By David Futrelle
In addition to being terrible, Canadian fussbudget paleothinker Jordan Peterson is just plain fucking weird, especially when it comes to his diet. You’ve probably heard about his all-meat diet ( The Atlantic goes into great detail about it here).
But have you heard what happens when he drinks apple cider? In the video below, he tells Joe Rogan that when he drank apple cider after going on his all-meat diet it “produced an overwhelming sense of impending doom” and kept him awake for 25 days.
As in, literally no sleep for a month. Which is literally impossible. While one young Frenchman with a rare disorder managed to survive on only a few minutes of sleep a night for several months, no one has ever gone completely without sleep for 25 days in the history of our species; that’s more than twice the world record. Which you’d think that Peterson, as a professor of psychology, would know.
Anyway, the video (below) is only a minute and a half, and it will CHANGE YOUR LIFE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfoKwQ2Cw6A
Cool. Glad I tried to help.
Tens of minutes walk away *is* my daily life, so I guess I’m just not seeing the problem. Sorry I could provide you a magic spell over the internet to over come bureaucracy.
I don’t think I’ll be answering any more of your questions.
@Dvärghundspossen
Ah, yeah, sounds like a straight-up dogwhistling bigot. Much like the bullies in my elementary school who know exactly what to do and say, depending on who is or isn’t present. Every sentence is carefully crafted to portray subtle, yet unprovable, messages of malice and hate.
Yeah there’s nothing whatsoever I can imagine one could say to people like that. Probably easier to convince a lizard people believer of the error in their beliefs. The only thing that really works is to do as David himself does and point out the direct connections to more overt toxic elements in the terf community.
In that particular instance, though, there’s really no justification for reclassifying (which is dogwhistle for invalidating obvs) trans* people other than for bigoted reasons, so any reason they should bring up would be easily debunked, other than the flimsy “just because” or appeal-to-nature fallacy, etc which are all just illogical and/or pointless.
The problem is that this whole procedure assumes that everyone has one of: a) a dense-city living address; b) a car; c) a desktop computer with printer; d) the capability to walk those kinds of distances and is two or three km from the nearest Staples rather than 20 or 30; or e). a high enough income they’re not eligible anyway.
The reality is that there will be people who fall into none of those categories. What if I were at 652 North Rural Lane, Northern Ontario, and over 20 km from the nearest town with so much as a post office? What if I were wheelchair-bound, or walked with a cane and couldn’t go much farther on foot than a block or two? I’d need to spend tens of bucks on a taxi or hundreds on a Greyhound depending on the distance then. This does not seem reasonable to demand of people applying for an assistance program for low-income citizens.
Their procedure is quite simply badly designed given its intended purpose. It should provide two options: all-electronic and all-paper-mail. The latter should include sending all the needed forms plus a prepaid return envelope. Most of the other government paperwork things do either the latter or both; I see no legitimate reason for this one to be different. Frankly, I see no legitimate reason for it to be separate from filling out one’s regular taxes and receiving GST and HST rebates. The hydro rebate should be part of the same process as the tax rebates, IMO.
Also, I’d like to emphasize, since this seems somehow to not have been clear to some people, all of my ire in this matter is directed toward the bureaucracy; I bear no animosity toward anyone here. That you have been unable to be of much help is not anyone’s fault but the government of Ontario’s, between this clusterfuck of a procedure of theirs and their failure to provide for adequate province-wide access to public transit.
In any event, I think I’ve got this thing dealt with finally, by a method not totally dissimilar from Rhuu’s suggestion, though I am not counting my chickens before they’ve hatched. Bureaucracies have a seemingly limitless capacity to randomly fuck things up and then blame the user for it — rather like computers, when you think about it. And if they’re going to fuck anyone’s application up mine will be one of them, because I always get the worst outcome possible from things like that.
Bak to the OP, this just occurred to me: supposing JP’s new diet gave him colon cancer and he died from it in six months. What would his supporters do? Would they insist it was all some brilliant plan of his or something?
He’ll be resurrected as Lobster the White, ride his noble steed, Assfax into battle and save Middle Earth!
Free speech. You have it because of giants like Peterson. He, unlike you, demands it for everyone.
It is of little surprise to a thinking person that people who have trouble with the basic notion of Mother Nature’s design would equate the pushback against mandated speech based on a skewed idea of gender dysphoria with hate. It was ever thus from the usual suspects in the culture wars. That which they are guilty of they assign to their opposites.
Nice try, though.?
Peterson supporters always seem to write in his same bloviating style
@ (also) Alan
I’d like to do a proper response; but before I do, could I trouble you to say whether you believe there should be any limits on free speech, or whether you believe it’s an absolute? That would help establish the parameters of the discussion. Thanks.
Oh god it’s a Peterson fan!
I’ve been waiting so long for you!
Mm, Free Speech. Like, legit, a very interesting topic of discussion. I’m gonna second @Alan (majoris) in asking you to define the boundaries of free speech, please.
Tell me, tenured philosopherian, how can absolute universal free speech exist in a world which has coersion? Your ideal of “Everyone has maximum free speech all the time forever!” can’t exist – it becomes a tyranny of the loudest.
You can see a great real-world example of this in American politics. The courts have asserted that people can spend basically unlimited money in politics (through channels such as Super-PACs), claiming it’s free speech at work. And now it turns out that the people who control the US government are the people who can spend the most money – they can shout louder.
Tell me, @Alan (minoris), how do you square that particular circle?
Sweet fancy moses, son, put away the participles and store the modifiers. Say what you mean, and be clear about it. Like, I have edited for science journals, and I’m well used to reading the circuitous rambling of someone padding for their 10k words. But you aren’t being graded for length here, you’re being graded for clarity.
You can always tell when someone has nothing to say but really wants to convince you. Evidence prior.
So you’re saying “It’s no wonder you dummies misunderstand him. Your perceptions on gender dysphoria are so skewed that you support people who claim to have it instead of refusing to acknowledge it” ? ‘Cause that’s what that reads like to me.
Do I really have to point out how “refusing to acknowledge a deeply-felt conviction” is hateful? No one here would argue with that, and I get the impression that you won’t agree no matter what I say. What’s the standard I need to get to for you to agree with me here?
Eagerly awaiting your reply,
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
xoxoxo
Dies laughing
I for one have no desire to suppress Weirdo Peterson’s freeze peach. I’m having too much fun laughing at him.
@sarah_kay_gee, i have said it before and gotta say it again, every time I see your avocado avatar I get the giggles. it’s so good 😀
@Alan (not the known raccoon sympathizer)
Funny, I thought I had free speech thanks to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under which, true, there are reasonable limits set to my freedom of speech, but which Peterson had nothing to do with.
I’m catching a distinct whiff of seagull.
I can only assume that you are speaking of some other person named Peterson. You’re certainly not talking about Jordan Peterson, a man who sued a university because he didn’t like what was being said about him. I can’t imagine being much more opposed to free speech than suing people simply for stating their opinions…
https://globalnews.ca/news/4287272/jordan-peterson-sues-wilfrid-laurier-for-defamation-following-ta-case/
@Alan
Well, we do have trouble with it, Alan, because it’s a basic logical fallacy. Please explain to us how Mother Nature is a sentient entity who intentionally designs things. Does she have a drafting table? Is she done designing, or still tinkering?
While you’re at it, please also explain to us how Mother Nature is infallible. Explain how gender roles from X Million BC are forever set in stone and we should continue to blindly cling to them, even when they’re harmful and maladaptive. Explain why the principles of evolution always seem to get suspended, magically, when it comes to men claiming the right to control and dominate women for all eternity. Why would Mother Nature hit “pause” on gender relations, while allowing the rest of animal behavior to continue adapting to its environment?
And for the love of Pete, why are so many Peterson fans unable to follow rule 10?
A question prompted by the whole Freeze Peach issue: shouldn’t libertarians logically be the most fervent proponents of simple courtesy–simply because the more that etiquette ensures civil coexistence, the less law will have to?
@ Full Metal Ox:
The problem word in that is “logically.”
Courtesy, after all, also represents people not saying what they actually mean, and is therefore a threat to free speech.
Though I suspect people who thought that way would also be among those in favor of guns for everybody because knowing that the person you’re talking to could blow your head off means everyone will be more polite.
@Scildfreja Unnyðnes Some people have a blue aura. Some people have a yellow aura. My aura is avocado.
Why do Jordles fans always, always bring out the “well, you people are clearly too stupid to understand him” line?
Anyway, just gonna leave two things here: JP talking about individual suffering, and this, pre-emptively:
http://i66.tinypic.com/2e34glk.jpg
@Mish:
The implication of the Peterson fan in the comic being, it’s not possible to disagree with Peterson. If you disagree with something, by definition it cannot have been anything Peterson actually said. If you knew what he really said you’d automatically agree with it. Peterson negates your free will.
That goes beyond even claiming Peterson to be infallible. You can’t even disagree with him and be wrong, as you could if he were merely infallible, because whatever you’re disagreeing with couldn’t actually have been him …
I’m totally confused. Jordan Peterson says this all-beef diet is terrific. He’s a public intellectual so it’s got to be true. But now some guy I’ve never heard of says it’s awful. Why would he tell a dastardly lie about Jordan Peterson!
My carnivore diet: what I learned from eating only beef, salt and water
Jordan Peterson insists his fad diet helps you lose weight and feel better. I tried it for a week, and let me tell you: it was truly, punishingly awful
by Adam Gabbatt in New York
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/sep/10/my-carnivore-diet-jordan-peterson-beef