Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lobster Boy (was: This Jordan Peterson Guy)

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

    We finally went and reached 40 pages. Well done everybody!

    Comment


      He’s an unpleasant man with fascist leanings. Are you?

      Comment


        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


            Yeah obviously it's the lefties who are preening attention seekers here, not him.

            Comment


              The left don't have time for outrage cycle wanking as we're too busy having riotous sex with one another in a bacchanalian free for all.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Bruno
                The 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
                Perhaps you missed how this all started, with myriad "centrist" think pieces in various anglophone media who are desperate to be seen as "not lefty" describing Peterson as the Great Thinker For Our Time, and how his brilliant prescriptions for the modern world are reaching out to today's disaffected racist sexist socially pathetic teenage boys, and as such we should Take Him Seriously. How he is "The most important thinker since Marx/Jesus/William Buckley", and so on and so forth.

                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


                    Yeah we get that. You seem to be suggesting that we don't criticise him so that we can somehow talk his language. That seems like the kind of thing that JP himself would profess to find infuriating

                    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


                          SB, heartlessly denying Bari Weiss her birthright to earn a quarter of a million a year for regurgitating the same crap she wrote for the Columbia Spectator.

                          Counterproductive, indeed.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
                            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.
                            You say that like racism and sexism are bad things. Aren't they just expressions of natural hierarchy?

                            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


                                  Well, you've still not explained why it's self defeating to point out that sexists are sexist, nor what the correct response to shallow sexist bullshit should be.

                                  Comment


                                    That will be revealed in about forty more pages time.

                                    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


                                        You certainly don’t win the argument if you don’t mention the sexism, and just let it carry on unchallenged.

                                        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 Post
                                                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.
                                                It also fails to take into account that Lobster Boy spouts utterly obscurant gobbledegook as a semi-deliberate* tactic, and so parsing his points of view on a lot of stuff is genuinely difficult because he'll dogwhistle things and then deny them when pressed.


                                                * 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


                                                  I feel like I have a lot to say on Bruno's last post but the effort involved in using the quote function thoughtfully on a phone means I'll have to hold it all in for now. Bet you all can't wait now

                                                  Comment


                                                    Off topic:

                                                    Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
                                                    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).
                                                    Anwar called me Tory scum, smug, and a racist shit – each, I think, on a different occasion – while I was an undergraduate. He is a difficult person to warm to: the archetypical SWP true believer, brittle and belligerent. I'm sure his hardness was accentuated by his long fight to prove he'd been targeted by racist tutors in the dentistry department, but it was still always enjoyable when his hours of self-promotion did not pay off at the student council elections. I think the campaign for rector was about his tenth all told at Glasgow university, and I have to say I was disappointed that he broke his streak of failure.

                                                    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 — ”
                                                    Go on, say it bucko!

                                                    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

                                                    Working...
                                                    X