What would it take to remove the remaining 10%? I think it’s always nice to be thourough when it comes to stain removal.
Holms
But even when talking to men, he just sits there talking quietly. Does he believe he’s some kind of firebrand?
iknklast
Why in the world do some men hate women so much? Were their mothers difficult? So was mine, but I don’t hate women in general. Did they have difficult marriages? So did I (my first marriage) and I don’t blame all men.
The unearned sense of superiority, the entitlement, the sheer arrogance of these men is…mind-blowing. The fact that anyone listens to them (and way too many listen to Peterson) is frightening.
Omar
@#1:
… I think it’s always nice to be thorough when it comes to stain removal.
Particularly when the dog has just relieved itself on the brand new carpet.
Screechy Monkey
Click on the tweet for more videos, in which Peterson bemoans the sexual freedom created by the Pill, and explains how masturbation must be a sad thing because nobody “stands up straighter” and is proud of themselves after doing it. (I’m not proud of myself for having lunch today, either, but that doesn’t make lunch a bad or shabby thing.)
If a screenwriter invented this guy, Hollywood execs would say he’s just not believable unless it was a period piece. And yet this guy, with his “clean your room and stand up straight” shtick is worshipped as some wise guru by actual young people? There’s something weird going on culturally when even some young people are pining for the morality of the 1950s. I mean, I have my issues with the boomers, too, but come on, people, let’s not throw out the personal liberation baby with the navel-gazing bathwater….
Omar
Yet Peterson’s commitment to unfettered free speech is questionable. Once you believe in a powerful and malign conspiracy, you start to justify extreme measures. Last July, he announced plans to launch a website that would help students and parents identify and avoid “corrupt” courses with “postmodern content”. Within five years, he hoped, this would starve “postmodern neo-Marxist cult classes” into oblivion. Peterson shelved the plan after a backlash, acknowledging that it “might add excessively to current polarisation”. Who could have predicted that blacklisting fellow professors might exacerbate polarisation? Apparently not “the most influential public intellectual in the western world”.
The key to Peterson’s appeal is also his greatest weakness. He wants to be the man who knows everything and can explain everything, without qualification or error. On Channel 4 News, he posed as an impregnable rock of hard evidence and common sense. But his arguments are riddled with conspiracy theories and crude distortions of subjects, including postmodernism, gender identity and Canadian law, that lie outside his field of expertise. Therefore, there is no need to caricature his ideas in order to challenge them. Even so, his critics will have their work cut out: Peterson’s wave is unlikely to come crashing down any time soon.
I might add to this that like any demagogue, Peterson feeds on controversy. Consequently, those who campaign to stop him being heard are playing right into his hands.
I’m a bit curious to know what exactly the “truth” is that he represses out of politeness. Is it “Ha ha you silly broads think you’re equal human beings”? Is it “You’re hot, I’d like to fuck you; you’re ugly, go bag your face”? Is it “Shut up and go make coffee and let the men discuss this”? Or is he talking about specific disagreements with claims made by individual women, which he feels he shouldn’t respond to?
Some combination of the above, perhaps?
Your Name’s not Bruce?
Maybe he feels he’s got to turn his brain down by 90% when he talks wif de ladee braynz?
Lady Mondegreen
OK, I found the discussion.
In fact, what he’s saying is nothing like I imagined.
So he’s basically talking about the tension between polite and conciliatory behavior and truth-telling–and of course he had to sex it and make a grand pronouncement about the “Male Psyche” (which male? Never mind.)
He’s so grandiose. That’s what happens when you believe in things like THE MALE PSYCHE. Ah, Jung.
That is interesting. So he starts by claiming that women don’t care about truth, they care about politeness, in contrast to men, who speak harsh truths. When challenged he immediately folds and admits that men don’t care about truth, they care about winning, in this case debates, which generally works by using debating skills (including here, apparently, intimidation) as opposed to truth-telling.
Can’t make this up.
Catwhisperer
That story about his son wiping the floor with him when they play video games – what’s his point?
Lady Mondegreen
That story about his son wiping the floor with him when they play video games – what’s his point?
That competition is inherently manly. IT’S FUNDAMENTAL TO THE MALE PSYCHE.
While clearly what’s FUNDAMENTAL TO THE FEMALE PSYCHE is being nice and pro-social.
Jordan Peterson’s personal experience shows it. Lobsters, Jung, and evo psych agree. What more do you people want?
Freemage
Alex SL: Of course, a key part of his schtick is that if you were to repeat that conversation back verbatim and point that out to him, he’d immediately insist that you hadn’t understood the words he used in their proper context, which in turn is impossible to do even if you’ve somehow managed to listen to every dribble of nonsense that’s poured from his lips, because he’s redefined (more like undefined, of course) most of modern English in such a way that he never actually can be pinned down on anything.
Kevin Henderson
Peterson and Pence should get together with their remaining 10%s. That’s cool.
It’s amusing to think every time One of them has women around they are reduced by an order of magnitude. Idiots.
iknklast
It’s amusing to think every time One of them has women around they are reduced by an order of magnitude
And they always make it the fault of the women, not their own inability to process the reality that the “opposite” sex is more alike than different to the “right” sex.
And they always attribute it to no one wanting to hear “The Truth”. Perhaps it never occurs to them that most of us have heard this “truth” all our lives, and recognize that science, philosophy, literature, art, business, etc have all failed to demonstrate this “truth” (female inferiority) as a “truth” at all, but more and more each day demonstrate it as a social construct.
Comments
15 responses to “He has to be SO POLITE”
What would it take to remove the remaining 10%? I think it’s always nice to be thourough when it comes to stain removal.
But even when talking to men, he just sits there talking quietly. Does he believe he’s some kind of firebrand?
Why in the world do some men hate women so much? Were their mothers difficult? So was mine, but I don’t hate women in general. Did they have difficult marriages? So did I (my first marriage) and I don’t blame all men.
The unearned sense of superiority, the entitlement, the sheer arrogance of these men is…mind-blowing. The fact that anyone listens to them (and way too many listen to Peterson) is frightening.
@#1:
Particularly when the dog has just relieved itself on the brand new carpet.
Click on the tweet for more videos, in which Peterson bemoans the sexual freedom created by the Pill, and explains how masturbation must be a sad thing because nobody “stands up straighter” and is proud of themselves after doing it. (I’m not proud of myself for having lunch today, either, but that doesn’t make lunch a bad or shabby thing.)
If a screenwriter invented this guy, Hollywood execs would say he’s just not believable unless it was a period piece. And yet this guy, with his “clean your room and stand up straight” shtick is worshipped as some wise guru by actual young people? There’s something weird going on culturally when even some young people are pining for the morality of the 1950s. I mean, I have my issues with the boomers, too, but come on, people, let’s not throw out the personal liberation baby with the navel-gazing bathwater….
I might add to this that like any demagogue, Peterson feeds on controversy. Consequently, those who campaign to stop him being heard are playing right into his hands.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest
I’m a bit curious to know what exactly the “truth” is that he represses out of politeness. Is it “Ha ha you silly broads think you’re equal human beings”? Is it “You’re hot, I’d like to fuck you; you’re ugly, go bag your face”? Is it “Shut up and go make coffee and let the men discuss this”? Or is he talking about specific disagreements with claims made by individual women, which he feels he shouldn’t respond to?
Some combination of the above, perhaps?
Maybe he feels he’s got to turn his brain down by 90% when he talks wif de ladee braynz?
OK, I found the discussion.
In fact, what he’s saying is nothing like I imagined.
Sorry about the dreadful transcription:
https://tvo.org/transcript/2162303/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/singing-the-masculinity-blues
So he’s basically talking about the tension between polite and conciliatory behavior and truth-telling–and of course he had to sex it and make a grand pronouncement about the “Male Psyche” (which male? Never mind.)
He’s so grandiose. That’s what happens when you believe in things like THE MALE PSYCHE. Ah, Jung.
That is interesting. So he starts by claiming that women don’t care about truth, they care about politeness, in contrast to men, who speak harsh truths. When challenged he immediately folds and admits that men don’t care about truth, they care about winning, in this case debates, which generally works by using debating skills (including here, apparently, intimidation) as opposed to truth-telling.
Can’t make this up.
That story about his son wiping the floor with him when they play video games – what’s his point?
That competition is inherently manly. IT’S FUNDAMENTAL TO THE MALE PSYCHE.
While clearly what’s FUNDAMENTAL TO THE FEMALE PSYCHE is being nice and pro-social.
Jordan Peterson’s personal experience shows it. Lobsters, Jung, and evo psych agree. What more do you people want?
Alex SL: Of course, a key part of his schtick is that if you were to repeat that conversation back verbatim and point that out to him, he’d immediately insist that you hadn’t understood the words he used in their proper context, which in turn is impossible to do even if you’ve somehow managed to listen to every dribble of nonsense that’s poured from his lips, because he’s redefined (more like undefined, of course) most of modern English in such a way that he never actually can be pinned down on anything.
Peterson and Pence should get together with their remaining 10%s. That’s cool.
It’s amusing to think every time One of them has women around they are reduced by an order of magnitude. Idiots.
And they always make it the fault of the women, not their own inability to process the reality that the “opposite” sex is more alike than different to the “right” sex.
And they always attribute it to no one wanting to hear “The Truth”. Perhaps it never occurs to them that most of us have heard this “truth” all our lives, and recognize that science, philosophy, literature, art, business, etc have all failed to demonstrate this “truth” (female inferiority) as a “truth” at all, but more and more each day demonstrate it as a social construct.