Worst. Pickup. Line. Ever. (Courtesy of Jordan Peterson)

@London Pilgrim

Tell me, “traditionalist”: What is your opinion on “smart sperm”?

@London Pilgrim,

Pardon me while I wend loquacious.

Why not let them read it? If he is as wrong as you say then he will discredit himself.

Last I checked it was still legal to read Peterson’s work. You conflate mockery and censure.

No one here thinks that stupid, disagreeable books should be banned. We’re just upset that his brand of hateful wrongness is popular.

And yes, he’s wrong and hateful. He’s wrong – he relies on Jungian psychology for his theories, as one example, and Jung’s work has been discredited as deeply, deeply wrong for a very long time now. He’s hateful, because he knows he’s wrong and doesn’t care; he wants to prop up hate more than he wants truth. He’s a trained psychologist, he knows Jung is garbage – every undergraduate in his field knows that. He’s so in love with his superiority that he’s happy to bulldoze the lives of others to ensure it.

Just like you. I took a browse through your blog, your faff about the Byronic romanticism of the Dark Enlightenment is so stuffed full with smug surety that it leaves you blind to the combinatorial wrongness in your premises. You’re more in love with your pretty ideas than you are interested in whether they’re true.

I’ve read it before, though, the last time you were here. You haven’t added anything to it since then. Beat on the drum once and that was enough for you, I guess? Content to sit on the laurels of your eloquence? You’ve mashed them flat and wilted under your restful ass, and you do disgrace to the fair city you preen on about.

You’re wrong. Do better.

@Virgin Mary

No, I haven’t read it myself. I thought about hate-reading it for amusement but it’s still just too popular right now and would probably take months to get. I suppose I could grab it if I see it on the shelf but tbh it’s pretty long and I don’t know if I could stomach that much of Peterson’s tedious writing style(I also prefer audiobooks and he reads his own which means alternatively I’d have to listen to his horrible depressed kermit voice for hours) It appears to be “psychology” based self-help book mostly, with advice like “clean your room” and shit like that. I know Peterson is very tricky and careful not to come out and say things like “women are all sluts” or “I hate trans people,” but instead offers lots of vapid philosophical life advice, which these Incel/MRA guys just eat up. And, something about how lobsters have natural hierarchies?

Anyway here is the blurb:

“What does everyone in the modern world need to know? Renowned psychologist Jordan B. Peterson’s answer to this most difficult of questions uniquely combines the hard-won truths of ancient tradition with the stunning revelations of cutting-edge scientific research.

Humorous, surprising and informative, Dr. Peterson tells us why skateboarding boys and girls must be left alone, what terrible fate awaits those who criticize too easily, and why you should always pet a cat when you meet one on the street.
What does the nervous system of the lowly lobster have to tell us about standing up straight (with our shoulders back) and about success in life? Why did ancient Egyptians worship the capacity to pay careful attention as the highest of gods? What dreadful paths do people tread when they become resentful, arrogant and vengeful? Dr. Peterson journeys broadly, discussing discipline, freedom, adventure and responsibility, distilling the world’s wisdom into 12 practical and profound rules for life. 12 Rules for Life shatters the modern commonplaces of science, faith and human nature, while transforming and ennobling the mind and spirit of its readers.”

(Honestly, all I can think of when I read the description that is the Simpsons town motto: “a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man”)

@Shadowplay
Nah, that’s wrong, too. You should always offer pets to cats, but if they aren’t into it, you nod at them and continue on your way.

From @calmdown’s post (12 Rules blurb)

What dreadful paths do people tread when they become resentful, arrogant and vengeful?

Dreadful paths? Like recommending a meat-only diet as a cure for depression?
Or climate change denialism?
Being so thin-skinned that you can’t handle even the mildest criticism?
Demonstrating on a daily basis that you don’t understand history, or science, or even your own discipline of psychology?
Pretending that being asked to use preferred pronouns is akin to torture?
Blaming women for men’s murderous rage?

Help me, I can’t stop….

@ calmdown,

“Honestly, all I can think of when I read the description that is the Simpsons town motto: “a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man” ”

That’s a perfectly cromulent assessment!

Oh a “traditionalist” popped up here? I don’t understand what’s stopping people from living that way. Well, the present economy is a hindrance to some, others just choose not to.

And I think all lifestyles should be seen as valid, rather than trying to force everyone to be “traditional”, that doesn’t work for a lot of people for various reasons.

As example: my friends and I were discussing real estate. I have this piece of vacant land I need to get rid of. Would it work for everyone? No. Lobsters would not want to live there since it’s out in the middle of the desert.

May God forgive me. May history judge me charitably. I found the Tumblr post of which the Alpha Lobster’s tweet reminded me:

afrovegan (Deactivated)

Ever see a couple that’s been together for a while and they look the same ? They could be different races but still have a strong resemblance like family ? Here’s why . During sex when a man ejaculates . His sperm or DNA is uploaded . And a female downloads it in the form of love . The more she opens up to him and her defenses fall the more data she’s able to download. So in reality fellas we are the ones giving BRAIN . How ? Sperm has cerebral spinal fluid . Or (Brain,Spine,Fluid) . It starts in the brain then is sent down the spine and turned into fluid . When women download the data it’s not just kids in the sperm . It’s your thoughts and feelings as well . That’s also how women have this Connection to the men they have been with for a while . She doesn’t have to be with you or around you, and could call you as another woman is thinking about approaching you Or can tell when something isn’t right . They call it an intuition . But It’s a mental connection . The woman basically becomes a mini version of the man by taking take on personality traits as well . That’s why it’s important for females to choose their partner carefully .

I wound up having to google “sperm download brain spine”, because I got much further down in my “dear god” “yes my {son;child}?” “i would like to file a bug report” tag chain than I thought it was. Or maybe I just had better sense than to reblog it in the first place.

What dreadful paths do people tread when they become resentful, arrogant and vengeful?

They become his followers.

I have this piece of vacant land I need to get rid of. Would it work for everyone? No. Lobsters would not want to live there since it’s out in the middle of the desert.

My mom has one of those as well – vacant desert land (in Paramph, Nevada) they bought before I was even born. No one wants to buy it, the town doesn’t even want it back. She thought about not paying her taxes so they’d have to take it back, since we aren’t even in the same country.

I am not sure why finding value in free speech makes me a ‘traditionalist. I wish free speech as the tradition throughout the world. In fact it is quite radical in many places.

Seriously, though. Why not make a case against what he says and in favour of something better? We have seen insults, threats and one woman who broke into his lecture hall with a garrotte, presumably with murder on her mind.

Just tell us where he is wrong.

@Nequam

Really a shame about Shermer. I still think his essay on where Objectivism went wrong (“The Unlikeliest Cult in History”) is excellent.

I might actually like to read that. Watching right-libertarians try to differentiate themselves from Randists can be hilarious sometimes.

@ Richard Ford

Just tell us where he is wrong

Lobsterman’s hypothesis:

Observation: There are men who hate women so much they want to, and in some cases do, kill them.

Solution: Women should be forced into sexual relationships with such men in the hope that might placate them.

Why not make a case against what he says and in favour of something better

Rebuttal: That puts the onus on the victims to capitulate to their attackers.

Better solution: Put the onus and societal pressure on the attackers so as to modify their behaviour instead. If behaviour does not change, then neutralise ability of attackers to do harm.

@ Robert Ford

said no such thing

I’m afraid I would have to differ.

He simply observed what is obvious to all honest minded persons- that having angry disenfrancised men is not a recipe for peace.

He went beyond mere observation though; he proposed a course of action.

“The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”

Enforced and Monogamy are words with pretty clear definitions.

Monogamy – the practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.

Enforce – Compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation)

So he is advocating compulsion; heck ‘force’ is hardly a word that’s in any way ambiguous.

Now he’s not very coherent or consistent. So he’s simultaneously arguing that women need to be compelled; but also that that’s what happens ‘naturally’ anyway.

Although that then begs the question as to, if his proposed solution is already in place, then why does the problem still exist?

So I’m not quite sure how it can be suggested I’m misinterpreting him. Those are his own words after all; and one might expect a man of his learned credentials to know what words mean.

Ok I have read all the comments but have still missed what the joke was?