Categories
alt-right cringe culty jordan "slappy" peterson men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed white men racism

Jordan Peterson superfan asks fellow cultists how to “effectively converse” in the manner of a human being

Jordan “Slappy” Peterson: Bla bla bla blablabla

By David Futrelle

I think I may have found the Jordan Peterson-est post in the Jordan Peterson subreddit so far.

I dunno, dude, maybe DON’T TALK LIKE THAT.

But yabha — clearly besotted with the pompous, reactionary, slap-happy Canadian academic who has become staggeringly popular amongst Men’s Rights Activists, alt-rightists and other terrible men —  continues on in this vein, attempting to ask his fellow Petersonheads how he can rebut people who point out that Peterson’s admonition to “clean your room” doesn’t help much if you’re too poor to have a room.

Except he puts it like this:

Oversimplifying here, but there are 2 apparently conflicting models of the world: one in which identity politics is a distraction from individual responsibility, and another in which issues of identity preclude individuals from effective action, and need to be solved before embarking on any projects of the self.

A common reaction to the clean your room directive is that one needs to ensure they have equitable access to a room in the first place.

Can you share some examples of effective discourse with individuals that subscribe to issues of identity (race, gender, sexual preferences, etc.)?

Dude, just because you love Jordan Peterson, you don’t have to try to be as pompously incomprehensible as he so often is.

Some of those who attempted to answer yabha’s convoluted query were a bit blunter than he was.

Clean your room is a metaphor for focusing on your individual life [rather] than on others,” wrote AmazonExplorer.

So for the homeless person in need of a room, the advice of “cleaning their room” is exactly what they need. Perhaps instead of wishing for a communist utopia, they need to drop that heroin addiction that destroyed their life in the first place, maybe try to land a job, learn some skills.

(Hey, I said they were blunter; I didn’t say they were convincing.)

Another noted with some puzzlement that “everytime I engage in these conversations I end up being accused of bigotry.”

Gosh, why would anyone accuse you of bigotry when you claim that poverty is the result of individual failings and has nothing to do with centuries of, you know, racism and structural inequality?

But I digress. Others answered yabha’s question in language that was nearly as pompous and muddled as his. One commenter started off a vast wall-o-text with this:

I think there are more than the two modes you describe and the space between the two is where you will begin to find the ground upon which discussions are possible. There are many between the two perspectives who both, at the same time, understand that individual responsibility is paramount within our own lives, and that there are truths to be understood when assessing the role that identity plays at the levels of control beyond mere individuals.

Dude, you could have just said: That’s a false dichotomy. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Amazingly. one commenter actually called out yabha for his pomposity.

“[H]ave you always written so formal, maybe even Peterson-esque?” wondered someone called TheOwlInTheTower.

It is definitely not a normal conversational style, more along the lines of the kind of language used in a published academic work. I am sorry if this question makes you uncomfortable, being analyzed isn’t too much fun. I just noticed that there are followers who emulate Jordan Peterson and I feel like some of those people in a way have assumed and defend an “identity”.

Woah.

Alas, TheOwlInTheTower didn’t take this any further, and began backtracking a little in the very next sentence:

I can definitely understand though, that if someone really moves a person in a certain way that they might find comfort and strength in emulating the person who gives them that rock.

That’s a big backtrack. But I still wonder if it’s only a matter of time before Mr. Owl gets thrown out of the cult.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bina
2 years ago

BTW, speaking of pwned: here’s some incredibly fun video of Sam Seder tearing Peterson’s stupidities to shreds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jHCIfDOuXk

I may download that so I can chuckle over it again another time.

Of course, the trolls on this video are all up in arms because Sam “didn’t debate” him, he just ripped up a clip of him on Bill Fucking Maher’s show. As though there was anything there to debate; like I said, he’s long on bafflegab and short on actual smart things to say. Debating him would be like wrestling a bowl of jello with bits of limp fruit in it; you could win quite easily, but what would be the point? A battle of wits with an unarmed man is no fun.

Dalillama
Dalillama
2 years ago

Actually, it’s virtually impossible to meaningfully win those debates; the Petersons of the world can spew bullshit faster than anyone can refute it, interrupt, etc. and in the end they end up with lots of ‘unaddressed’ points. That’s why experienced opponents just won’t do it anymore.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

Ah, the infamous “Gish Gallop”. A go-to tactic of right wing worglesnots everywhere.

Lumipuna (nee Arctic Ape)
Lumipuna (nee Arctic Ape)
2 years ago

If Peterson’s ideas need to be discussed in person with him, why does he bother to publish anything?

EJ (The Other One)
2 years ago

Actually, it’s virtually impossible to meaningfully win those debates; the Petersons of the world can spew bullshit faster than anyone can refute it, interrupt, etc. and in the end they end up with lots of ‘unaddressed’ points. That’s why experienced opponents just won’t do it anymore.

It’s worth pointing out that in competitive debating circles, this isn’t just what weird right-wing people do: the Gish Gallop is pretty universal. If all you care about is winning or losing a debate, and have no attachment to the truth values of the topic at hand, then it’s the right move to make. Sophistry is a better way to win than being right is.

Some people rail against this, and while I respect their intentions, I must disagree with them. The problem is that formal competitive debate basically doesn’t work as a method for evaluating truth, any more than arm wrestling does.

So what should we use instead? In my field, recourse to academic consensus is a pretty good method; it has its flaws and is exclusionary, but usually gives a good truth value. I don’t know what it’s like in other fields.

Dalillama
Dalillama
2 years ago

If all you care about is winning or losing a debate, and have no attachment to the truth values of the topic at hand

Then you are one of the Jordan Petersons of the world, an enemy of truth and intellectual honesty.

idli sambar revolution
idli sambar revolution
2 years ago

Speaking of “truth values” did any here see the “debate” between Sam Harris and Peterson on “What is Truth”?

mary ellen
2 years ago

Delightful!