We finally went and reached 40 pages. Well done everybody!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lobster Boy (was: This Jordan Peterson Guy)
Collapse
X
-
You should have been a theologian in the Sorbonne, Bruno. Like something outta Rabelais splitting hairs. Without the laffs.Last edited by Lang Spoon; 20-05-2018, 00:16.
Comment
-
https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/997556251067379712
on the left, a joke tweet from a month ago. On the right, an actual quote from the NYT profile.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BrunoThe amount of takedowns he's receiving in the press looks to me like the usual outrage cycle wanking. Preening lefty wordsmiths catching the wave and going for clicks
When Peterson is presented by the mainstream media as "A Very Important Person", and what he says is sexist and transphobpic hogwash, borderline racism and bonkers reactionary shit, and he deliberately spends his time courting the people who are associated with the New Ironic Fascism, I think it's probably important for it to be pointed out that most of what he says is dogshit nonsense and based on some spectacularly shallow analysis.
We need to say that he shouldn't be taken seriously and isn't and important thinker, because otherwise his fatuous reactionary cockrot could become accepted as unchallengable truth.
Comment
-
You do seem more upset by people challenging Peterson's bullshit than you are about his bullshit. Yet we're nonentities on the internet and he's the big cheese who appears in the all the newspapers. Your decision to - if not defend Peterson - stand up to those who're pointing out that his schtick contains a load of offensive and stupid bollocks seems a little odd.
Comment
-
Ah! Here we go with "lefties are self-defeating" again.
The problem isn't sexist or racist reactionary shits. The problem is when sexism and racism get pointed out. If only nobody ever mentioned when there was sexist or racism, then people wouldn't be racist or sexist.
There's been a whole stream of articles in the NYT recently along this particularly bonkers line of "centrism".
Comment
-
a scholar of marine invertebrates (as opposed to an invertebrate scholar) responds
https://twitter.com/baileys/status/997646354414522368
Worth readding the whole thread, which culminates
https://twitter.com/baileys/status/997679966346272768
Comment
-
Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View PostThe problem isn't sexist or racist reactionary shits. The problem is when sexism and racism get pointed out. If only nobody ever mentioned when there was sexist or racism, then people wouldn't be racist or sexist.
Comment
-
You're channeling Peterson there, Chris.
These kinds of articles, though, are slightly different.
Like Bruno, they are fully aware that sexism and racism are Bad Things. It's just that they seem to have come to the conclusion that almost all racists and sexists have only become racists and sexists because they're reacting against preachy liberals. If only lefties weren't so preachy, and didn't notice or comment on racism and sexism, then the kids wouldn't be reacting against it. In fact, racism and sexism would basically have stopped existing if only they weren't mentioned so much. It's all terribly self-defeating to point out when racism happens.
Comment
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/30825...mpression=true
Top racist Ben Shapiro defends Lobster Boy against the NYT. Some might think this a crock of shit from one of America’s most poisonous little men, some on here might see as a much needed corrective against Identity Politics groupthink.
The defense of JP on dragons and witches is hilarious. It’s not bullshit cos it’s Jungian. Ah that’s alright then. Never mind that Jungian archetypes bollocks has as much scientific credibility as phrenology.
Comment
-
Just over a year ago Lobster Boy had been nominated (along with fucking Milo) as (largely ceremonial) Rector of Glasgow Uni. Which caused a shitstorm of protest (Milo finished on 500 odd, about a hundred ahead of Toronto’s Schopenhauer, both about 4000 votes behind the eventual winner, kick ass human rights lawyer and Glasgow anti-racism campaigner Aamer Anwar). But while I’d heard of Milo the great JP remained a mystery to me.
Oh for those innocent days again. Last March.Last edited by Lang Spoon; 20-05-2018, 19:49.
Comment
-
This is the same with Trump though. His base think any criticism is sour grapes or just lefty wanking. So to counter this we should not highlight his myriad failings?
With lobsterboy we shouldn't point out that he is deeply deeply sexist, or erroneously thinks that white privilege is made up? By your reckoning no-one is going to listen anyway so we should just give up and allow them (Trump, Lobster, whoever) have free rein to make the agenda and move the Overton window to somewhere right of Genghis Khan?
Edit: or what SB said
Comment
-
I think Bruno seems to be saying that a critique of Lobstrer Boy needs to be better, as the critiques of him thus far have been self-indulgent gallery playing. But I'm no clearer about what a critique might look like which might be constructed to appeal to his fans, and this feels like an impossible standard. These people are suffering from delusions that have been created by the way they have hitherto processsed their lived experience, and Petersen provides a balm for their rage, and overarching narrative. The kind of critique that gets printed is always going to fall short; these people need counselling, not better constructed analyses.
Comment
-
You don't appeal to his fans, they're a lost cause. You appeal to those that haven't heard of him yet, and make sure that the first they hear of him is an article pointing out all his flaws, lies, contradictions and stupidity. And throw in that his current fans are basically losers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NHH View PostI think Bruno seems to be saying that a critique of Lobstrer Boy needs to be better, as the critiques of him thus far have been self-indulgent gallery playing. But I'm no clearer about what a critique might look like which might be constructed to appeal to his fans, and this feels like an impossible standard. These people are suffering from delusions that have been created by the way they have hitherto processsed their lived experience, and Petersen provides a balm for their rage, and overarching narrative. The kind of critique that gets printed is always going to fall short; these people need counselling, not better constructed analyses.
* I can't entirely rule out that he's too stupid to know what he's doing, because he's that bad at relating a thought cogently.
Comment
-
Off topic:
Originally posted by Lang Spoon View PostJust over a year ago Lobster Boy had been nominated (along with fucking Milo) as (largely ceremonial) Rector of Glasgow Uni. Which caused a shitstorm of protest (Milo finished on 500 odd, about a hundred ahead of Toronto’s Schopenhauer, both about 4000 votes behind the eventual winner, kick ass human rights lawyer and Glasgow anti-racism campaigner Aamer Anwar).
Closer to topic:
At one point in the discussion, Mr. Peterson, who had been relatively quiet, becomes heated on the topic of women who find marriage oppressive.
“So I don’t know who these people think marriages are oppressing,” he says. “I read Betty Friedan’s book because I was very curious about it, and it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake, you — you — ”
Women are whiny. They should have been happy learning to play bridge and trusting their hubby to be decent. Can we be sure that Peterson doesn't want to take us back to the 1950s? It sounds like he's eager to idealise that period.
I also can't quite believe that an academic's, a Harvard social scientist's take on The feminine mystique is that it's "so whiny". It must be the most critiqued work in the feminist canon, and it's more than five decades old, but Peterson doesn't acknowledge this, he just wants to call women something nasty (though he's careful to leave his customer to pick the slur). And there are dozens of more modern, nuanced feminist works that detail how marriage and family can be sources of oppression (and security, and empowerment, and ambivalence) for women, which presumably he has not been curious enough to seek out.
But then, I mean, there's not much point taking his argument apart when it's enough to look at the man's shoes!!
Comment
Comment