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

Sunday, May 06, 2018

The cargo cult is going down hard

I suspect Jordan Peterson's cargo cult is going to react very, very angrily once they understand how badly they've been played by their psycho-charlatan false prophet:
You spoke of people thinking you were egotistical, they may have been right. Your whole speech is depressing, and you are unable and just plainly unwilling to say anything genuinely positive about him. You throw out certain things just so people think your being objective but these are not honest. The difference is that Jordan Peterson is honest and people follow him because of that—he is not trying to pull a fast one on anybody. We know he is trying to find truth and is passing those truths he has found. Evidence is him sticking his neck out when defending freedom of speech. He was unwilling to fold although many would have. That’s why the things you say are not believable and honesty it is boring. Difficult to watch. 
I note that this is how Jordan Peterson sticks out his neck "defending" freedom of speech.
QUESTION: I understand that Faith Goldy was removed from the original August panel because of her podcast with the controversial Daily Stormer after Charlottesville.... This strategy appears to parallel the SJWs, who wish to deny platforms to conservative speakers. I want to understand why Faithy Goldy was removed from the event simply for associating with identitarians, and if each of the panelists agree with that decision.

JORDAN PETERSON: That's an excellent question. So, the first thing I should say is that it's not like we're unaware of the irony. Number one. So, [unintelligible] cancelled a panel about the cancellation of panels about free speech. That's irony number one. And then irony number two, the panelists removed a speaker for arguably engaging in the act of free speech. Okay, we got that, believe me.

All right, so why did we come to this decision? I sat down personally - the other people can say what they have to say - I sat down with my son and we went through Faith's interview. I know Faith, I don't believe that she is a reprehensible person. I think that Charlottesville was very shocking to her and I think that she put herself in a very difficult position. And I think some of that was brave, that she went down there to cover it.

However, I listened very carefully to her podcast, the one that got her in trouble. And my sense was that she wasn't, she didn't, she was associating with people whose views she should have questioned. It was her journalistic, um, responsibility to question them. She had to ask at least one hard question. At least one. Three would have been better. You know, and I understand she had to toe a careful line. She was on the podcast, they had invited her on, it's much more difficult than you might think when you're facing people, even when you don't believe them, to be rude enough to challenge them, right? That's not so easy, especially if you're an agreeable person and she is a rather agreeable person.

But I believe she, she failed in her journalistic responsibility. And as a consequence of that, she became too hot a property for us. And not just for us. And, well, that was, that was the reason for the decision. That was, that was my reasoning. So....
This is manifestly not the correct behavior of a principled man or even an honest one. Peterson did something he clearly knew to be wrong, but instead of simply owning up to his obvious failure, he attempted to concoct a ridiculous ex post facto justification to excuse it. He had to know this question was inevitable - he appears to have prepared for it - and yet this was the best that he could manage. If you watch the video, you can even see that Peterson has, he has, a reliable tell that warns you when he's about to say something that he knows is not true, as well as another tell that indicates when he is going to very carefully attempt to cover up the weakness of one of his assertions or rationalizations.

My question is this: according to what theory of human rights or journalism does one's right to free speech rely upon one's correct performance of nonexistent journalistic responsibilities?

This is an excellent example of the incoherence of Jordanetics, where dishonesty, hypocrisy, and moral failure is hidden behind bafflegab and straight-up bullshit.
Why do the whole video talks about what jordan peterson IS rather than what he SAYS??? And things you "learned" are all things you already "knew" but that jordan peterson "should understand". Everything in this video is judging him on the bases of your beliefs, and not an open-minded view of what he thinks. You've learned nothing, you've judged. Also, unsubscribed. You're a narcissist. I don't care if Jordan acts... very intensely. That's called passion and intensity, something voxday clearly doesn't have, this guy makes 1 point every 10 minutes. But anyway, that's not the point. You too judge jordan on superficial details, "how he acts", not the entierty of what he says. Jordan makes so many points, and he says so many things, based mostly on SCIENCE and a lifetime of exprience and practice in psychology, and this guy "destroyed" him based on his beliefs (christianity, what is evil, chaos and hell... in HIS opinion).
I directly and accurately quoted Peterson's book to substantiate each of the 12 things I learned about him. I don't know what more I am supposed to do to speak precisely about the man and his philosophy. Peterson does make lots of points and says lots of things, it is the inherently contradictory and incoherent nature of those points and those statements that illustrates the problem with Peterson's charlatanry.

Labels: , ,

66 Comments:

OpenID markstoval May 06, 2018 6:35 AM  

"This is an excellent example of the incoherence of Jordanetics, where dishonesty, hypocrisy, and moral failure is hidden behind bafflegab and straight-up bullshit."

I totally agree.

Would this not put him squarely in the corner of the left-wing then? I have thought all along that he was really a leftist at heart.

A related question: Vox, do gammas always end up as leftists or are there right-wing gammas also?

Blogger Garuna May 06, 2018 6:36 AM  

Peterson's fans are in total cognitive dissonance.

I sat down WITH MY SON and we went through Faith's interview

An indirect "think of the children" plea. Fucking lame.

Blogger Rocklea Marina May 06, 2018 6:40 AM  

I don't know what more I am supposed to do to speak precisely about the man and his philosophy.

Apparently that's "not an open-minded view of what he thinks."

So...Brain surgery? Let's crack open that noggin and take closer look.

Blogger Stilicho May 06, 2018 6:46 AM  

Petersons defenders do not appear to have any ability to actually defend what the man says and espouses, they simply repeat talking points they've been using against leftist talking points. Like attracts like I suppose.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira May 06, 2018 6:47 AM  

Not that I'm a Faith Goldy fanboy, but that was the episode that shot down any remaining respect I had for Peterson. He couldn't have made it any clearer who and what he is: Sheckle collector.

Blogger tz May 06, 2018 6:52 AM  

Let your yes be yes and no be no, anything more comes from the evil one.

This might be the meme level of survival of the fittest. You could say honestly that if you had Faith Goldy, it would suck out all the air from any rational points as everone would be shrieking about the "Neo-Nazi Sympathizer". But then it would expose the cowardice or duplicity of the organizers, so you had to make her the evildoer, so the excuse of not being a good journalist in a circumstance where she was apparently was a guest was made to be a mortal sin.

Ayn Rand did better moral rationalization when she wanted to commit adultery. But she was an objectivist.

Peterson's survival uber alles truth/virtue/morality said it was easier to throw her under the bus and make up a plausible justification rather than fight for true principle.

Blogger #6277 Hammer May 06, 2018 6:59 AM  

"That's called passion and intensity, something voxday clearly doesn't have" - propagate bullshit, as long as you're doing it passionately you're not wrong.

Blogger tz May 06, 2018 7:05 AM  

@4 that is why it is a cargo cult. They say the talking point magic incantations and go though various ritual motions and actions but don't have any actual morality, virtue, or truth because they reject understanding what those things are.

You mean you flatten a strip of land, build a tower, have someone say words into a box on top and it won't summon an airplane full of cargo?

You can tell fairly quickly if there is a mind/brain beneath rhetoric which might be necessary in the day of the SJW. But I noticed this with libertarians, particularly AnCaps in the cult of Rothbard even as far back as the 1980s when I would go off script and they could only repeat talking points (like "there are alternate routes" was the incantation against Eculidian "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" - the only laws they like less than statutes are the mathematical laws).

Peterson can trounce SJWs, but that is swimming in the shallow end of the pool. But his own incoherent morality of be nice and survive is easily shredded and his arguments and actions easily broken. Being anti-evil doesn't make one pro-good as there are many forms of evil.

(I mentioned Sargon of Akkad who is similarly weak when confronted with a smart opponent).

Blogger #6277 Hammer May 06, 2018 7:07 AM  

Gammas aren't limited to certain political views. Maybe they're more inclined to be leftist, I'm not sure. But see for example lolcow @ThomasWictor displaying classic gamma signs.
https://bradfordcwalker.blogspot.co.za/2018/05/the-fate-of-lolcow-collapse-of.html?m=1

Blogger Al Du Clur May 06, 2018 7:13 AM  

A great example of why Peterson is, in turn, a great example of the careerist who lives by the maxim: good idea boss. He knows that what he is saying is BS but he also knows that if he doesn't say it his career is over as a rebel. Peterson is a moral coward but that is the price one has to pay to be a conservative mainstream opponent as InstapunditInstapundit, Kurt Schlichter and others are well aware.

Blogger Uncle John's Band May 06, 2018 7:14 AM  

"And then irony number two, the panelists removed a speaker for arguably engaging in the act of free speech."

The dishonesty is granular as well. Note the qualifier "arguably." It suggests that there is some debate over whether Goldy engaged in an act of free speech. What else was she doing? One seeming throwaway word that subtly undermines her claim to belong there in the first place.

To him, her freedom may be arguable because, in this case, it required challenging her host's narrative on his platform. He's probably projecting his own fear of confrontation, though ultimately, who cares.

Sometimes the truth is very simple. You cannot stand for free speech and offer up the defense he gave. They contradict. He's a liar.

Blogger Bodo Staron May 06, 2018 7:16 AM  

"Why do the whole video talks about what jordan peterson IS rather than what he SAYS???"

It's fascinating to witness peoples fallacy's directly and in written form.

And whoever came up with Jordanetics, that's some mean, great rhetoric.

PS: I watched some of his videos in the past. He actually makes some good points every once in a while, but then it all get's buried in his craziness. In one of his long lectures he talked about the Tower of Babel and how this should bee seen (I think in connection to the multicultural society and immigration).

He uses an inappropriate amount of words for the content he talks about.

Blogger Rocklea Marina May 06, 2018 7:26 AM  

Here we go...
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/992980526008033281

Embrace the new conservative rainbow. Oy Vey.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 06, 2018 7:33 AM  

He ran the old shtick of a tiny bit of liberation from the authority (lies) of the left and then collects the cash and ultimately in the end sanctions the left as owner of the moral level of conflict.

FTR never bought into this lucky bastard's scam.

Blogger Rick May 06, 2018 7:40 AM  

Boiled it down:

JP defenders now: “But he has good intentions!”

VD: “Does he?”

One of them is innocent.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 06, 2018 7:43 AM  

At least they are critiquing identity politics, conservatives can't get past adjusting their bow ties.

OpenID nhinsnow May 06, 2018 8:14 AM  

He sounds like a bitch, honestly.

--NH

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 06, 2018 8:14 AM  

I can see the tell from the transcript. Especially when you, when you mocked it.

"Ayn Rand did better moral rationalization when she wanted to commit adultery. But she was an objectivist."

See, I hadn't even known that about her at the time, and yet after reading Atlas Shrugged I knew that she was an adultress. Even if your philosophy sort-of justifies something like that, you just don't typically foray into the territory to begin with unless you've got prior involvement.

Blogger tz May 06, 2018 8:19 AM  

You know that even if Faith Goldy asked hard or even pointed questions, they would have just moved the goalposts. She didn't ask hard questions. They weren't hard enough. She didn't follow up and persue things (like Harris did with Peterson on "Truth").

Vox: AAA philosophy, Aristotle, Aurelius, and Aquinas.

Peterson, as gamma: If reality causes bad feelz, reality is wrong.

This is literal magic thinking - per Lewis Abolition where he notes Science and Religion conform man to natre, but magic and technology conform nature to man.

The more intelligent, the more subtle the rationalizations and excuses. Someone who is torturing animals after reading the first chapter will still torture animals, but at least his room will be clean. After reading the last chapter he will pet the cat and "clean up the neighborhood" because he is reducing the chaos caused by feral cats, and having fun doing it.

Blogger tz May 06, 2018 8:29 AM  

@18 Rand, like most Atheist start by severing the main telos from sex - children. Dagny's sexcapades in Atlas Shrugged. Or similar in the Fountainhead. There is only one mother with children in Galt's Gulch, and she is only there because her great mathematician husband is there.

This is where you will always be able to tell the moral relativist. Sex. They will say stealing, cheaing, violence, and even lying is wrong, evil, and not make excuses or say we should be good even when there is no scientific reason to be. But when it comes to sex, anything goes, no matter how unhealthy, bizarre, etc. and it doesn't stop even at pedophilia.

Even the pagans could see the fruitful marriage bed as a sacred temple. That is the one temple that the atheists, secularists, and satanists must throw down.

While there are prudential reasons not to have as many children as physically possible, usually the reason is rationalization of selfishness - they really want a new car or some toy rather than a child. The wife needs to grow in her career. But sex and marriage are rights! So instead of putting off marriage until they are ready for having children, they put off having the children.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 06, 2018 8:41 AM  

There is a balance to be found even between self and children, too much for the children and you'll burn out and the feedback will hit them anyway.

That being said, before that point the correct answer is generally going to be "more children".

But yes, if you look deep into an Atheist's motivations, you'll pretty much always find some sort of hedonistic addiction there. They don't believe in any form of eternal life beyond perhaps some potential/mirage transhumanistic mutilation, so children are always going to count as a loss in their books, as does properly raising them.

In the vanishingly few cases where there doesn't seem to be hedonism, I take it as a false positive pattern recognition from when their parents told them that they were an accident, and they then extrapolated that onto any potential higher order progenitors.

Blogger Unknown May 06, 2018 8:50 AM  

are there right-wing gammas also?

Absolutely. They're the ones crying 'gamma', 'shill', 'troll', 'shitlib', 'cuck' or other such toothless epithet whenever someone says something that challenges their belief in their own self-relevance. Also those who think online bullying is an alpha move.

Blogger Rick May 06, 2018 8:56 AM  

Convincing some that their selfishness is wrong is a nonstarter although true. A better argument is the fundamental invaluable nature of motherhood. It was the devaluing of that occupation which started it all.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 06, 2018 8:58 AM  

If they were exaggerating or lying that would be correct, Unknown, you gamma troll.

Yeah, there are, because it's a pattern of behavior.

Alphas can suddenly be gammas when placed in a particular setting.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 06, 2018 9:01 AM  

"A better argument is the fundamental invaluable nature of motherhood. It was the devaluing of that occupation which started it all."

Depends on who you're dealing with. If it's someone who's already rejected moving for that carrot, only application of the stick will suffice.

Blogger VD May 06, 2018 9:10 AM  

Vox, do gammas always end up as leftists or are there right-wing gammas also?

There are no shortage of right-wing gammas, but due to the intrinsic dishonesty required to be a leftist, the majority of gammas naturally gravitate to the Left.

I am increasingly uninterested in the Left-Right spectrum and more reliant upon the False-True spectrum.

Blogger James May 06, 2018 9:11 AM  

"I suspect Jordan Peterson's cargo cult is going to react very, very angrily once they understand how badly they've been played by their psycho-charlatan false prophet:"

Maybe some. But, as your thread about fans shows, people want their gods. You'll probably receive more negative blowback than JP. As Voltaire supposedly said, "It is difficult to free fools from the chains that they revere".

Blogger Mr. Deficient May 06, 2018 9:12 AM  

I had a thought with regards to Peterson's place of things vs place of action. It is only with Christianity where you have an appropriate balance (similar to how only religion balances the individual with society). You either get extreme individualism or tyranny. Likewise, you get either rejection of the science logic etc as a form of truth (Peterson) or it becomes all there is and we are just robots with no morality.

Blogger Cary May 06, 2018 9:12 AM  

One thing I haven't seen mention of is JBP's self authoring material. Is anyone familiar with it?

When I heard about them on Molyneux's show, I figured they were mostly about examining your past to figure out why you had made certain decisions. But after studying his beliefs more closely, I'm wondering if they might actually be detrimental for his followers to use.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 06, 2018 9:13 AM  

"As Voltaire supposedly said"

Say no more.

Blogger Pale Male May 06, 2018 9:16 AM  

Rocklea Marina wrote:So...Brain surgery? Let's crack open that noggin and take closer look.
Apropos.

OpenID crapulux May 06, 2018 9:47 AM  

Yesterday I hiked into the woods.

In the middle of the night, something crawling against my leg woke me up. I had acquired a pet tick! I caught it before it could bite, and put it in a jar for further study.

At this point I reflected that this tiny (yet vicious) animal was very much like some of my leftist buddies. At some point, it will need to suck my blood, not because it wants to, but because it is its nature.

And I will have only two options, cuck it out, bend over and let it sink its fangs into my balls, or offer the poor creature a helicopter ride, as our Chilean friends say...

I guess most of the cognitive dissonance among our cuckservatives and lefty friends comes from people thinking they have other options like "appease" the SJWs or "we can still be friends in the end" or "magic dirt can really change the nature of someone"...

Who needs 12 rules? "Never trust a liberal" is enough ;)


OpenID k-h-z May 06, 2018 9:49 AM  

Apologies if this has been posted in one of the threads already. It will be of interest to some, though I doubt it will be of use to Vox (it's a vid, just for starters).

But it's interesting to see a philosophical critique of JBP's worldview from a hard right and Christian perspective, from three months ago. It was void of cruelty, and from a cursory glance it provoked the familiar fan reaction in the comments.

The comments are also reassuring; the cult has not snatched everyone yet.

Jay Dyer - Jordan Peterson Critiqued: Classical Liberal Incoherence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXduQlaU-Mg

Blogger Quilp May 06, 2018 9:51 AM  

Great work on, on well the the tells., and how very carefully he consciously works to gloss of conclusions that seem to come out of thin air.

"Peterson does make lots of points and says lots of things, it is the inherently contradictory and incoherent nature of those points and those statements that illustrates the problem with Peterson's charlatanry." Bingo.

Blogger VD May 06, 2018 10:05 AM  

You'll probably receive more negative blowback than JP.

Fine by me. I don't like fools or gammas, and I would certainly welcome rejection from the gamma fool crowd.

Blogger Dave May 06, 2018 10:11 AM  

Jordanetics

Oh, nicely done...Wodek and his crew are in need of the perfect catchphrase for the Canadian Dr. Phil, but alas, the search must continue.

Did you know Dr. Phil was the highest-paid TV host in 2016 taking home $88M as his highest-ever total at the time due to a sizable cut of profits from the Dr. Phil Show? Obviously the producers and the network are raking it in too.
---

Vox, is Posobiec still a CH author? He was tweeting from the Peterson show in DC this weekend. Although, perhaps it was mainly at his wife's urging.

Blogger VD May 06, 2018 10:20 AM  

Vox, is Posobiec still a CH author?

Yes, certainly.

Blogger Avalanche May 06, 2018 10:24 AM  

@29 "JBP's self authoring material. Is anyone familiar with it?
I'm wondering if they might actually be detrimental for his followers to use."

I'll let yah know when I finish doing it.

Just started (doing the "past"; I'm looking forward to what I find for "future"), and it was interesting trying to pick "formative"(?) instances to write about -- you only get, like, six on the site. I was quite surprised to find, after I had answered (with the first things that came up during the half-hour I spent) -- that over the next few days I kept SMFH: "HOW could I have not thought about this one or that one?" So, at some point,I will go back and replace some 'lesser' ones with the bigger ones.

I do intend to finish, because "the unexamined life is not worth living"... (ha.)

Blogger Avalanche May 06, 2018 10:27 AM  

@31 "Brain surgery? Let's crack open that noggin and take closer look.
Apropos."

Also, but not for the faint of viewing: 5 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xuBRBw2_is

S'pose the "closer look" wouldn't be worth much...

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums May 06, 2018 10:30 AM  

Regarding Faith Goldy.

This should've been a major red flag for everyone that the guy is a snake. The key factor in the Faith Goldy affair is that Peterson not only went out and demonized her in the "free speech" talk but also on Joe Rogan's podcast over the basis that she didn't ask "enough" hard hitting questions. What that snake didn't mention was that Faith Goldy WAS THE ONE BEING INTERVIEWED. How is she supposed to ask hard-hitting question when she was specifically invited on to answer questions?

Oh, and using "irony" when he knows for a fact that the proper word is "hypocrisy"... very sneaky.

And as a side rant, you'll notice Peterson uses the word "enough" every time he's going for a double standard or is flat-out lying. "Trump didn't condemn the acts in Charlottesville ENOUGH", "Faith Goldy didn't ask ENOUGH hard-hitting questions", "Whether something is true is not the question, the question should be is it true ENOUGH?"

It's the absolute weasel-word and I can't believe nobody called him on it yet.

Blogger L' Aristokrato May 06, 2018 10:31 AM  

Ahem...

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. The philosophy is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of metaphysics, most of the points will go over a typical listener's head. There's also Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's mythological outlook, which is deftly woven into his talks - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these lectures, to realize that they're not merely intellectual- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Dr. Jordan B. Perterson truly ARE idiots- of course, they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the profundity in Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's existential catchphrase "Clean your room," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dr. Peterson's genius unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, I DO have a Dr. Jordan B. Peterson tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

Blogger VD May 06, 2018 10:40 AM  

What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, I DO have a Dr. Jordan B. Peterson tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

You are indeed an impressive gentleman and intellectual of indubitable taste, sir! May I ask your exceedingly well-educated opinion on women in possession of excessively pointy elbows?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 06, 2018 10:42 AM  

You forgot to /sarc, bro.

Blogger L' Aristokrato May 06, 2018 10:43 AM  



What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, I DO have a Dr. Jordan B. Peterson tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

You are indeed an impressive gentleman and intellectual of indubitable taste, sir! May I ask your exceedingly well-educated opinion on women in possession of excessively pointy elbows?

2/10! Only tolerable if they listen to Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, and watch Rick and Morty.

Blogger Dave May 06, 2018 10:52 AM  

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's existential catchphrase "Clean your room,"

That really sucks as a catchphrase, Jordanetics wins hands down over clean your room. And most millennials are tired of hearing clean your room everyday from their mothers.

Blogger Justin Faust May 06, 2018 10:57 AM  

Thank you Vox. It's been so informative! I'm pleased when I read something Jordan said in a video dissected like this. I felt a bit annoyed with his position on Faith when I first watched that video, but I couldn't place my finger on what it was that frustrated me.

JBP Weapons-Grade Bullshit

Blogger S. Misanthrope May 06, 2018 10:58 AM  

The way he phrased this answer on Joe Rogan was even worse. Other people were mad at Faith and he *very carefully* and *for a long time* thought about why, and the why was that she didn’t challenge the beliefs of the podcast hosts. Brett Weinstein even gave an example of good journalism requiring you to merely observe not question

Blogger S. Misanthrope May 06, 2018 10:59 AM  

but JP was clearly just backing into a reason to agree with the anti-Faith mob.

Blogger Nathan May 06, 2018 11:01 AM  

I think your most weakly defended point of the 12 is that "Jordan Peterson doesn't understand Chaos". Your description of chaos as disorder and his description of chaos as when something unexpected happens overlaps when it comes to confusion of mental categories upon the appearance of new data. His example of finding our your spouse has cheated on you is a good example. You categorize your spouse as faithful and honest, her unexpectedly cheating throws you into chaos, or the need to reorder broken models of the world.

I think your point is correct though, and is important. There is something about how he depicts Chaos as essential to life that is related to his leftism, anti-God, anti-order philosophy. But I don't know how to articulate it.

Blogger VD May 06, 2018 11:07 AM  

I think your most weakly defended point of the 12 is that "Jordan Peterson doesn't understand Chaos". Your description of chaos as disorder and his description of chaos as when something unexpected happens overlaps when it comes to confusion of mental categories upon the appearance of new data.

Very well, then I will make a more comprehensive case on chaos when the time comes.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook May 06, 2018 11:09 AM  

Before/When eating Mexican food = order

After eating Mexican food= chaos

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 06, 2018 11:12 AM  

Jordanetics.


That’s just never going to wash out.

Blogger tuberman May 06, 2018 11:32 AM  

Someone may have stated it already, but when will the talk between VD and AJ come about on Jordan and Bennie? Expect Alex to butt in and talk over constantly, obviously. Will be good though.

Blogger Cecil Henry May 06, 2018 11:53 AM  

@45:

'Judeo Peterson' is becoming more compelling all the time.

Unfortunately, it fits.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz May 06, 2018 12:02 PM  

This was the final nail against Peterson, at least for me. I has begun to think he was slimy just before this incident and I have since been vindicated. It wasn't even the hypocrisy of dis-inviting an invited speaker to a "free speech" event, it was that he knew it was wrong and did it anyway. He said he didn't think Goldy was reprehensible, but rather that she had made poor choices.

What he did can be fairly reworded into 'I know she's not what the media is calling her and I don't think she's a bad person, but I'll go ahead and throw her under the bus anway. After all, I am making over $60k a month in those, sweet-sweet Patrion BUX!'

Blogger Miguel May 06, 2018 12:27 PM  

Jordanites wont leave you alone, VD. But,as you correctly stated in the video, Jordan will soon betray them, which means that tbey wont be Jordanites for long

Blogger pdwalker May 06, 2018 2:09 PM  

@Miguel, if ”Jordanetics” is going to be used (and it is because it’s fine rhetoric) then Jordanites are properly called “Jordonologists”

Blogger Mr. Deficient May 06, 2018 2:36 PM  

@45 that article jumps to some conclusions. If you've ever seen a "life turn around" story, it usually has to do with higher IQ people fixing the things holding them back, which is what self authoring does (its really similar to Tony Robbins to be honest).

The biggest concern is when he claimed it narrowed the achievement gap between ethnic minorities and native Dutch college students.

Blogger tublecane May 06, 2018 5:11 PM  

@29- At least Rand is presenting Truth with her anti-social, possibly sociopathic, libidinous protagonists. Dagny Taggart exemplifies female hypergamy. She's always taken by the most alpha male in her proximity.m, be it Francisco, Hank, or the apex hunk Galt.

Blogger tublecane May 06, 2018 5:15 PM  

@41- It's actually more the opposite. You'll appreciate Peterson more the less you know.

His fans are like to say such things as: "Wow, never heard of this Dostoyevsky guy before. Sounds interesting, thanks."

Blogger tublecane May 06, 2018 5:19 PM  

@49- I can see finding out your spouse has been unfaithful as jolting and disordering. But most people have it in mind as a possibility, and plenty have had faith broken in the past. Not everyone goes into existential crisis over such bad things happening to them.

Blogger tublecane May 06, 2018 5:48 PM  

About Petersonian tells, everyone has noticed his interminable pauses. I might find them an endearing quirk, but they too often occur directly after some threat or disruption to his system has arisen.

For instance, in the Harris interview he can't answer Harris's hypothetical about a man's suicide over the mistaken belief that his wife has committed adultery. This was deliberately designed--and designed well--to trip up Petersonian pragmatism. And trip him up it did.

After what feels like a half hour of silence, Peterson's wriggles out of the hangman's noose with irrelevant quibbling. Like a man who happens to be losing a chess match arguing over the unfairness of the rules governing how a knight moves. Harris lets him go I think because he assumes that Peterson cannot believe what he appears to believe, and there's simply not enough time to make him admit it.

I notice Peterson also strategically concedes fatal hits to his system by saying they're merely micro-level problems. One or two or dozens of levels up, somehow your objection will answered, whatever it may be. On the macro level Peterson is always right, no matter how many micro-contradictions you can discover.

Related to this is how he's always talking about "nesting." Like those Russian nesting dolls, I suppose. Scientific truth is nested within moral truth. And whenever anything Peterson doesn't care for appears to be true, I suppose it's "nested" within some bigger truth which makes it false.

What do we call this formulation? Level-jumping? It's an intellectual shell game, or maybe just run-of-the-mill goalpost shifting.

Others have noticed his use of "irony," which popped out at me, too. Because what he describes as ironic is not actually irony.

What you can't get from transcripts is his inappropriate and awkward laughter. It comes up when he's nervous, I suppose, and I think is a sign of B.S.

Blogger kudzu bob May 06, 2018 7:14 PM  

Peterson claims it was Faith Goldy's journalistic responsibility to question the views of the other people on the podcast, but that is a stupid lie. She was merely a guest. She was there to answer questions, not to ask them.

Blogger idprism May 07, 2018 12:08 AM  

L' Aristokrato wrote:Ahem...

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. The philosophy is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of metaphysics, most of the points will go over a typical listener's head. ... I DO have a Dr. Jordan B. Peterson tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.


I can't believe you went there, Aristokrato, but it was pretty amusing. Well played old meme.

I think it is pretty interesting to see 2 different communication problems overlapping in this domain. The 3sd communication gap and the dialectic/rhetoric gap seem to interact in a strange way on this topic; especially with the justification that's happening in the minds of the broken to avoid the dissonance you present about their New Daddy.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2018 12:19 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit May 08, 2018 12:34 PM  

I'm an admirer of Jordan Peterson, who also appreciates both his writings and what I've viewed.

Vox Day is wrong about the current value of Mr. Peterson's work. He is not wrong to challenge it. The very good thing that goes bad is more dangerous than the mediocre thing. And Peterson's foundations are on sand.

Only time will tell whether Vox Day is wrong about the man. I'm betting that he is, because many good Christians are praying for him.


It is, however, an astonishment to me that anyone would claim that Vox Day is condemning Jordan Peterson out of envy. If there is any vice involved (I am not a mind reader: IF) it would be overweening pride.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts