern Europe seeing one quack after another?
The Peterson Cult is like a little brother of the Trump Cult. Cult leaders can do no wrong.
Jordan Peterson is dumb and crazy.
He is though, good for a laugh on a slow day.
Some of his greater hits below once again.
Peterson is a sick puppy reflecting people’s hate back to them for money.
He also glorifies violence against groups he doesn’t like, especially women.
Peterson and violence
Unlike PZ Myers, Jordan Peterson makes a point of often using violent language and comes close to flat out calling for violence.
He is just another in a long line of hack right wingnut hate merchants like Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh so this is no surprise whatsoever.
Peterson comes close to flat out calling for violence.
He is also a merchant of hate, hate for women, atheists, Muslims, trans, nonwhites, the educated, Progressives.
Add them up.
This is most of our society.
This is why Peterson and his fanboy trolls are getting a huge amount of push back.
They are all haters and violence is a real possibility here.
Wherever you have hate speech, you will have hate violence.
We have the right and responsibility to defend ourselves and that is what we are doing.
Soo many of my male friends and workmates have become fans of Peterson over recent years, maybe even the majority of them. I find it really worrying. Aside from the noxious views on women, and trans people, and so on, I’m also just concerned that Peterson is dangerously mentally unwell? Maybe I’m wrong, but when I look at his diagrams, it strikes me that this isn’t a psychologically healthy person.
Seeing the hypocrisy of evangelicals like this is partly why I became an athiest.
“Cultural Marxism doesn’t even exist.
It’s simply a few scary words mixed together by morons like Jordan Peterson and spammers like you.”
Hmm, looks like you jumped the gun there, hotshot. Maybe you should look into the podcast before you crap all over it (and the person who linked it) as the two part episode of Behind the Bastards is a comprehensive takedown of Peterson’s cult of personality, and not some fanboy gushing. It’s obvious that you have strong feelings about Jordan Peterson; try not to be blinded by the hate.
I don’t follow links I don’t recognize posted by nyms I’ve never seen before.
At best it is usually a waste of time.
At worst, it is a proven way to pick up malware and wreck your computer!!!
If the poster can’t be bothered to express an idea in his own words to explain it, I can’t be bothered to follow dubious links.
Why don’t you try, you know, posting something that has some thought behind it and is on topic.
You can start with cultural marxism.
He should just clean his room. /s
It’s not christmas. Robert Evens doesn’t do good people on Behind the Bastards until christmas. I’ll check it out and I’m pretty sure it will be a dissection of why Jorden Peterson is a Bastard.
Ishe back on (andbacked up by) his all-steak diet?
Raven:
Behind the Bastards is on our side. They are anything but allies to Peterson or his stupid ideas.
quotetheunquote @2:
Vlad the I’m Paler.
There was a brief mention of “Jewish Bolshevism” (an antisemetic narrative about the jews being responsible for the russin revolution) in relation to “social marxism”. I think I’ve seen that mentioned before and meant to investigate. I hope they say more in part two.
JP does not look goog after part one.
I don’t know much about Peterson, but the all steak and vodka diet is enough to set off my quack alarms. And the notion of “12 rules for life” sounds like self-help BS. When I look at the rules themselves, I find them unimpressive and cutesy.
Rule 5 “Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them” seems especially problematic. What if my kids have the right idea and I’m the monster? Or even if they’re just a little annoying, as we all can be, what if I’m the one who’s being a total prick?
From skimming, I believe the point is to raise your kids keeping in mind the objective that they should not seem a nuisance to a reasonable bystander. I endorse that goal wholeheartedly. But Peterson’s edict is something else. It presupposes both that you have total control of your kids’ behavior and that your judgment should be the last word. I can only assume (if he is “telling the truth or at least not lying”) that he considers this the case for himself and that where I say enough is enough (even if I didn’t know about the steak and vodka diet).
What amazes me is that anyone takes this kind of crap seriously.
It would be cool if Jordan Peterson had spent the last dead for tax purposes like Hotblack Desiato in Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy. Since I’m not a lawyer and know nothing at all about Canadian tax law, this seems at least remotely plausible to me. Please don’t ruin it!
Or course, if he could continue this tax dodge it would be even better for all concerned.
So he survived the ALL BEEF diet?
iiandyiiii, the claimed pure carnivore diet.
All meat diet bad.
All meat and Valium, worse.
But: sympathy is for losers. Peterson is demonstrating his fitness. How’s it lookin’ tough guy?
@#22:
So he survived the ALL BEEF diet?
Side benefit: not having to take a shit for years.
evolutionaryautistic@11 Peterson isn’t an evangelical. He’s apparently a “sophisticated theology”/cultural Christian of some sort. When asked if God exists he said “I think the proper response to that is No, but I’m afraid He might exist.” The fact he’s a psychologist would probably make him suspect in a lot of Evangelical circles.
That’s where the valium comes in handy!
Peterson hates atheists.
No surprise that Peterson hates atheists. He hates the vast majority of the world’s people.
The Peterson quotes are wrong on all the facts as well.
It’s basically gibberish.
He got Godel wrong on proof, faith in god is not necessary for anything, Stalin didn’t kill because of atheism, Nazism was a pure xian production start to finish, and Marxism isn’t an atheist doctrine, it is a theory about economics and politics.
I can only guess at his misunderstanding of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, which is:
Informally, what it says is that there are some statements in first order logic that do not have a finite-length formal proof, or in other words, you can add either the statement or its logical inverse to the axioms and get another consistent formal system.
It was counterintuitive in Hilbert’s time, but less so now. The expectation that any statement should be resolved one way or the other with a finite length proof is no more reasonable than the expectation (refuted earlier by Ruffini and Abel) that a quintic solution should have a closed form algebraic solution. There are limits to what you can do in any mathematical formalism.
If someone gives you anything reasonably complex in mathematics and insists there is some finite-length series of symbols that tells you the “answer” your intuition should be that there is not unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise. Even something as simple looking as the Collatz conjecture has natural generalizations that are undecidable. As Barbie memorably put it, “Math is hard.”
It is a fundamental result in mathematical logic, but it has no bearing at all on our comprehension of truth on a day to day basis. The latter is so far removed from mathematical certainty as to be laughable. Pulling Gödel into a discussion about believe in God is a huge red flag. What we understand about reality is based on scientific induction, which is at best a heuristic. It is still the main thing we have.
While I do not definitively rule out the existence of God, I will note that he has not responded to any of my voice mails.
I had never heard the term “cultural Marxism” but I’ll trust SPLC’s 2003 article on the rightwing use of the term. So the concept “exists” in that sense, but are there any self-identified “cultural Marxists”? If not, it’s a very weak concept.
PaulBC@30: “are there any self-identified “cultural Marxists”? If not, it’s a very weak concept.”
I am very confident that there are no self-identified “Christian-baby-sacrificing, blood-harvesting Jews”, yet that concept has “existed” in the same sense as “cultural Marxism” (if I understand what you mean by “in that sense”), and it is a concept has been very strong at various times in various places, in the sense (which isn’t yours, presumably) that it has led to self-identified Christian baby-protectors other-identifying Jews as “Christian baby sacrificers and blood harvesters” and then killing them.
TL;DR: I don’t understand what you mean by “weak concept” (surely not some mathematical-logic derived meaning?).
leerudolph@31
I mean that terms are not very interesting when they are made up by accusers for something that doesn’t really exist. “People who accuse others of being ‘cultural marxists'” is a much more interesting category, since it’s grounded in reality, and it’s the subject of the SPLC article.
I just think it’s usually a bad idea to take terminology invented by conspiracy theorists and start throwing it around without qualification. At the very least, it gives them credibility.
@31 In fact, I can’t really do any better than SPLC
If you don’t like “weak concept” how about “wild conspiracy theory, utterly divorced from reality, and promoted by bigots.”
By the way, I was mostly thinking about raven’s statement
How about if we recast it as “Actual ‘cultural Marxists’ do not exist.” Is this reasonable?
E.g. how much do I need to know about “pizzeria-based child sex trafficking”? I mean, there is no lack of people with a lot to say on the matter. Is that sufficient grounds for insisting it “exists” or would it be germane to point out that there are no known instances of child sex trafficking rings being run out of pizzerias?
As a pejorative “Cultural Marxism” is a catchall for capturing Frankfurt School, poststructuralism, and recent developments in social critique that focuses more on social justice. Pluckrose and Lindsay, to their credit, distance themselves from the canard.
In that Horkheimer and Adorno seemed to be addressing superstructure from a somewhat post-Marxist framing I dunno. A lot of critical theory and pomo adopts a weird Marxist-Freudian pastiche.
Fromm, Habermas, and Rorty each approached cultural issues in their own manner and it is an insult to lump them all into some movement called Theory, Cultural Marxism, or whatever. The new framing by Pluckrose and Lindsay does no justice to these independent thinkers.
There is an obscure school of thought sometimes called cultural marxism.
The right wingnuts like Peterson who throw the term around don’t know that though and could care less.
To them it is just a scary phrase to use as an insult because it has the word marxism in it.
Didn’t he die of constipation or some shit (no pun intended).
@37 He got better?