Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lobster Boy (was: This Jordan Peterson Guy)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    it appears to be some kind of five pointed star

    Comment


      Oh good.

      Comment


        I'm still trying to parse this

        WLM is a predictable reaction to BLM. The end of racism will ultimately be when we no longer identify people by their race. BLM seems to do just that, to casual observers. But I'm certainly not against their existence and like I said I don't really have an opinion on their tactics. I just know what I hear.
        Won't the end of racism be when the inequalities of power are dealt with? And who cares what " casual observers" think? after all they are by definition pretty ill informed. Are you a casual observer? there seems some slippage between BLM seems to do just that, to casual observers. But I'm certainly not against their existence and like I said I don't really have an opinion on their tactics.
        And

        I just know what I hear.
        What do you hear? and more importantly how do you evaluate it? You've put in days of work analysing Jordan Peterson and generally giving him hte benefit of the doubt. Why would you not accord the same generosity to Black Lives Matter who are responding not to the presumed offence of people self describing with pronouns that Philosophy Professor finds distasteful but the actual offence of being gunned down in their own backyard?

        Comment


          I’m sorry but this is bullshit. You repeat second hand gossip as “ a common perception “ but claim you don’t have an opinion. So why selectively repeat the gossip.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Bruno
            I didn't selectively repeat "gossip." You asked me what I thought of White Lives Matter. I answered that they were a predictable reaction due to a common casual perception that BLM were taking a racially provocative or alienating approach.
            The same is true of every civil rights movement in history. "White Lives Matter"/"Blue Lives Matter" are racist movements and the people who tut at BLM and say they're too aggressive are closet-racist moderates.

            the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

            Comment


              Originally posted by Bruno
              Oh yeah, and Adolphe Reed, the person critical of BLM and discussed in the other article I linked to, also African-American and a poly sci professor at UPenn. Probably another closet racist.

              There are the kind of people you describe of course. I try to teach my students not to overgeneralize.
              Adolphe Reed's arguments are flawed but far more nuanced than "tutting at BLM for being too aggressive". His critique of BLM is rooted in the idea that focusing on the racist element of law-enforcement/mass incarceration limits the scope of a movement against those things (coupled with a valid critique of black liberal representational politics).

              The flaw, is of course, that class-first politics frequently suffers from the exact same problems of representation as liberal identity politics and retreating from a radical "identity politics" (or rather, a liberationist politics that acknowledges the power encoded in racist institutions, and the need to destroy those institutions) to a workerist movement that is afraid to talk about race is a dangerous thing to do.

              Comment


                A wonderful evisceration of Peterson.

                Jordan reminds me of the youngish Muslim preachers who became all the fashion in the Arabic-speaking world after the proliferation of satellite TV in the 90s. They just wanted youth to live a better life by following the simple rules of submission to the natural order of things – the pain was in fighting it. These preachers, always men, and always appealing to other men to shoulder their responsibilities, had the preternatural calm of the faithful but when challenged, the temperament of the hysterical. They derived their status from the hierarchy, and so once it was questioned, they were all fire and brimstone. They had little intrinsic value to offer, and even less original thinking.

                Comment


                  The ny review of books piece never called him a fascist, but the snowflake was all over the place on twitter over it. The guardian does suck but I don’t see this piece in being particularly awful.

                  Comment


                    I'm sure you said "I'll let you have the last word" about 10 pages ago.

                    Comment


                      Suggest we re-name this thread 'The Road to Ruin' then.

                      Comment


                        No I don't buy it. His shtick is all about taking the rough with the smooth. He's become famous and he's obviously quite happy to be the poster boy for the alt right. He can't turn around and get all precious when not everyone thinks he's a godlike genius. Fuck him. I'm done with trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's clearly just another pathetic ego maniac

                        Comment


                          He's probably really nice in person.

                          Comment


                            Well you keep saying you haven’t read anything by him. Why are you so sure the Lobster King is worth defending?

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by WOM View Post
                              He's probably really nice in person.
                              I know people who have met/worked with him. They think he is a complete dick.

                              He lives on the street next to my brother (across from Meghan Markle - Seaton Village is becoming Star Central). People have been putting up bills in the neighbourhood with his face on them marked with things like "have you seen this man? Very dangerous, do not approach".

                              Comment


                                I've gone back and looked at the first five pages of this thread. The closest anyone got to calling him a fascist was saying that he'd been moving in alt-right circles in the last 12 months (true) and that the Guardian's fawning articles about him were a reminder that the liberal media love normalising fascists (true).

                                Otherwise, it was mostly pointing out that a lot of his comments and positions were somewhere between shallow, unprovable, or bollocks. And none of those have been refuted, because his positions on lobsters, or gender pronouns being linked to 100 million Marxist deaths, or his stuff about compassion and snakes and grizzly bears, are either shallow, unprovable, or bollocks, or some combination of all three.

                                It feels like you're reacting against something that didn't happen.

                                Comment


                                  "Dick" is too nonspecific. Insufferable probably captures it better.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Bruno
                                    That's a classic distinction without a difference. The piece is titled "Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism" and its purpose it to associate Peterson's ideas and impact as directly as possible with fascists and fascism. If one disagrees with its thrust, one is entitled to be angry about it. If that makes him a snowflake, whatever.
                                    I don't think that's correct. Mishra is trying to show why certain woo peddlers become popular at certain times and why right-wingers and fascists especially seem drawn to their mystical hogwash. And then placing Peterson in that lineage.

                                    It's sort of like how you can say that Nietzsche and Wagner were revered by Hitler, and thus must have been, in some way, an influence on him, but that doesn't mean they were themselves fascists, or even proto-fascists, and certainly not responsible for what their most notorious admirer did. But at the same time you can certainly see what, in their work, would have a special appeal to fascists.

                                    The only difference is that I think there's a lot for non-fascists to recuperate in Nietzsche (and probably Wagner, but I really don't know enough to say), but so far I don't see Peterson offering anything of use or interest to anybody who doesn't, as RC says above, have a vested interest in the status quo.

                                    Comment


                                      From what I can gather, he's just one of these hacks who seeks to make money and garner fame by providing bollocks justifications for the status quo, to comfort the comfortable, and to shore it up against change. I mean it's a choice I suppose. You can either strive to make the world a better place by finding out new and helpful things, or you can make a comfortable living telling the fortunate that they are worth it. It's a choice that conservative "historian" makes.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Bruno
                                        Close enough for me. You also wrote on page 13, "You don't need to say that Peterson is a fascist, but you can certainly say that he's been adopted by fascists, that he's promoted fascists (or, people indisitinguishable from fascists, like Milo), and that he's pitching his line of reasoning to fascists." That's close enough too.

                                        ...

                                        None of that may be as explicit as possible, but at some point, repeatedly using the term fascist in relation to someone starts to sound like you think he's a fascist. Ditto "fascist-friendly." Godwin's Law is what it is.
                                        I did say "first five pages". It appears that you'd been reacting for 13 pages before I said that he was pitching his stuff to fascists (which isn't me calling him a fascist - as you well know). You were reacting long before there was anything to react against.

                                        Comment


                                          The only difference is that I think there's a lot for non-fascists to recuperate in Nietzsche (and probably Wagner, but I really don't know enough to say), but so far I don't see Peterson offering anything of use or interest to anybody who doesn't, as RC says above, have a vested interest in the status quo.

                                          Well it's like most opera. Most famous operas that have survived have about 15 good minutes in them and the rest is bollocks. Verdi can get that up to 20-25 minutes in some of his better operas, but in general, making the opera 6 hours long doesn't change that 15 good minutes. This covers it, and basically is as good as it gets

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by Bruno
                                            Mishra goes beyond that to point out that the people to whom he's comparing Peterson turned a blind eye to fascism or were naive to it.
                                            That's not the least bit unfair. Peterson definitely seems naive about it all.

                                            Comment


                                              He’s happily posed with Frog People. He has stretched his tribal induction story very thin to give himself a shield. He’s a cunt. But aye, maybes a naive cunt as opposed to dripping with evil. Too much self regard for that I’d say.

                                              Comment


                                                I'm reminded of Roy Hattersley's line about Enoch Powell: he wanted to be regarded as a clever guy, and someone who didn't understand that his Rivers of Blood speech would have the imaoct it did, but he couldn't be both.

                                                Comment


                                                  I’m reminded of Madness and their fash followers at the start. Oh yeah, they “distanced” themselves, but not to the point of saying Nazi Punks fuck off. Maybe they wanted to “reason” with them through the medium of ska. Maybe they just liked the cash. Maybe they were cowards. Maybes a wee bit racist themselves? (I have no idea but I’ll always think the worst of that prick Suggs).

                                                  Comment


                                                    What’s to understand? It’s racist code.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X