jordan peterson

Also, The Confident Man is a type of character that is perfect at everything and self sufficient. Not a confidence man (a con man).

  On 3/5/2021 at 5:54 AM, Braintree said:

I was speaking broadly about patriarchal norms in western civilization, not about him specifically. Peterson would be an example of a shitty role model that probably had shitty role models.

i was too. not speaking about peterson. the 50s the 60s the 70s and on.. the 80s stink of it.. there's a certain boldness that is successful for its determination and solid ideas and then there's the empty shirted version of men trying to be that but not filling it out.. because they aren't aware or confident enough to do something else or something they're interested in that doesn't fit the stereotype. 

as for peterson.. who knows..  people are shaped by experiences as much as people/role models and sometimes those are very connected and sometimes not. we'll have to wait for the autobiography  

edit: easy thing would be to say "toxic masculinity" is in the way of a lot of people's happiness.. there's dudes who think "recycling is fags", who do all the macho shit like drive a big truck and roll coal onto people people in BMWs and think soy milk will make them gay or lactate or whatever. real fragile types. 

confidence is a really overrated quality in general. 

Whoops, I made a mistake. I meant The Competent Man.

Read 12 Rules For Life.

I can appreciate that he's packaging existentialism into a digestible format, and that he's obviously well-read and can tell a great story.

But couldn't deal with the traditional 'ol-timey' values being driven through. Incongruent was his broad knowledge leading to a narrow perspective on living, or "the right way to live", stopping somewhat short of "old man yells at clouds."

He works for some, but not for freethinkers.

  On 3/5/2021 at 5:50 AM, cern said:

fxbip: "He seems really unhappy"

This video says it all! 
 

 

Expand  

Damn son

Just wow

This is it.It says it all.

  Quote

Peterson’s unlikely collection of Soviet art has become part of his own personal mythology, routinely proffered as evidence of his profound ethical commitment to understanding the forces of evil in the world. ‘I wanted to have these paintings around because I’ve been obsessed with totalitarianism and the human capacity for atrocity,’ he says. Living with them serves as a constant reminder ‘of the subjugation of art to ideology and the horrors of the USSR,’ as he put it in a tweet. Indeed, Peterson often invokes his collection when decrying perceived ideological abuses of art in the present. In a November 2017 tweet, he approvingly quoted the evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller’s characterization of Yale University’s MFA programme as ‘the latest art school to abandon virtuosity, creativity, [and] aesthetics in favour of far-left activism’ in response to the announcement of the university’s new art and social justice initiative. ‘Remember Soviet Socialist Realism?,’ Peterson added. ‘I do. I have about 200 pieces, just to remind me what happens when art is subordinated to social justice.’

Expand  

Who’s the Real Ideologue? On Jordan Peterson’s Communist Art Collection (Frieze)

  On 3/5/2021 at 6:49 AM, dcom said:

Who’s the Real Ideologue? On Jordan Peterson’s Communist Art Collection (Frieze)

I have many thoughts here but the words "that is so fucking dumb," I think, are the most appropriate.

I'll stress that I read the book not only because my work mate supplied it to me - it also presented an opportunity to digest the book into a idiosyncratic synopsis; I didn't take notes, I just read it from cover to cover (I'm a fast reader due to ... reading, a lot, all the time) and gave an impressionistic monologue on how I felt reading something I'd rather hadn't, a treatment of the parts that I found to be FUBAR, and the gist of each chapter. My work mate commented that it was what (in general) he thought I would think about it; he'd watch Peterson's lectures and other videos in his personal time and recapped that my distillation of the rules per se were not incorrect, and that I had ínterpretations of Peterson's material that he couldn't even think of, giving contrast to what he already thought about Peterson's semantics.

Back then I researched Peterson from a wide coverage of sources and articles, and he's been counted as a member of The Intellectual Dark Web, a loose group of thinkers going against the grain of wokeness, criticising identity politics, political correctness, and cancel culture (a lot of the group's people have been excommunicated from the consensus academic community, their speaking appointments dropped etc. because of their (in my opinion) regressive views on a wide variety of things). One of their foremost platforms is Quillette - I occasionally read some of their articles, there's a lot of reactionary and contrarian content; Alex Leo of The Daily Beast wrote that Quillette is "a site that fancies itself intellectually contrarian but mostly publishes right-wing talking points couched in grievance politics". There's every now and then an article worth reading, but mostly... not.

Regardless of my disdain for Peterson's claim to fame I've spent quite a lot of time researching him and his ideas, and I understand his popularity amongst his followers; he's like a Fred Rogers with a dark passenger, soft-spoken, charming, present and on the surface, mildly interesting - but when you really look into him and parse his writings, there's a dark undercurrent of disdain and arrogance, spiced with an infinite supply of holier-than-thou posturing.

Mark Fisher (k-punk) and even Nick Land (CCRU, The Dark Enlightenment, Accelerationism) are orders of magnitude more interesting; Steve Goodman aka Kode9 launching the Hyperdub iabel is related to them both.

  On 3/5/2021 at 7:51 AM, dcom said:

"a site that fancies itself intellectually contrarian but mostly publishes right-wing talking points couched in grievance politics".

this is the phrase that sums up so much about discourse today. at least in america. fox news in a nut shell. 

  On 3/5/2021 at 1:14 AM, perunamuusi said:

He's a fucking gimp.

Sometimes I think the tendency to want to construct a completely and utterly indestructible argument in order to point out that something is stupid is rather stupid.

him still being buddies with that total lunatic dave rubin was the last straw for me.. even sam harris came out criticizing his lunacy..

  On 3/5/2021 at 11:02 AM, MIXL2 said:

him still being buddies with that total lunatic dave rubin was the last straw for me.. even sam harris came out criticizing his lunacy..

I don’t know who this dave rubin is so I tried to find what’s wrong about him but I couldn’t understand exactly without spending too much time on the net investigating, too much contradicting informations... so, can you pls briefly explain it to me? 

I was fortunate to have my own real dad to tell me to stand up straight and clean my room, and I reckon the old gaffer deserves bonus points for never getting hooked on meat and benzos and almost dying in a russian hospital or appearing on the joe rogan podcast

My dad never told me to stand up straight and now I'm an engineer living on analyzing antenna radiation patterns 

But do you hate women?

  On 3/5/2021 at 12:53 PM, Amen Warrior said:

But do you hate women?

No, for some reason I have multiple women as just only friends. Maybe I'm just plain ol' deeply closeted homosexual if I get so well along with women without hating them or constantly trying to bang them.

  On 3/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, ignatius said:

the 50s the 60s the 70s and on.. the 80s stink of it.. there's a certain boldness that is successful for its determination and solid ideas and then there's the empty shirted version of men trying to be that but not filling it out.. because they aren't aware or confident enough to do something else or something they're interested in that doesn't fit the stereotype. 

yeah imo one of the problems of talking about the dearth of good role models for young men is that, insofar as that may be true, it's clearly been going on for a while. The flawed role models of today had flawed role models, who likely in turn had flawed role models. Of course the question becomes, "well, has this disappointment with role models just been going on forever?", much in the way one could point to examples from Ancient Greece of elders complaining about "the youth of today". I'm sure there's at least some truth to this. But I also suspect that it's something that becomes more prominent with the general acceleration of technological & economic development (again, you could question at what point in history this acceleration really kicks into gear, but from my perspective it is accelerating).

In previous epochs it would have felt as though things barely changed at all for many hundreds or thousands of years. You could maintain relatively fixed social roles, value systems, etc, once you had established what "worked". An elder could be a good role model to a youth simply by embodying the role that had been very clearly laid out for them, and encouraging the child to do the same. Nowadays it's not like that. For several hundred years at least the actual living considerations of each epoch/generation/decade(/year?) are distinctly different from what came before. The morals, maxims, rules for life etc that may have worked for the previous generation don't neccesarily track to the current one. A man can tell his son what worked for him, but it might not work again for the boy (case in point, my Dad told me that getting a liberal arts degree would lead to a career that could feed a family of six). This leads to a situation where not only does a man (or anyone, obviously) not have a clear roadmap of how he is to go about conducting his affairs in order to ensure social success or personal happiness, but that this has been the case as far back as anyone living can remember.  Everything is ambiguous & in a state of continual violent fluxuation, and yet each of us is called upon to project an image of confidence & authority. Naturally you have this situation where men who've never experienced a sense of genuine meaning in their lives attempt to assemble some kind of simulacric sacrality out of the commodified remains of previosuly mapped out forms of meaning.

of course none of this is helped by the capitalist world-order, which encourages everyone to treat culture as a sort of mall foodcourt buffet in which you're endlessly picking out little bits & pieces to try, with no sense of rhyme or reason. Every solution presented up by the marketplace is just the latest fashion trend - another outfit to try on, another product to buy. imo the solution to this isn't to eradicate all qualitative distinction, to create a society of interchangable units in which any sort of meaningful individual difference is to be consciously negated. And any advocation for a return to tradition is too easily compromised, too easy to turn into a thing that you buy. Thus, the pattern of ambiguous fluxuation & "just getting by" continues, as it has for centuries at least

  On 3/5/2021 at 1:58 PM, jaderpansen said:

 

Expand  

"We must rediscover our manliness. Because only if we rediscover our manliness we will become manful and only if we become manful we will become able-bodied and we must become able-bodied, my dear friends."

fascist homoerotic obsession with manliness is funny to me