ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, May 03, 2018

This should be amusing

The Crazy Christ's followers continue their ever-so-convincing campaign of character assassination in lieu of actually trying to defend their hero:
You are trying to provoke him into having a debate with you just so you can get more attention. Pathetic.
Actually, no. As it happens, I'll be going on the Alex Jones Show on Monday to discuss the two leading charlatans of the Approved Opposition, Jordan Peterson and Benny Shapiro. So, I'm assuming that should more than satisfy any craving for attention that I might have for the foreseeable future.

I'm not trying to provoke Peterson into a debate. Why would I bother to do that when I am confident that he will run away from me every bit as speedily as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers, Matt Walsh, and Ben Shapiro all have? He's an imposter, he knows it, and if he knows who I am, then he knows that I know it too.

And if he knows anything about me, then he probably knows that all of his usual little dodges, qualifications, and evasions are not going to work.

But in the meantime, I address Chapter Two of the 12 Rules, which explains why Jordan Peterson sometimes doesn't take his happy pills.

Labels: , , ,

175 Comments:

Blogger Sean May 03, 2018 12:46 PM  

You are going on Alex Jones?! Epic. This might break the internet. Shapiro has been is a twitter slap fight with Jones this week. I need to go stock up on popcorn

Blogger Salt May 03, 2018 12:51 PM  

Into the Jones Zone. Should be interesting.

Blogger SamuraiJack May 03, 2018 12:52 PM  

Vox on Jones? That will be awesome, I cant wait. You should do articles for infowars. I know a lot of us miss those from the WND days

Blogger Jack Ward May 03, 2018 12:57 PM  

Alex Jones: I shall have to figure out how to get to watch. Know about what time? Or, is it obvious. Never seen him. Should be fun.

Blogger SmockMan May 03, 2018 12:59 PM  

Great News!

Blogger The Kurgan May 03, 2018 1:02 PM  

We will need all the links so we can gorge on popcorn in real time

Blogger Roger Hill May 03, 2018 1:03 PM  

All the JP stuff of late has been eye opening, not to mention bizarrely fun. Its obvious Vox is in his element.

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 1:07 PM  

This is why the right has lost and will always lose. 90 percent of the effort is spent on infighting. I know JBP and Ben Shapiro aren't on our side but I fail to see how this moves the fucking ball down the field.

Also, you could try doing your little crusade in a manner that actually persuades JBP's followers to our point of view instead of resorting to in vs out group (Which will convince nobody and simply start a needless food fight which wastes our precious time and energy!)
Maybe a little EMPATHY for the millions of young men who were raised by single mothers that are so broken they need the advice of JBP? Just a thought...

Blogger FUBARwest May 03, 2018 1:09 PM  

Shapiro is going to have a heart attack. First Candace Owens then Kanye, now Vox all on the Alex Jones show? He won't be able to keep up the opposition title for much longer if actual voices on the right are getting exposure.

Blogger YIH May 03, 2018 1:12 PM  

Jack Ward wrote:Alex Jones: I shall have to figure out how to get to watch. Know about what time? Or, is it obvious. Never seen him. Should be fun.
11am-2pm CT (noon-3 ET) is his time slot. You can stream his radio show live off the Infowars site. It may also show up later on YouTube - or maybe not, as we all know by now, YouTube has gotten rather flaky.

Blogger Mocheirge May 03, 2018 1:14 PM  

Jack Ward wrote:Alex Jones: I shall have to figure out how to get to watch. Know about what time? Or, is it obvious. Never seen him. Should be fun.

Just visit InfoWars.com. I have faith Jack Ward can figure it out from there.

And here's an intro to Alex Jones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kAEoCHANYY (may or may not be useful)

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 03, 2018 1:17 PM  

I have avoided Petetson thus far. I have read what others have said and qouted. My uninterest in him os mainly due to Peterson's exclusive use of Biblical passages in an anthropological way.
It is nice to know my instincts work OK.
I will listen to the Alex show on Monday.

Blogger select star May 03, 2018 1:18 PM  

Is Vox going to conduct the interview from a Game of Thrones chair wearing a Deus Vult tshirt or something more laid back?

Blogger Anno Ruse May 03, 2018 1:20 PM  

"This is why the right has lost and will always lose. 90 percent of the effort is spent on infighting."

Well, Vox isn't a leader. He's just a guy who writes and likes to disagree with people, as long as you're popular enough. Comment on his blog with any hint of "debate" and he tells you "It's not about me!"

It will be amusing to watch Vox play with his latest puppy, but that's all it amounts to. Puppy play. Like the rest of the alt-right, he's unable to do the serious work. He tells us the West is falling while he takes apart irrelevant pundits. We might as well follow Jordan Peterson. At least we'll die with clean rooms.

Blogger MJimmy May 03, 2018 1:22 PM  

Alex Jones has a maddening habit of relentlessly interrupting his guests mid-sentence.

Blogger Al K. Annossow May 03, 2018 1:23 PM  

I do scan video titles on the InfoWars youtube channel and sometimes find show segments that I want to watch, playing them on 1.5X speed. But 3-4 hours of Alex is a bit much for me.

@Vox please indicate the scheduled time; I would like to watch your segment live.

Blogger papabear May 03, 2018 1:25 PM  

@8

"Maybe a little EMPATHY for the millions of young men who were raised by single mothers that are so broken they need the advice of JBP? Just a thought..."

They need to understand that their guru is not at all that, and if they haven't learned how to separate their feelings about the man from their pursuit of the "truth" (from Peterson), then he isn't doing his job.

Blogger Lovekraft May 03, 2018 1:26 PM  

@ John Deer:

Peterson opposes cultural marxism and post-modernism and we give him thanks for exposing them. But we also recognize that there are other ideas and powers that need critiquing, if not full neutralization.

This seems to be where the two camps diverge.

Blogger Brian S May 03, 2018 1:27 PM  

As someone who's listened to a few (long) YouTube interviews of JP, I've noticed he never mentions anyone who has helped him on his rise to fame. Something Vox has talked about in the past, thought it might be of interest.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora May 03, 2018 1:28 PM  

@8. John Deer

The right loses when it allows creatures like Shapiro to act as gatekeepers. And JBP constantly congratulates himself on fighting against nationalism.

Blogger Azimus May 03, 2018 1:28 PM  

VD:
He's an imposter, he knows it, and if he knows who I am, then he knows that I know it too.

And if he knows anything about me, then he probably knows...


I just want to take this moment as a fairly unaccomplished nobody to tease the epic fantasy novel writer and publisher for his puritanical resolve not to use synonyms for the word "know."

Blogger August May 03, 2018 1:29 PM  

Well, he does read bible stories, so maybe he'll be the one guy who repents.

Most of his fans were undoubtedly taught to do group exercises and brainstorm in a largely criticism free atmosphere. They don't understand how it works- much like the media keeps whining about how confrontational and chaotic the Trump administration allegedly is. Better ideas arise out of a more confrontational arena.

Blogger The Kurgan May 03, 2018 1:30 PM  

John Deer - see.... I completely disagree.
I can’t say whether Vox thinks this way or not, but personally, I am perfectly happy using all the stupid moderates for sandbags and blasting every single cretin that is not ready to go full Deus Vult.

Particularly when their ideology is only a thin veneer of betrayal anyway.
I don’t care about numbers.
I don’t care about the status points.
I don’t care how it “looks”.
Because it doesn’t matter.
11 men changed the world around 33AD.
300 or so saved the West at Thermopylae.
Two brothers invented the aeroplane.
One man gave us alternating current.

All we need is a small bunch of utter fanatics.

Blogger manfred arcane May 03, 2018 1:36 PM  

@VD
Are you perchance familiar with this book?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/123631.The_Aryan_Christ
Manner in which you refer to JBP reminded me of it. In any case, it may be of some use to you in this matter.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora May 03, 2018 1:38 PM  

@21. August

He's also the guy who admitted that he never read Genesis, or at least the parts about Abraham, before taking donations for and performing lectures on that exact subject. The hubris it would take to lecture on material you have no knowledge of the first time through, a subject that many intelligent men have devoted their entire lives to understanding, must be out of this world.

Another major problem with Peterson and his injunction to always be honest is that he talks a lot about the costs of dishonesty but I've never heard him talk about the costs of honesty. It's not a surprise since he does avoid honesty where it's costly. Repentance for him now would be incredibly costly, both fiscally and emotionally.

Blogger electricsheeple May 03, 2018 1:38 PM  

Congratulations on the Alex Jones invite. Not that Alex is God or anything, but this is long overdue and the exposure could advance your personal goals and the collective Alt Right's goals. Hopefully you will get on as a regular in rotation.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2018 1:40 PM  

John Deer wrote:This is why the right has lost and will always lose. 90 percent of the effort is spent on infighting. I know JBP and Ben Shapiro aren't on our side but I fail to see how this moves the fucking ball down the field.


Ben Shapiro is our ENEMY
Jordan Peterson is our ENEMY
This is not infighting.

The Right loses because we let the Lefties define us, the Neocons lead us, Libertarians think for us and Cucks like Shapiro speak for us. We lose because we let pathetic losers like you, people who will surrender at the drop of a hat, tell us who what and how we may criticize.
So Fuck You and your sneering attempt to pretend superiority. We're gonna start winning.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2018 1:41 PM  

electricsheeple wrote:Hopefully you will get on as a regular in rotation.
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Dark Lord views such a prospect more in dread than in hope.

Blogger PCA May 03, 2018 1:42 PM  

"This is why the right has lost and will always lose. 90 percent of the effort is spent on infighting."

Well, I suppose a political movement that makes space for traditional masculinity is also going to be characterized by ego. Lots and lots of ego, in the worst cases.

Blogger Matthew May 03, 2018 1:43 PM  

The Right perpetually loses because it tolerates infiltrators and squishes and CIA faggots.

Blogger Matthew May 03, 2018 1:44 PM  

(Shapiro, Nordlinger, Buckley)

Blogger electricsheeple May 03, 2018 1:46 PM  

Don't let Alex mic-cuck you too much. :)

Blogger Were-Puppy May 03, 2018 1:47 PM  

Wonderful. I wonder who will be hosting during your segment? There are three main shows on Infowars

David Knight - morning
Alex Jones - midday
Owen Shoyer - afternoon

They are all pretty good shows, and adding Vox to any of them should be wonderful.

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 1:49 PM  

26.
"So Fuck You and your sneering attempt to pretend superiority. We're gonna start winning..."

If you have any allies left that you didn't say "fuck you" too at the lightest disagreement...

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 1:49 PM  

This is why the right has lost and will always lose. 90 percent of the effort is spent on infighting. I know JBP and Ben Shapiro aren't on our side but I fail to see how this moves the fucking ball down the field.

No, it's not. The reason the Right has lost for the last 65 years is that it allowed itself to be led by the other side. The way this moves the ball down the field is that it prevents that from happening.

Do you truly not understand that the Right would be much better off if Bill Buckley had been exposed the way Jeb Bush, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, and now Jordan Peterson have been exposed?

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 1:50 PM  

If you have any allies left that you didn't say "fuck you" too at the lightest disagreement...

If Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are your allies, then we are not.

Blogger Al K. Annossow May 03, 2018 1:54 PM  

The problem with Peterson both helping people AND providing bogus philosophy is that he IS helping people. Be an effective self help guru OR try to peddle a new trans-Modernism.

But as others have pointed out, doing both morphs into a cult. Too many people can not separate the two aspects. The intellectuals can debate the philosophy part, but those needing that self help have not done the reading to evaluate the philosophy. Therein lies great danger.

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 1:55 PM  

I should be more clear:

The right loses because it wastes its time. Much of that time being wasted is on infighting. I didn't mean that attacking JBP or B.S. was infighting, just a waste of time.

Personally, the weirdest thing about all of this is "where to draw the line".
JBP being not just "not on our side" but evil and satanic is ridiculous.

At the same time Milo is "on our side" and supposed to get my support? Why?

Blogger Peaceful Poster May 03, 2018 1:56 PM  

Alex Jones was mocking Little Ben the other day.

VD and Alex are gonna have some fun!

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 1:58 PM  

The right loses because it wastes its time. Much of that time being wasted is on infighting. I didn't mean that attacking JBP or B.S. was infighting, just a waste of time.

No, it's not, unless you want to see the Right get hijacked again. Don't be so strategically retarded.

JBP being not just "not on our side" but evil and satanic is ridiculous.

Then you have not understood his philosophy.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 1:59 PM  

Don't let Alex mic-cuck you too much.

It's his show and his mic. He can do as he likes.

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 1:59 PM  

35.

"If Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are your allies, then we are not."

They sure as hell aren't my allies. Doesn't mean the ppl here are either if Snidely Whiplash is representative of the average quality.

I know its the internet, and everyone's a tough guy, but the "fuck you" is supposed to take at least SOME provocation.

Blogger Anno Ruse May 03, 2018 2:02 PM  

"At the same time Milo is "on our side" and supposed to get my support?"

VD only boxes the ears of those who seek to go for the gold in the intellectual ring. Milo is just a faggot entertainer, and thus safe from ire.

Blogger Peaceful Poster May 03, 2018 2:03 PM  

"where to draw the line"

Draw the line where they're shooting at you.

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 2:12 PM  

39.
Me: JBP being not just "not on our side" but evil and satanic is ridiculous.

Vox: Then you have not understood his philosophy.


I've watched a very good deal of Jordan Peterson and have a good understanding of his worldview. That quote you used from Maps of Meaning to 'prove' that he does not believe in objective reality speaks to the typical human experience It is analogous to Scott Adams and Mike Cernovich speaking of persuasion and cognitive biases but instead is meant in the Jungian sense of the dream-like substructure in which human beings naturally frame their existence.
It doesn't take much life experience to see that humans are not rational creatures, and that this irrationality has certain rules, trends, and common symbolic representations (Snakes, dragons, the cross as transformative suffering and sacrifice in even many non-christian cultures)

Now, that doesn't mean that JBP's model of the human cognitive substructure is correct and it CERTAINLY does not mean that any of the conclusions he has come to are correct (Some are, some aren't, and some- like his obsessions with individualism- are at the same time both very positive {ie personal responsibility and accomplishment} and very negative [{his autistic refusal to admit that group identity is required for survival}

Blogger realist May 03, 2018 2:14 PM  

Shapiro runs around "sheepdogging" the right, making appearances on CNN, and bashing anyone that holds rightwing views from before 1964. Nobody is shooting right by going after Shapiro or Peterson.

Blogger Al K. Annossow May 03, 2018 2:17 PM  

In the battle between the two sides, Peterson is trying to create a DMZ, or perhaps even a third side. Among other things, he is creating a place for the luke warm to hang out.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2018 2:21 PM  

John Deer wrote:I know its the internet, and everyone's a tough guy, but the "fuck you" is supposed to take at least SOME provocation.
Mayhaps you should stop telling people what to do. As far as provocation, I'm half Irish, I come pre-provoked.

Did you actually read my response or did your mind stop working once you saw the insult? We lose, as Vox said, because we let infiltrators and wreckers from the other side in and then let them lead us. By refusing to engage, by trying to be polite and treating our enemies as worthy of respect, we continually cede conflict after conflict. It's worse when the people who are ostensibly leading the fight are intentionally demoralizing the troops and arguing and fighting for the other side's position.
Debating philosophers is not wasting time. everything else we do springs from philosophy, whether we understand our own philosophy or not.

The greatest strength we have, the only strength we have, is our basis in reality. As such, questions of epistemology are the crucial hill on which we will conquer or collapse. Jordan Peterson is, in that respect, our greatest enemy.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 2:22 PM  

I've watched a very good deal of Jordan Peterson and have a good understanding of his worldview. That quote you used from Maps of Meaning to 'prove' that he does not believe in objective reality speaks to the typical human experience It is analogous to Scott Adams and Mike Cernovich speaking of persuasion and cognitive biases but instead is meant in the Jungian sense of the dream-like substructure in which human beings naturally frame their existence.

Your babbling is an effective demonstration of why Peterson has to be intellectually neutralized. And no, you quite clearly don't understand his philosophy or you wouldn't defend it.

I note that we now have a FOURTH interpretation of Jordan Peterson's definition of truth.

Anyhow, John, I've already rejected your plea. This will not stop anytime soon, and I would not be surprised if it heats up more next week.

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 2:25 PM  

"Satanic" would require true malevolence on his part. He's just wrong.

3 of the probs with JBP

1. His ignorance of the JQ (He knows the races and women arent equal, it just takes him 20 minutes of explanation to admit it...)
2. Sometimes anti-nationalist (Ive seen him all over the place with this)
This stems from his obsessions with what led to the cold war (Ideological possession- which he now sees in the SJWs and in our group), and the conclusion of individual responsibility as the only solution (Taken from Solshenitysn's conclusion in the Gulag Archipelago that the crimes of the USSR were made possible only because of the ignorance, inaction, and moral decline of the people of Russia)
This has much truth to it, but is ultimately suicidal in its effects. The radical individualists will be wiped out be ppl that have a sense of group identity (Or perhaps even worse, they will simply rot to nothing of worth).
3. He admittedly has very little spine compared to the ppl in this neck of the woods.

Don't know about his biblical series, just read this summary and it seems ok (Aside from him being a quasi-athiest and all that)

https://fightfailure.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/highlights-from-jordan-petersons-biblical-series-lectures-1-15/

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 2:27 PM  

Do what you want Vox, its your ONE life to use your time however you want.
Was just trying to add some nuance.

OpenID dreadilkzee May 03, 2018 2:28 PM  

JP and Benny are like Canada.
Not in a state of declared war and some times do things that help us, but they also work against some of our goals and at some point we will likely find ourselves diametrically opposed as our world views come closer to their conclusions.

However JP could ultimately find out about true masculinity and realize that he has only been walking the edges of it. And Benny could move to Israel and try to become an Israeli (not sure they would want him but Law of return is a double edge sword).

Blogger Jack Ward May 03, 2018 2:28 PM  

Thanks YIH for the heads up, re Alex Jones show times...

Blogger Ex Caliburn May 03, 2018 2:29 PM  

"Satanic" would require true malevolence on his part. He's just wrong.

Knowingly leading the broken and desperate into ruin isn't malevolent?

Blogger FUBARwest May 03, 2018 2:34 PM  

"Knowingly leading the broken and desperate into ruin isn't malevolent?"

John doesnt believe JP "knows" that's what he's doing.

Blogger Brad Matthews May 03, 2018 2:36 PM  

That was a pretty good rant

Blogger Teleros May 03, 2018 2:39 PM  

John Deer wrote:This is why the right has lost and will always lose. 90 percent of the effort is spent on infighting. I know JBP and Ben Shapiro aren't on our side but I fail to see how this moves the fucking ball down the field.

>>Ben Shapiro
>>Right wing


John Deer wrote:
Also, you could try doing your little crusade in a manner that actually persuades JBP's followers to our point of view instead of resorting to in vs out group (Which will convince nobody and simply start a needless food fight which wastes our precious time and energy!)


Maybe a little EMPATHY for the millions of young men who were raised by single mothers that are so broken they need the advice of JBP? Just a thought...


So how are you going to help, bucko? "Vox Day, please do this, and this, and this, and BTW don't forget that other thing, and..."

= = = = =

@20 - "So that means you need to know things even when you don't need to know them. You need to know them not because you need to know them but because you need to know whether or not you need to know. If you don't need to know, you still need to know so that you know that there is no need to know."

= = = = =

Al K. Annossow wrote:In the battle between the two sides, Peterson is trying to create a DMZ, or perhaps even a third side. Among other things, he is creating a place for the luke warm to hang out.

No:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/930662248082653184

He calls himself a classical liberal, and boasts about having saved so many young men from the clutches of the Alt-Right and so on. You call that a DMZ?

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 03, 2018 2:40 PM  

"I'll be going on the Alex Jones Show on Monday to discuss the two leading charlatans of the Approved Opposition, Jordan Peterson and Benny Shapiro. So, I'm assuming that should more than satisfy any craving for attention that I might have for the foreseeable future."

... and more entertainment for the ilk since the Annihilation of Hugo.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 03, 2018 2:54 PM  

Watching AJ right now he is going off on Shapiro and Peterson and equating them with Peterson

Blogger Were-Puppy May 03, 2018 2:55 PM  

Woops, meant, equating them with Glenn Beck

Blogger Nate May 03, 2018 2:57 PM  

Discussing controlled opposition on Alex Jones show... yeah that's a little to meta for me.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2018 2:59 PM  

Nate wrote:Discussing controlled opposition on Alex Jones show... yeah that's a little to meta for me.
Gotta take down your competitors...

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 2:59 PM  

Frankly, I am pretty disappointed with Vox's supposed takedown of Peterson. It is an extremely shallow look at someone who, love him or hate him, is very prolific.

I am inclined to take Vox's point in :re the 115 IQ of Jews but Peterson is not the only one who accepts this (Molyneux for instance). I don't see why Peterson becomes a liar and Molyneux doesn't (I don't think either one is).

Peterson's point that we exist psychologically/spiritually as well as in the real, objective world doesn't strike me as insane at all. Clearly, most people see a psychological projection that is only imperfectly connected to the actual reality (the Truth shall set you free). Vox is just strawmanning him here.

Cheers,

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook May 03, 2018 3:16 PM  

I hope Alex doesnt interrupt you all the time like he usually does with his guests and you get some good points across.

Blogger Al K. Annossow May 03, 2018 3:29 PM  

@55 Teleros since you asked ...

I don't know much about Peterson, but as far as I can tell, he also claims to be saving people from the clutches of the far Left. And I don't see him as a middle position on the spectrum. He is trying to mostly remove people from the fray. That's not a good thing.

So yes I do call what he does a "DMZ, or perhaps even a third side" that lets people avoid taking a stand in the actual battle by letting people avoid both gender fluidity acceptance and nationalism acceptance. That makes his followers at best firmly uncommitted to a side and at worst another front to fight against. Neither will save them. Despite the twitter picture you posted, I haven't seen much fight in his adherents (could easily be wrong on that). I think I see your point but stand by mine, pending additional information, which I won't be seeking.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2018 3:33 PM  

Shawn Hetherington wrote:I don't see...
No, you don't.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 3:36 PM  

I don't see why Peterson becomes a liar and Molyneux doesn't (I don't think either one is).

Because Peterson responded to a correction of his position with lies and Stefan didn't.

Peterson's point that we exist psychologically/spiritually as well as in the real, objective world doesn't strike me as insane at all.

He directly said we don't live in the real, objective world. Do you not live there?

Blogger Cary May 03, 2018 3:38 PM  

Frankly, I am pretty disappointed with Vox's supposed takedown of Peterson.

Vox hasn’t even started his takedown yet. He’s just seen enough to be certain where it will go. But if you want a starting point, you can look up the Current Affairs article referenced in the prior post. It does a pretty good job demonstrating Peterson’s incoherence.

Blogger Iamblichus May 03, 2018 3:40 PM  


Vox v Peterson, most entertaining match up since Trump v Jeb!

Blogger Zarathustra's Bastard May 03, 2018 3:45 PM  

Peterson's frequently repeated argument against postmodernism is that while there are an enormous number of possible interpretations of the world, only a very few interpretations actually work. He believes in a world external to the mind that constrains action and thereby constrains interpretation.

If he didn't, he wouldn't have published a book giving advice on how to live well.

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 3:47 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 3:52 PM  

65.

In the context of what else JBP has said on the matter it is clear that he means that our bodies exist in the real, physical, world and this world is then interpreted by the the human brain that has constraints of various kinds (both physiological and psychological).

Blogger Orthodox May 03, 2018 3:53 PM  

That feeling you get when you think you took the #RedPill, but it was only a different kind of #BluePill.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 3:55 PM  

@ 65, "Because Peterson responded to a correction of his position with lies and Stefan didn't."

Well, I didn't see that anywhere - obviously if he said something he knew was false, then he is a liar. I'm a little dubious though about what he actually knew/understood. Clearly your POV is not well known and I, personally, would give someone the benefit of the doubt in terms of whether or not he was a liar. If he didn't understand a correction, he wouldn't be a liar.

"He directly said we don't live in the real, objective world. Do you not live there?"

Yes, but the context pretty much contradicts the implication that you're trying to draw here. He accepts that the objective world exists but that humans exist in a (partly) spiritual environment and not purely in the real world. Respectfully, I don't think you're being fair here.

Cheers, :)

Blogger Matthew May 03, 2018 3:56 PM  

The Blogspot commenting system allows anyone to set their display names to whatever they want. So when you see a common name like "John", it doesn't necessarily mean someone is trying to spoof.

There are some known regulars here using simple names, though, so make sure your chosen display name doesn't match theirs, or else I or another moderator will delete you.

Blogger John Deer May 03, 2018 4:02 PM  

Last thing I'll say:

There can be a great outcome to tying to take down JBP. If done the RIGHT way this could be a very good thing as many of his followers are in the group of disenfranchised young men that can be easily shown the import of the ideas on the right- and how ignorance of these things has led to the horrible cultural state of the west.

Vox, your post destroying Peterson on the JQ was amazingly well thought out and you deserve massive credit for that. Truly.

That being said, a "for teh lulz" trolling of JBP and his followers isnt gonna do anything- except entertain a few ppl.
Pls avoid the stupid definitional arguments and tackle the big stuff- culture, immigration, IQ, jews, all the stuff that Peterson can be taken down with using his own shit. And pls don't just shit all over his fans- if you do what you're trying to do in a way that doesn't set off everyone's "this guy is a bitter enemy" response then you will be doing alot of good.

Otherwise, its just a shitshow for the sake of a shitshow.

Good luck, whatever you do.

OpenID markstoval May 03, 2018 4:03 PM  

Vox Day: "Anyhow, John, I've already rejected your plea. This will not stop anytime soon, and I would not be surprised if it heats up more next week."

This is a good thing.

While John may have had a minor point, it is high time all of those on the anti-left (for want of a better description) stop being half-assed about the culture war. Once the engagement started, Vox needed to finish it. Whatever it takes. In other words, Once Peterson's minions started a war over that one post Vox needed to destroy the enemy.

Vox mentioned he was not interested in leadership someplace in one of these threads. But Moses did not want it either. We are in a war of culture, race, and religion that must be won. If you can lead, you must do what you can Vox.



Blogger LP999-16 May 03, 2018 4:05 PM  

Perfect. Finally!

Can you please advise the staff to use infogalatic not wiki? Yesterday, all well meaning, Alex was using wiki b/c he does not know about IG or IG Tech or IG News, others to used social media to reach out to PJW but maybe those tweets or emails or whatever were not seen.

Wiki is embarrassing.

Also be aware; Mark Dice swept the floor with Benny yesterday, even Candace to Kanye were tweeting back and forth to Ben not West though, I dont know precisely as I'm not there but Cerno reported it via a video stream I heard yesterday at peri or youtube.

Dice's feed is always interesting whether its tw-tar or youtube.

3 Castalia House and Alt Hero DESERVES a mention too, I am tired of quality work going ignored to unnoticed.

I am tired of the Trump Derangement Syndrome from the mentally deranged media talked about was David and Lauren Hogg two minor children are writing a book over Parkland to erode the 2A.

10 Look up Ron Gibson's youtube chan, he posts hour by hour within 15 mins of each broadcast hour along with covering the other hosts.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 4:05 PM  

Well, I didn't see that anywhere - obviously if he said something he knew was false, then he is a liar.

It was right on his site. Twice. He even quoted it in full, then responded falsely.

Yes, but the context pretty much contradicts the implication that you're trying to draw here. He accepts that the objective world exists but that humans exist in a (partly) spiritual environment and not purely in the real world. Respectfully, I don't think you're being fair here.

That's completely wrong. What part of WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE OBJECTIVE WORLD did you not grasp. He didn't say we exist partly here and partly there. He said the real world exists, but we do not live in it.

Moreover, he said that until 500 years ago, no one was even aware of it. Total nonsense.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 4:07 PM  

Pls avoid the stupid definitional arguments and tackle the big stuff- culture, immigration, IQ, jews, all the stuff that Peterson can be taken down with using his own shit. And pls don't just shit all over his fans- if you do what you're trying to do in a way that doesn't set off everyone's "this guy is a bitter enemy" response then you will be doing alot of good.

No. The definitional arguments are the key. I will not use his own BS. And I will ignore his fans except for those who come against me. They will get hammered and deservedly so.

Blogger Flair1239 May 03, 2018 4:09 PM  

Off topic: Peterson has some transcripts on his site. Looks like mostly biblical lectures for now.

There are others scattered on google, but some seem pretty slipshod.

Blogger LP999-16 May 03, 2018 4:12 PM  

The JQ truth is at stake.

Whatever misunderstandings to deceptions to not knowing the stats or whatever must be clarified not matter how uncomfortable, this is not about a personal attack, this is about the truth.

4 interpretation? I've seen 6 since JP's post went up.

All this requires a ironing out and meeting of the minds. And now is the time.

Blogger John XR May 03, 2018 4:21 PM  

infowars and alex jones are surprisingly good. About a month ago I started listening to the radio broadcasts regularly. He has the best guests. Ben Garrison, Nigel Farage, Scott Adams, and now voxday. And he talks about globalists and immigration invasions and stuff. It is a proper mainstream front in the culture war.

Alex himself is pretty funny. He gets worked up sometimes and interrupts guests and says wacky stuff I don't really follow. But 90% of the time he's pretty level headed and makes a lot of sense.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 03, 2018 4:23 PM  

@74 John Deer
Otherwise, its just a shitshow for the sake of a shitshow.
---

I'm afraid Petey is gonna be tossed on the dead horse pile and be flogged for years to come.

Blogger LP999-16 May 03, 2018 4:25 PM  

77 Exactly, JP lied or was truly unknowing of what he was talking about, this needs ironed out. Excellent recent peri last night. If possible, please try to point out the matter of dialectic versus rhetoric is will really help people to understand better.

No fans, Vox is not shatting on anyone.

Calm down fans, stop reacting for a moment and tune in or try listening to Vox's peri on JP there are 2 probably 3 by now.

RE: Jones did a hilarious take on Ben Shap yesterday.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 4:26 PM  

@78, "That's completely wrong. What part of WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE OBJECTIVE WORLD did you not grasp. He didn't say we exist partly here and partly there. He said the real world exists, but we do not live in it."

He would be insane if he said that :) However, as I said the context contradicts this interpretation. The last sentence of the paragraph in question :"What it does mean
is that the environment of human beings might well be regarded as “spiritual,” as
well as “material.”"

In other words, man lives partly in a spiritual world and partly in a material world. He simply does not believe what you claim that he does. (Which actually makes sense because we can all agree that the position you've ascribed to him is insane).

"Moreover, he said that until 500 years ago, no one was even aware of it. Total nonsense."

I also find his phrasing here to be confusing. He is at once talking about the spiritual and material environments and then people's conception(idea) of the world they exist in which he calls objective. Clearly he is talking about the conception of "objectivity" being 500 years old, not that people were unaware of material reality.

Cheers, :)



Moreover, he said that until 500 years ago, no one was even aware of it. Total nonsense.

Blogger Sam Spade May 03, 2018 4:27 PM  

@VD "No, it's not. The reason the Right has lost for the last 65 years is that it allowed itself to be led by the other side. The way this moves the ball down the field is that it prevents that from happening."

All people doubting about the worth of this criticism to Peterson should think about this.

We have accepted the left definitions, reality frame and speaking with their words. Trying to win the cultural war unarmed and handicapped.

This is a very important battle in the war. And a lot of people can learn of it to demolish other false idols.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 4:27 PM  

Sorry about the formatting in the previous, everyone :)

Blogger LP999-16 May 03, 2018 4:28 PM  

82 Cerno, Milo, iirc on Milo, Celente along with PJW have hosted the 4th hour.

Blogger Nate73 May 03, 2018 4:28 PM  

So am I missing the fact here that JBP is drawing people from the alt-right? The few alt-righters I've heard discuss JBP dismissed him as an individualist without any sense of identity.

Blogger FUBARwest May 03, 2018 4:32 PM  

@Shawn Hetherington

You don't find it odd that a man who claims to always be precise and careful with his words would say "We do not live in the objective world" and not mean it?

Why is it necessary to clarify: Of course he didn't mean human beings weren't aware of the objective world until 500 years ago. He meant the word objective."

Blogger R Webfoot May 03, 2018 4:34 PM  

"That being said, a "for teh lulz" trolling of JBP and his followers isnt gonna do anything- except entertain a few ppl."

You are mistaken. The Supreme Dark Lord is not so mercurial as to do it "for the lulz." Vox Day does it for the skulls.

Blogger Alexandros May 03, 2018 4:35 PM  

Be prepared to be interrupted 100x. As much as i love Alex Jones, he has a terrible knack for interrupting his guests. If you can bear that part of it, you could very well be a regular on his show, which would be great for the Right.

Blogger Ingot9455 May 03, 2018 4:38 PM  

To say that there we did not live in an objective world until, say, 500 years ago is to say that there were no scientists, no engineers, no one who worked with reality and built from experience and experiment until then.

Ludicrous. How many great monuments were built before the year 1500?
Masamune's samurai swords are from the 14th century and he made them with the most primitive tools we can imagine. We only now reach/surpass them now with the most scientifically pure materials science and computer-controlled forging and manufacturing process. Did he somehow intuit that entire process spiritually - or did his teachers and he perform experiments, tests, trials? Did they practice their skills and improve their techniques?

They might have had a spiritual aspect to their scientific art, but everything does. Just like 'being in the zone' does for football.

Blogger Anno Ruse May 03, 2018 4:44 PM  

"But hey, the good news is that as long as the Tuscany internet doesn't go down, this infowars appearance shouldn't interrupt your pasta fazool and chianti supper one bit."

Sensible chuckle. I look forward to Vox chatting to an actual radio host through his iPad mini mic, because apparently the royalties from Skull of Bones don't bring in quite enough dosh to cover a better setup than your average Twitch streamer. Marone, this guy!

Blogger LP999-16 May 03, 2018 4:50 PM  

I expect Ben Shap and Beck to get involved shortly via radio, tweets, etc.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 4:51 PM  

There is no context to rectify those two statements.

"We think we live in the “objective” world, but we do not."

What it does mean is that the environment of human beings might well be regarded as “spiritual,” as
well as “material.”"


No. The former statement does not and cannot mean the latter. This is what I, and others, mean by the fact that Peterson is a shameless bullshitter.


Blogger LP999-16 May 03, 2018 4:52 PM  

91 AJ and Peter Lance are fast in their speech in that regard but chill, Vox has the mic.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 4:53 PM  

@90, "You don't find it odd that a man who claims to always be precise and careful with his words would say "We do not live in the objective world" and not mean it? "

I find his phrasing to be a bit odd and confusing but there's really no doubt of his overall point - the last sentence is clear - that people exist partly materially and partly spiritually. It's not fair to take one section of a paragraph to "prove" someone is insane when that same paragraph makes the opposite point.


Cheers, :)

Blogger LP999-16 May 03, 2018 4:59 PM  

94 Shameless and terrible.

Today AJ commenting on Jordan as he did yesterday, perhaps the "plan was to merge" JP, Ben and Beck.

"None of JP, Beck or Ben are Christians, Ben refused to debate AJ."

JP's book is "a book telling us how to live like robots."

Go to 20 mins in; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWkgiAD2Vdg

Blogger FUBARwest May 03, 2018 5:01 PM  

@Shawn Hetherington

So he isn't as clear and precise as he claims he tries to be. The question is whether he is cognizant of it or it is as you say a mistake. Scrutiny will determine which but for someone with a 150+ IQ and who claims to have rewritten every sentence of Maps of Meaning at least 3+ times I find the idea that it's only a mistake a little hard to believe.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 5:13 PM  

I find his phrasing to be a bit odd and confusing but there's really no doubt of his overall point - the last sentence is clear - that people exist partly materially and partly spiritually. It's not fair to take one section of a paragraph to "prove" someone is insane when that same paragraph makes the opposite point.

You are repeatedly ignoring the point. There is a major and massive contradiction in the core foundation of his central text.

That alone doesn't prove that he's crazy. He could be sloppy. He could be careless. He could be indifferent. But when he is claiming to be inordinately precise and careful while producing that sort of incoherent nonsense, he's either dishonest or nuts.

Blogger Zarathustra's Bastard May 03, 2018 5:15 PM  

Or language ought to be interpreted contextually.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 5:17 PM  

@94,"There is no context to rectify those two statements."

How about : We think we live in a purely objective world. The idea of a purely objective world is ~500 years old. We actually live in a partly spiritual and partly objective world.

"No. The former statement does not and cannot mean the latter."

Yes, of course, the latter statement is his conclusion - his reason why we do not live in a purely material world brought up in the former statement.

Cheers, :)

Blogger Teleros May 03, 2018 5:19 PM  

Nate73 wrote:So am I missing the fact here that JBP is drawing people from the alt-right? The few alt-righters I've heard discuss JBP dismissed him as an individualist without any sense of identity.

He claims many young men have said variations of "if it weren't for you I'd be Alt-Right", and considers this an achievement of his (at least, he seems to from what I've seen).

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 03, 2018 5:23 PM  

If Ben Shapiro inhaled Helium, would it actually make his voice deeper?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2018 5:23 PM  

And saying "oh, that's just Jungianism" doesn't cut it. Jungianism is a Satanic lie.

Blogger Redpill Angel May 03, 2018 5:27 PM  

VD exposes phony allies of the alt right and phony thinkers from the "anti-left" (thanks somebody for that helpful term up the thread), because he knows that worse things are down the road than shrill arguments on the internet. And when that time comes, he will already know who will stand with the West, who is a liar, who is an infiltrator, who is weak. Just my 2 cents.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2018 5:28 PM  

@23- Aside from a smidgen of his writings and stories from his time with Freud, that book is my only familiarity with Jung. When people kept bringing it up in relation to Peterson, my mind went there. Then when Vox called Peterson "Crazy Christ," I thought it a strange coincidence.

But "Crazy Chist" also reminded me of how Burke referred to Rousseau as the Insane Socrates of the National Assembly.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2018 5:29 PM  

@106- Sorry, when I said "it" I meant Jung.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 5:31 PM  

How about : We think we live in a purely objective world. The idea of a purely objective world is ~500 years old. We actually live in a partly spiritual and partly objective world.

That would have been better. Still false, but not incoherent. But he didn't write that.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2018 5:34 PM  

@8- I don't know how anyone can believe that if they have any experience with the left, which infights constantly and still manages to win.

Difference is they have "no enemy to the left, no friend to the right." Conservatism Inc .went for the stupid strategy of: no friends to the right, plus, "Hey left, can we be in your Outer Party? Thanks."

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2018 5:44 PM  

@68- "If he didn't, he wouldn't have published a book giving advice on how to live well."

There are libraries full of books that lay out in exhaustive detail with rigorous logic how no one knows anything, logic doesn't exist, and books are a waste of time.

Then why did they bother writing them? Because they don't believe what they say. Not really.

Blogger R Webfoot May 03, 2018 5:49 PM  

"He claims many young men have said variations of "if it weren't for you I'd be Alt-Right", and considers this an achievement of his (at least, he seems to from what I've seen)."

I saw his interview with Brittany Pettibone or Tara McCarthy, I forget which. He made sure to, apropos of nothing, give his spiel about staying away from identity politics. I knew then that he was not an ally.

It is possible that he has convinced many to leave the Alt-Right or the "Alt-Right;" although, it is also possible that it happened a few times and his mind is exaggerating how common it is because he wants it to be true. Or he's bullshitting because he wants YOU to think it's true.

Blogger Lovekraft May 03, 2018 5:50 PM  

I wonder if Peterson understands that all he had to say was 'there are voices on the alt-right that have legitimacy and they have a right to be heard.'

Not offensive or confrontational.

Blogger repent or perish May 03, 2018 5:50 PM  

But when he is claiming to be inordinately precise and careful while producing that sort of incoherent nonsense, he's either dishonest or nuts.

I don't think that's necessarily wrong, but my perception is that he emphasizes watching what he says to avoid getting in hot water with SJWs. He seems more lax with statements that he doesn't think will result in social ridicule, not that it makes his philosophy any more coherent.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 5:51 PM  

@99, "You are repeatedly ignoring the point. There is a major and massive contradiction in the core foundation of his central text."

Well, that remains to be established, doesn't it? If the major and massive contradiction is that he doesn't believe people exist in the objective world, that's one thing. If he doesn't believe people exist *exclusively* in the objective world, that's another.

"That alone doesn't prove that he's crazy. He could be sloppy. He could be careless. He could be indifferent. But when he is claiming to be inordinately precise and careful while producing that sort of incoherent nonsense, he's either dishonest or nuts."

Or that could be a single, clunky sentence in amongst a wide body of work :)

Cheers, :)

Blogger Patrick Charles May 03, 2018 5:51 PM  

What is the difference between Peterson and other gammas, like Scalzi or Pajama Boy? I ask because while the latter two are more obviously gamma, yet I didn't realize Peterson was one until Vox pointed it out.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2018 5:53 PM  

@84- Does anyone actually think Peterson doesn't think he lives in the material world? He may be mentally ill, but he's not *that* mentally ill. So you're going to find that he believes in objective reality if you read on, because most everyone does believe in objective reality.

But that's not context. That's just contradiction. He's saying lots of things at once hoping to provide people with "oh, wow" moments, convince them he has unique insight, and get them to trust him.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2018 5:58 PM  

@115- Peterson is smarter, for one thing. He's not an SJW, for another.

I might have also thought he was more honest and in touch with reality than Scalzi, but now I'm not sure.

Blogger FUBARwest May 03, 2018 5:59 PM  

"I don't think that's necessarily wrong, but my perception is that he emphasizes watching what he says to avoid getting in hot water with SJWs. He seems more lax with statements that he doesn't think will result in social ridicule, not that it makes his philosophy any more coherent."

That is the problem and why he's being called out by Vox. You don't get to stand as a paragon of truth speaking and only say the truth when you won't get in trouble for it or even worse LIE because it benefits you.

At this point I hope he turns out to be crazy. I dont fault crazy people for being crazy. I do fault people who knowingly decieve for their personal gain. 100k a month is personal gain.

Blogger FUBARwest May 03, 2018 6:02 PM  

@Shawn Hetherington

Do you seriously not see the issue with a man claiming to be "precise" and "accurate" with his words at all times needing a random person on the internet to clarify his written statements from his central book he spent multiple years writing?

You can argue behind why that is an issue but to deny that it's an issue is unfathomable to me.

Blogger AnvilTiger May 03, 2018 6:03 PM  

Peterson - whatever his personal flaws, and philosophical errors, is clearly anti-SJW and anti-feminist. I think he falls squarely in the "liberal" but not Leftist camp. He is accessible to the normies, and for those young people without guidance floating in a sea of SJW and feminist crap, he offers a rope and a way out. Most of those fascinated by him, I think, are quite young - teens and early twenties. High school and college kids. They have to start somewhere, and most of them are not here. But someday, if they can escape the sea of crap and come up the beach, can begin their journey.

Blogger Daniel Bendele May 03, 2018 6:03 PM  

VD wrote:That would have been better. Still false, but not incoherent. But he didn't write that.

Thankful I'll never have to go on JP's blog and say, "When Vox said X he actually meant Y. Because if he meant X of course that would be insane, so clearly he meant Y."

The mental gymnastics. Dear God.

Blogger Daniel Bendele May 03, 2018 6:06 PM  

AnvilTiger wrote:Peterson - whatever his personal flaws, and philosophical errors, is clearly anti-SJW and anti-feminist. I think he falls squarely in the "liberal" but not Leftist camp. He is accessible to the normies, and for those young people without guidance floating in a sea of SJW and feminist crap, he offers a rope and a way out. Most of those fascinated by him, I think, are quite young - teens and early twenties. High school and college kids. They have to start somewhere, and most of them are not here. But someday, if they can escape the sea of crap and come up the beach, can begin their journey.

This is true to some extent. I've sent at 4 millenial/GenZ friends to this blog after they expressed interest in Peterson. At the same time, Peterson is more and more vocally declaring himself an enemy of the Alt-Right. He's reached the end of his usefulness as a gateway drug.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 6:10 PM  

@98,

"So he isn't as clear and precise as he claims he tries to be. The question is whether he is cognizant of it or it is as you say a mistake. Scrutiny will determine which but for someone with a 150+ IQ and who claims to have rewritten every sentence of Maps of Meaning at least 3+ times I find the idea that it's only a mistake a little hard to believe. "

Well, again there's plenty of context available, knock yourself out :)

Cheers, :)

Blogger The Service May 03, 2018 6:15 PM  

VD: "He directly said we don't live in the real, objective world. Do you not live there?"

And yet he often makes commonsensical, pragmatic arguments that are rooted in the knowledge that we DO live in a real, objective world. That is what I meant when I said that his video performances imply a different undergirding philosophy than the one in which he professes to believe.

I know you reject this "two philosophies" view as ridiculous. But I'll just give you one, simple example of what I mean (and there are countless others): Peterson was recently on Bill Maher's show. After listening to the Leftish panel fulminate nonstop against Trump, he said this:

"I’ve been listening to all of this about Trump and watching how these conversations go in the U.S., and I have one question about it,” Peterson said. “I mean, there are all of these people in the U.S. who are on the conservative side who are aligned with Trump for all sorts of reasons, and there’s all of this tension around his presidency and attempts to pull him out of his office for various reasons.”

“What do you think will happen if that comes to pass?” Peterson questioned. “There are all of these people who elected him and identify with him and they’re not taking this well, and… you might not think they’re very bright and all of that, and they’re backwards and all of those things, but you need to have respect for the rest of your citizens.”

Peterson has said elsewhere that he fears a social and political catastrophe if Trump is successfully removed from office. Of course he's right to be worried about that.

Does that sound like the concern of a man who does not believe that we live in a real, objective world?

His main text may well be philosophically incoherent. But in most of his public appearances, he's awfully sane for a crazy guy.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 6:16 PM  

@108, "That would have been better. Still false, but not incoherent. But he didn't write that.

Sure, but that's what he meant, in context. I'm not really defending the man's writing style but I assume that people are aiming for a coherent meaning even when they fail at it. It's generally more productive that assuming every statement that doesn't make sense to me is evidence of insanity.

Cheers, :)

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 6:18 PM  

Peterson - whatever his personal flaws, and philosophical errors, is clearly anti-SJW and anti-feminist.

Peterson himself directly and unequivocally denies being an anti-feminist.

Why do you Peterson defenders think misrepresenting his positions is going to somehow convince anyone that he's actually a good guy who is on our side?

Do you think we can't read his words for ourselves? Or are you just sharing your uninformed opinions in ignorance of what he actually says because you want to believe in your own coherent truth about him?

Well, again there's plenty of context available, knock yourself out.

Context is not the magic cure-all for incoherent and mutually exclusive positions.

Blogger S. Thermite May 03, 2018 6:22 PM  

Outstanding! Can’t wait to watch the Alex Joness Show interview.

Bonus points if Alex talks about the frogs turning gay before intoducing Vox as a founding member of Psykosonik.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 6:22 PM  

And yet he often makes commonsensical, pragmatic arguments that are rooted in the knowledge that we DO live in a real, objective world. That is what I meant when I said that his video performances imply a different undergirding philosophy than the one in which he professes to believe.

So what? Do you not grasp what that signifies? When someone says one thing and does another, what does that indicate about them?

Sweet St. Aquinas, it's becoming ever more clear that "clean your room" and "stand up straight" is about all Peterson's followers are capable of understanding.

But in most of his public appearances, he's awfully sane for a crazy guy.

That's because he has constructed an entire system designed to help him function in human society. Also, he's drugged. Remember, "take your pills" is Rule #2.

Do you really think sane and healthy people need that one?

Blogger Lovekraft May 03, 2018 6:29 PM  

Alex Jones. Candace/Kanye.

Things are heading for a dividing line: whether immigration, multiculturalism and forced acceptance/integration should continue.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 03, 2018 6:39 PM  

Smells like winning. Down with the Fake Right!

OpenID markstoval May 03, 2018 6:40 PM  

'Sweet St. Aquinas' ~ VD

“The Study of philosophy is not that we may know what men have thought, but what the truth of things is. ”

― Thomas Aquinas

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 6:41 PM  

@119, "Do you seriously not see the issue with a man claiming to be "precise" and "accurate" with his words at all times needing a random person on the internet to clarify his written statements from his central book he spent multiple years writing?"

First off, in JBP's defense, we're arguing about a single sentence. Secondly, I don't accept a claim that he is a good writer. I seem to remember taking that book out of the library a few months back and not getting anything at all out of it. In fairness, I can't say for sure doing that, I just have a very vague recollection of skimming it briefly.

"You can argue behind why that is an issue but to deny that it's an issue is unfathomable to me."

I'm not denying it's an issue - it's just not the "guy is raving maniac" kind of issue. :)

Cheers, :)

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 6:47 PM  

First off, in JBP's defense, we're arguing about a single sentence.

No, we're not. There are dozens of examples. That was merely the first one that I chose. Trust me, there is a rich panoply of incoherencies from which to select. You simply cannot defend anything he writes by crying "context". It's not a viable defense.

Blogger The Service May 03, 2018 6:48 PM  

VD: "When someone says one thing and does another, what does that indicate about them?"

Nothing good. For whatever reason, he really doesn't seem to believe in the philosophy he propounds when he philosophizes. But my point--which I'll drop after this--is just that this pragmatic and empirically-minded "other thing" Peterson does is the true source of his success with the public. His fans, by and large, are not devouring Maps of Meaning.

VD: "That's because he has constructed an entire system designed to help him function in human society."

It would be very interesting to hear you develop this point in your final criticism of Peterson. I hope you do.

"Also, he's drugged. Remember, "take your pills" is Rule #2. Do you really think sane and healthy people need that one?"

If he needs meds, then by definition he has some psychological problems. Nevertheless, when he takes his meds, he's a reliably solid and insightful pragmatic thinker and pedagogue. In other words, he is sane. This is the famous version of Peterson, not the shamelessly shoddy philosopher.

None of which is any argument against assailing his bad philosophy, of course. You should do that.

But you yourself wrote a compelling post awhile back in which you discouraged people from succumbing to binary thinking. Well, Peterson might indeed be Crazy Christ, but he isn't only Crazy Christ, and there are important ways in which he is actually the opposite of Crazy Christ.

All of this can be true at the same time.

Blogger Uncle John's Band May 03, 2018 6:53 PM  

A few things emerge from this thread.

It is strange to try and differentiate his rules from the quality of his philosophy. His intellectual credibility is based on the latter; without it, the only way to determine the value of his advice is to evaluate the outcomes, and there is no ready metric for that. Also, if the philosophy is incoherent, he offers no next step for followers who have implemented structure and are looking for more, and his politics actively dissuade truth seeking elsewhere.

This has been an impressive demonstration of the way incoherence can be presented to allow people to project whatever they want onto it. Emphasizing linguistic precision while writing ambiguously is an old academic trick, where the former reassures the reader that their projection is "really" there. Deconstructionists often pit the content of a statement against the form of the argument to sow confusion, and the good ones are a lot slicker than Peterson. Doesn't change the fact that is it's profoundly dishonest.

Finally, if Peterson's followers require complex exegesis to arrive at (conflicting) projections of what they wish he said, why is he worth following? Or maybe I just answered that question in posing it.

OpenID Sidehill Dodger May 03, 2018 7:11 PM  

I'd never heard of Jordan Peterson before our esteemed host drew my attention to him. So I spent most of the day looking at JP videos. He seems to say a lot of sensible things about psychology, and he's clearly trying to come across as a "reasonable man" who takes the middle road in this time of division.

But his philosophical and religious views strike me--to put it kindly--as half-baked. He seems to think that Jung was some kind of genius. I went through a Jung period when I was young myself; then I realized that he pretty much represented an intellectual dead end. Jung (and Peterson) seem to go on at great length about the awesome mystery of religious symbolism and myth, and Jung even went out of his way to say that our culture must have a religious underpinning. But how the heck do you go from the statement that we need religion and actually having faith? It's as hard as deriving an "ought" from an "is".

When Peterson has to confront the concrete questions, he waffles. For example, he asks "Is Christ's resurrection real?". His answer, (this is all paraphrased from my notes) is "His spirit lives on". Peterson is really sure about that, but notes that Christianity lays a heavy emphasis on the resurrection of the body. He makes approving noises about this, then says "A very interesting idea...I'm not fully comfortable with my ability to bridge the gap between the metaphorical and the real". I would call that dishonest unbelief.

With regard to morals, Peterson ridicules the notion that morals or ethical behavior can exist without God. Morals can't be derived logically. (Anyone who's studied philosophy will not be surprised.) Peterson makes noises like "ethics is nested inside a cultural and mythological context. I'm not arguing for the existence of God." And then in the very next sentence: "The ethics that drive our culture are predicated on God." But he does not affirm the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who clothed himself in flesh to die on the cross and be resurrected to defeat death and sin. Maybe he hopes that this God exists? Maybe the Holy Spirit will save him eventually.

One day of watching videos is perhaps not enough to judge the man, but he sure seems to be talking nonsense out of both sides of mouth to me.

I don't know if the level of vitriol being poured on Peterson by our esteemed host is entirely justified--Peterson strikes me as yet another psychologist who went wrong and confused himself with a philosopher and a priest. But perhaps our host has watched more than one day of Peterson's videos.

Blogger VD May 03, 2018 7:27 PM  

If he needs meds, then by definition he has some psychological problems. Nevertheless, when he takes his meds, he's a reliably solid and insightful pragmatic thinker and pedagogue. In other words, he is sane.

No, he is not solid, he is not insightful, and he is most definitely not sane or coherent. You are factually, observably, and demonstrably wrong.

His Chapter 2 of Rules for Life is a dead giveaway that he is a solipsistic whackjob. I just did a Darkstream on it.

Blogger Torstensson May 03, 2018 7:33 PM  

Before rushing into this feud, I’d really recommend the masterpiece ”The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World” by the extremely erudite neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist.

Dr. McGilchrist is a soft-spoken but convincing man. He knows his Heidegger, Nietzsche, Descartes and Kant (but does not care for the latter Enlightenment types). There is a youtube clip when JBP speaks with him. It is JBP who appears starstruck, not McGilchrist. If in doubt, please read his strong argument against Steven Pinker with regard to scientism.

Blogger The Service May 03, 2018 7:54 PM  

"His Chapter 2 of Rules for Life is a dead giveaway that he is a solipsistic whackjob. I just did a Darkstream on it."

I look forward to watching this.

Blogger Torstensson May 03, 2018 8:01 PM  

Link to his rebuttal of Pinker

http://iainmcgilchrist.com/reply-to-steven-pinker/

Blogger Were-Puppy May 03, 2018 8:58 PM  

PBJ is on Crowder. I tried listening, but after five minutes my ears glazed over, then my brain and then my body.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 9:01 PM  

@133,

"No, we're not. There are dozens of examples. That was merely the first one that I chose. Trust me, there is a rich panoply of incoherencies from which to select. You simply cannot defend anything he writes by crying "context". It's not a viable defense."

Well, I'm not against all possible arguments against Peterson, I'm arguing against your *specific* claim that :"He said the real world exists, but we do not live in it." which I think is an unfair interpretation of his position.

I do agree that Peterson's ideas have lots of flaws but, he's not crazy.

Cheers, :)


Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2018 9:06 PM  

Shawn Hetherington wrote:I do agree that Peterson's ideas have lots of flaws but, he's not crazy.
On what basis can you claim that a person who has admitted to mental illness multiple times, who takes psychotropic medications, whose entire career is centered on madness, is not crazy? That he can't mean what he says because if he meant that, it would be evidence of serious mental illness?
It seems a gratuitous assertion.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 9:40 PM  

@143, "On what basis can you claim that a person who has admitted to mental illness multiple times, who takes psychotropic medications, whose entire career is centered on madness, is not crazy? That he can't mean what he says because if he meant that, it would be evidence of serious mental illness?"

In the limited context we are discussing, "crazy" is believing that the material world is real, but we don't live in it. People can have the problems you describe without believing that.

Really, do you have a *single* other data point that addresses this issue? He must have written thousands of lines but we have to measure him by this single one that is contradicted a couple of lines later.

I really don\t see why people are so interested in attacking this straw man. Wouldn't you be better served by attacking the *strongest* version of his argument?

Cheers. :)

Blogger Solaire Of Astora May 03, 2018 10:06 PM  

I just read the Current Affairs article and it was my first exposure to Maps of Meaning. The quotations from his book were so damn bad it's impossible to conclude that he's anything but a complete madman. He actually buys into his own bull ****. He's every bit as bad as the post-modernists in terms of obscurantism but at least they appear to know they're frauds. I had no idea Peterson was this bad. Anyone who is defending him seriously needs to go and check that article for themselves. It's bone chilling stuff.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2018 10:21 PM  

Shawn Hetherington wrote:In the limited context we are discussing, "crazy" is believing that the material world is real, but we don't live in it. People can have the problems you describe without believing that.That wasn't the assertion. Your assertion was "He can't believe that, he's not crazy." When it is demonstrated that he is, indeed, crazy, your assertion suddenly changes to "Well, he's not that crazy."
Face it, when discussing JP, arguing from the assumption of sanity is not a winning approach.

Blogger Dire Badger May 03, 2018 10:29 PM  

Man....people today.

Look, it's very simple.

Jordan is a psychologist. That means his entire education and career has been based around one thing... telling people that their very real mental damage can be 'fixed' just by talking them out.

And then convincing those same mentally damaged people that they are never 'quite there' and have to keep coming back for 250 dollar sessions.

Like all con artists everywhere, he is VERY good at saying things he thinks you want to hear... it's his job.

Yes, it's fun watching him lay into feminists. It's not as much fun as watching, say, Ben Shapiro do it... after all, Bennie was taught to lie to juries instead of individuals, and thus has much better rhetoric.

But why would you look at a professional liar for some sort of definition of 'truth'? You might as well trust an actor, lawyer, or 'professional' psychic. It's stupid, it's insane, and it's utterly irrational.

Jordan is what he is, someone who's made the shift from being a con artist to being a professional entertainer. If you enjoy his form of entertainment, more power to you... But he has no more intellectual validity than Tah-Nesi Coates, Beyonce, or Cher. What he has is a cult following. You can enjoy watching the monkey dance, but cdon't you dare try to claim that he is an 'authority' on anything besides being yet another dancing monkey.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2018 10:55 PM  

@144- You are free to assume Peterson doesn't actually believe such things, but that's not really the point. The point is that he says them. He may have different points to make, but nevertheless he says things, and these things are part of what has to be the foundation for any thought on reality. If your foundation is cracked, your edifice will be weak.

"Wouldn't you be better served by attacking the *strongest* version of his argument?"

I used to think that, but know. That gives your target the perfect opportunity to play Mott and Bailey.

We are best served by going after the heart of an argument. Failing that, I don't see why not go for the weak points.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2018 10:56 PM  

@148- That is, I used to think that but now know better.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 11:18 PM  

@146, "That wasn't the assertion. Your assertion was "He can't believe that, he's not crazy." When it is demonstrated that he is, indeed, crazy, your assertion suddenly changes to "Well, he's not that crazy.""

No, you're misquoting me here. I said that if he said what Vox claimed that he said he would indeed be crazy - I just disagreed that he is actually saying what Vox says he is saying. I gave evidence to back that up.

So, to be clear, I don't care whether Peterson is crazy by your definition, I care whether the interpretation of his words is fair.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2018 11:28 PM  

Shawn Hetherington wrote:I just disagreed that he is actually saying what Vox says he is saying. I gave evidence to back that up.
Which is NOT what you said.
So your empathy for Peterson is genuine at least.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 11:34 PM  

@148, "- You are free to assume Peterson doesn't actually believe such things, but that's not really the point. The point is that he says them. He may have different points to make, but nevertheless he says things, and these things are part of what has to be the foundation for any thought on reality. If your foundation is cracked, your edifice will be weak. "

So far as I know, he said this one time and contradicted himself three lines later. Really, how is this useful? If you were actually debating Peterson, why wouldn't he just address this by point to the 57 times he said the exact opposite thing? If you don't have anything else to say, that's the end of the discussion.

People are just not always perfectly articulate all the time. If you really wanted to make actual headway, you will have to have a deeper understanding than: "I caught you in a flub, therefor I win"

Cheers, :)

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 03, 2018 11:39 PM  

@151, "Which is NOT what you said."

Yes, it is. see post 84.

Cheers, :)

Blogger Cubby8126 May 03, 2018 11:40 PM  

Wait this guy has a rule for himself about taking meds? Comon now, the worlds most important philosopher needs to remind himself "if u dont take these u go nutty"? Im glad i never got around to watching his shit. Other than the video i posted earlier that i found on him saying he was a liberal.

Blogger Ian Stein May 04, 2018 12:05 AM  

I googled killers named Peterson. Scary.
If this guy takes down western civilization it could be what he was born to do.

Blogger tublecane May 04, 2018 12:08 AM  

@152- I haven't read any Peterson beyond excerpts here and there and the Jewish Question article, so I can't say for sure. But I don't think it is a one-off mistake with which people are playing "gotcha!"

I've been perusing Peterson's Twitter feed and watching him on YouTube since the Jewish Question thing, and it's fairly obvious to me he's an old-timey pragmatist progressive-type. William Jamesian and/or John Deweyan. You know, the guys who professed to believe Darwinism had revealed some new kind of way of looking at the world, including New Truth (like New Coke) and New Morality. Which is far too complicated for me to reconstruct here, but safe to say it is wrong and reality-doubting if not reality-denying at its core.

Oh, and there's New Age mysticism piled on top, varieties of religious experience-style. (Or possibly Jung-style, though I haven't read him.) All of which points to that statement about objective reality being important to Peterson's system.

Blogger tublecane May 04, 2018 12:13 AM  

By the way, what is it with psychiatrists and mythology, pseudo-religion, New Agism, and mysticism in general? I mean, I know why they might be interested in that stuff, but don't they also pretend to be scientists? Why are they so open about that side of their purported discipline? Don't they find it embarrassing?

For instance, I knew a doctor once who couldn't shut up about Buddhism. Not the actual tradition and religion, but the dormroom philosophy major version of it. I used to think, aren't you guys about clinical trials and chemistry and psychometrics now? Why are you still talking like you might try mesmerism or curing hysteria through orgasms next?

Blogger tublecane May 04, 2018 12:43 AM  

@152- Have you listened to Peterson on Sam Harris' podcast? He talks about the A-bomb demonstrating theories about subatomic particles. If atomic weapons should ever wipe out the human race, he believes our theories about subatomic particles must in some sense have been wrong, even if they were right enough to build working bombs. And I don't mean wrong in a moral sense, but in the sense of being untrue.

In other words, something can be true objectively yet untrue pragmatically. And the tie goes to pragmatism.

We're products of evolution interested in our own survival, and can't escape the bounds of our evolutionary subjectivity, so to speak. Which for whatever reason prompts Peterson to falsely reduce Truth to the Good for Me--or Good for Us--test.

Another thing, he has a strange habit, a very Boomer habit, of casting serious philosophical questions about Truth, epistemology, and such in terms of Big, Scary History. Nuclear War, the Holocaust, that sort of thing. Tragedy Philosophy instead of philosophy-philosophy. It's weird.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 04, 2018 1:10 AM  

@158, "Have you listened to Peterson on Sam Harris' podcast? He talks about the A-bomb demonstrating theories about subatomic particles. If atomic weapons should ever wipe out the human race, he believes our theories about subatomic particles must in some sense have been wrong, even if they were right enough to build working bombs. And I don't mean wrong in a moral sense, but in the sense of being untrue."

Well, I certainly don't agree with this concept. if it's a reasonable presentation of his views. I'm not sure what's the point of conflating useful/safe with true. I think there is value in having the separate concepts.

Again, I'm not opposed to all criticisms of Peterson, I just want them to be fair.

Cheers, :)

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 04, 2018 1:36 AM  

Peterson must be an absolute madman at Russian roulette. After all - the cylinder the hammer is going to strike is always empty, right?

Blogger wreckage May 04, 2018 2:30 AM  

@157
-curing hysteria through orgasms -
Substantially more likely than through dormroom Buddhism.

Blogger Nate73 May 04, 2018 2:40 AM  

A complete review of the Sam Harris discussion

https://youtu.be/uDZnSKpnQ8k

Blogger Gurpgork May 04, 2018 3:31 AM  

Gotta love Peterson a little bit, he gave us 4 darkstreams in a row.

@VD Maybe Peterson is just sufficiently more intelligent that you perceive it as insanity? *obvious trolling*

OpenID yclepedbobali May 04, 2018 3:41 AM  

His interview with CBC is classic Peterson. If you don't mind a duplicate VD I'll double up on this thread as well.

I have to admit. When I watch Jordan Peterson's videos, he takes on an aspect where I instinctively want to support him. He does a good job at looking like he really is arrayed against left, not just the radical left. I know his philosophies are incoherent. I know the video medium is inherently rhetorical. I know he's anti-nationalist and anti the European peoples, and anti Christianity.

But I can understand the fan-boyism. When he appears on Fox, ABC, NBC, BBC, and he declaims post-modernism & gender pro-nouns he seems the quintessential man of reason.

But then I listened to him on CBC News in a video called 'Jordan Peterson on political polarization & Pepe the Frog'.
First he's asked why young men like him, and he says because he explains responsibility through mythical archetypes, and young men have spent 50 years innured in rights based values. Okay - all to the good.

Asked why if he is part of the general polarization of society he said:

"I don't think so. Um, the reason I don't think so is because I've had hundreds of letters from people who have told me they have become increasingly attracted for various reasons for example by the blandishments of the radical right. But because they'd been listening to what I'd been saying on line they'd decided that that was a very bad idea. And I don't like right wing identitarians. I think they play the same game as the radical leftists, which is identity politics. They just play a different version of it. But I'm no fan of the radical right either. I've been lecturing about the danger of Nazi totalitarianism for three decades, to inoculate people against the attraction of that sort of thing.

Then the reporter says the Canadian government cut his research funding after he resisted the traps, and Rebel Media helped him achieve his high patreon monthly incomings in response.

He's so fucking ambiguous. Then the Canadian lady asks him why he still appears on RebelMedia platforms with their personnel after Charlottesville. Apparently the Canadian conservative leader Andrew Scheer said RebelMedia represent hate speech, and Peterson says:

"You don't think we should talk to the right? I talk to people who want to talk to me, generally speaking. I don't see any reason not to talk to people who are on the right. I talk to people on the left when they want to talk, which is very very rarely".

Then the purple haired short cut passive aggressive bitch reporter produces a photo of JP with two guys holding a Pepe flag, one wearing a Maga hat, and doing the apostrophe hand sign lol. He asks her 'why do you think I get the reactions I get' - he knows she's about to spring a gotcha\ just before she does. He is smart.

Then she says 'you know it's a hate symbol' and he says 'the left think a lot of things are a hate symbol'.

She says 'it's an alt-right hate symbol' and Peterson says 'it's just used by young men poking and causing trouble on social media'.

"you're supposed to be anti-chaos - why would you choose to be in this photo".
He said "I've probably had photos with 5000 people".

Lol he's smart. So he knew the photo existed and did a fricken video on 'the metaphysics of Pepe'. A 2 hour discussion.

OpenID yclepedbobali May 04, 2018 3:42 AM  

She's still trying to nail him to it - 'could it be misinterpreted'. He said - yes it can be misinterpreted. It was purely happenstance. Then he says it's the one photo the left use against him.

He says most people are using it in a deeply satirical way, and just because the right are using it as a radical indicator of the validity of their view doesn't mean that's what it is. Something no one has seen before. There is a lot of game playing.

Lol then the bitch refers to a tweet he made that says 'Kekboys. Seek your 4chan. Don't stay in the underworld. Author your future. Free for u 4 1 week. Code Pepe'.

Lol he's actually farming 4 chan for customers.

He's so smart aye. So he says 'I'm asking them to come forth out of the chaos and emerge as individuals'.

The Dyke says "but they're giving you lots of shekels'.

He says, 'what would you do then? I'm trying to get people out of a radical ideology and get away from it as an individual. They're lost in nihilism, and they're angry. I have something better for them. Grow up. Assert as an individual. That's why I made the tweet, and I get letters all the time from people saying I was moving towards the fringes, and now I'm not anymore.

The dyke says - are you the next Billy Mcluin? Billy Graham? Are you a prophet?

"We're in a new world. So I have this immense multimedia platform. And I don't know exactly what to do with it. Now I'm making videos, interviewing people, shaping as it's developing. The overwhelming likelihood is that this will go terribly wrong. I've always known that. Things go wrong all the time.

What are you afraid of?

Saying something inappropriate?

Why would you say something inappropriate? You've made a lot of people angry?

JP: 'that's not the same thing'. People make mistakes. And so I've been in this situation for 15 months, where I'm speaking publically and I've been in the media a lot, and people are waiting with things like this photo and maybe you made a mistake.

Did you make one? I don't think so. I think I understand what's going on with Kekboys and Pepe. I've studied it. So I don't think I've made a mistake. So I think that's the case because of the feedback I'm getting from people saying I've straightened out my life.

I think it's unlikely it will continue in a positive direction. It's too much, aye. It's been too much for a long time. But so far so good... but I'm surfing a 100 foot wave and generally you drown."

Vox you have to admit this is powerful stuff. He's positioning himself as the sacrificial prisoner to be hoisted up on the cross by hands from the right and the left. He speaks in biblical register. Maybe you could adopt the same rhetoric.

Nah he's solidly Bill Kristol. But his rhetoric is incredible.

OpenID yclepedbobali May 04, 2018 3:48 AM  

So he equates the radical right with the radical left, which is ludicrous, because the left are changing nature and the right are asserting it, then he says a plague on both their houses, but I'll talk to anyone.

He's someone who if you see in little excerpts is really compelling.

I know he's the enemy. But I don't want to see this man destroyed. But I don't want western civlization to be destroyed.

What times we live in. If only Vox could be handled by normies.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 04, 2018 4:32 AM  

Just remember that he absolutely DOES NOT "declaim gender pronouns" or whatever you want to call the 72 sexes bullshit today.

Far from it he explicitly says that he "ALWAYS" respects an individual's wishes in such cases in his classroom.

His objection was that the Canadian government wants to FORCE him to use particular words and he refuses to do it.

His objection is categorically NOT to the words themselves - or the moronically incoherent IDEAS they represent - but to the FORCE being used to compel them.

He IS the radical left; he's just a fair bit smarter than most of them.

Blogger VD May 04, 2018 4:43 AM  

I do agree that Peterson's ideas have lots of flaws but, he's not crazy.

You're absolutely and utterly wrong. He may even be a complete sociopath, if I'm reading his sense of grandiosity right.

Again, I'm not opposed to all criticisms of Peterson, I just want them to be fair.

No one, least of all me, gives a fuck what you want. If all you're going to do is whine about how every criticism of the man is unfair and decontexualized and contradict yourself, then go away. Nothing you say is going to have any effect on what I do, except for possibly inspiring me to spam you.

Understand that.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira May 04, 2018 5:09 AM  

My uncle is a colleague of Peterson. Asked him one day what he thought of Peterson.
Reaction was priceless. It seems like more than just VD are wise to his antics.

Blogger wreckage May 04, 2018 7:42 AM  

This is a bit sad. I wanted to like Peterson, at least, I'm On A Video Peterson.

But I had one niggling doubt. The man clearly uses a solarium or something to get that "perfectly even, even under the chin" tan.

I should have known at that moment.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington May 04, 2018 8:20 AM  

@168, "No one, least of all me, gives a fuck what you want. If all you're going to do is whine about how every criticism of the man is unfair and decontexualized and contradict yourself, then go away. Nothing you say is going to have any effect on what I do, except for possibly inspiring me to spam you."

Vox. seriously, who do you think you're persuading here? I have not been discussing all criticisms of Peterson, just the specific one you made in re: his precis. i did not have to go looking for a problem with your interpretation of his words, they were pretty apparent in the same paragraph you quoted from.

How would you respond if you made your claim directly to Peterson and he came back with saying that your interpretation of his words is wrong?

Cheers, :)

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 04, 2018 11:45 PM  

Shawn Hetherington wrote:Vox. seriously, who do you think you're persuading here?
People who aren't mentally ill, semi-brainwashed members of his cult, of course. People like you are too far gone.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts