Peterson’s increasingly hysterical rants
Charlie Nash at The New Statesman says Jordan Peterson isn’t quite the social media darling he once was. In fact he’s a bit of a joke.
YouTube is rife with edits that splice Peterson’s increasingly hysterical rants with gameplay from the Command & Conquer games, a series that features a cast of eccentric villains who issue apocalyptic threats to the player as they progress through the story. Sadly, these edits are not even necessary. Peterson’s video monologues are quite enough on their own. Last year, with Bond villain-esque delivery, Peterson warned the Masters of the Universe to leave him alone or face the consequences:
“Leave us alone, you centralisers of power. You worshippers of Gaia. You sacrificers of the wealth and property of others. You would-be planetary saviours. You Machiavellian pretenders and virtue-signallers objecting to power, all the while you gathered around you madly… Leave us alone, or reap the whirlwind and watch terrible destruction of what you purport to save in consequence.”
Hahahahaha he sounds like Disaffected Podcast, or is it the other way around.
We were right that Anthony Fauci is a sociopath and a liar.
We were right that the majority of you would turn Anthony Fauci into a living demi-god.
We were right that millions of people would sell out their own family members and leave their elderly to die alone in hospital.
We were right that this was the greatest moral crime of modern history in the West, and that it was going on right in front of all of us while you called us crazy.
We were right about everything. Not “just some things.” Everything.
Turns out those of us who understand abusive psychology intimately weren’t hysterical, or crazy, or histrionic, or lying.
That was you.
I can’t speak for others who correctly predicted this mess, but I can speak for me.
I’m not forgiving.
I’m not forgetting.
You who went along with this are my enemy. Not just my opponent-my enemy.
You will be treated as an enemy. If you think I had a hair trigger temper before, try me now.
I’m entirely done.
Either come to accept what you participated in, confess what you did, make serious, honestly felt, public apology to those you tried to ruin (the people you said you ‘loved’) or make sure you keep your distance from me.
You get no grace at all.
Ooooookay but where is all this happening? It sounds like a battlefield, but in fact it’s just…the world. Other people. People who see things differently. Where is all this being “treated as an enemy” going to happen? We don’t need any barked orders to keep our distance, we have no intention of going anywhere near the disaffected one. We’re not going to sob into our sleeves about the not forgiving and not forgetting because we don’t seek them in the first place. It’s like going to someone’s house and banging furiously on the door and when it’s opened shouting “LEAVE ME ALONE.”
Anyway, I find it hilarious that Peterson does the same thing.
He said something on Twitter recently where he seemed to be complaining about something in a videogame or RPG without knowing it wasn’t IRL stuff…
Peterson being hysterical? How unmanly.
He strikes me as someone who was a mildly eccentric, somewhat reactionary academic, who suddenly found himself way more famous than he expected to be, and did not handle it well.
The Fauci comment is so weird. I barely think about the man, other than to think that it’s a shame he’s been made into one of the objects of conservative obsessive hate.
Good thing he’s got our back on being gender critical.
In all seriousness, Peterson is someone who should clean his room.
I don’t care about JP. I never considered him a friend. Josh, now he’s completely a different guy than who I thought I knew. I guess the signs were there that he’s not a well man. I just didn’t want to see them.
Cut the lines naming Fauci, tell me it was about the transing of children and the erasure of women, and I’d be nodding along with every word.
I guess this is where it “gets physical” then…
Once again, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that he was created in his entirety by a freak fluctuation in the Dunning Kruger field…
I see some confusion here. The second blockquote is from Josh Slocum, not Jordan Peterson. The link above is paywalled — so what Peterson says is here >> https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1450&v=–QS_UyW2SY&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fpipelineonline.ca%2F&feature=emb_logo This doesn’t look at all hysterical to me, and though he might be out of his field of expertise on this subject, I don’t think that disqualifies him from talking intelligently about whatever he chooses. He is passionate about what he talks about, but that alone doesn’t make him some kind of “village idiot” of the internet.
I think some of the responses here are assuming that Slocum’s comments are in fact Peterson’s, and the OP above is probably a fair comparison generally, given some of Peterson’s comments elsewhere, but I don’t think Peterson is as ridiculous as Charlie Nash thinks he is; not by this example anyway. He is definitely *the subject of* ridicule, but I think we could look at what Peterson himself has to say in determining whether that ridicule is justified or not. I’m not taking Nash’s word for it.
twiliter, I would say anyone is ridiculous who proposes women be redistributed to incels. No, he didn’t say it in exactly those words, and he denies that is what he is saying, but that denial struck me as disingenous. The man is a misogynist, pure and simple. His fight with the trans activists may be on our side, but he is not our friend.
I’m not taking Nash’s word for it either. I had actually heard of Peterson before reading Nash’s article.
Ikn @9 Oh yes, I’m not saying that some of his views aren’t extremely disagreeable, only that the primary example that Nash cites is neither “hysterical” nor makes him a “village idiot.” I also think his views on animal consumption are completely wrong headed, among other things. My main issue with him is that he’s so stubbornly infatuated with his own ideas, that there seems to be no way for him to escape them.
Ophelia @10 Maybe we’ve all heard too much from him now. I wouldn’t argue that.
“We were right that”…
“We were right that”…
“We were right that”…
What’s this “WE” white man
@13 Is Josh Slocum a white man?
@twiliter,
It’s the punchline to an old joke about The Lone Ranger and Tonto (imagine them cornered by some Indians; the LR says something like, “Looks like we’re in trouble, Tonto,” and Tonto replies…).
Thanks WaM, I get it now. :)
I am morbidly intrigued by Peterson’s animus towards “Gaia worshippers.” Even if he sees no beauty or value in nature in and of itself, surely he does not want to live in a world in which food and water are scarce commodities. Surely he does not want to live in a world in which drought, rising sea levels, and endless extreme weather events drive economies and infrastructures to the breaking point. How does he not see that this is the world that we are rapidly heading toward? At this point, the effects of climate change should be directly perceptible to someone of Peterson’s age. I’m a good deal younger than he is, and I’m still shocked and horrified when I compare the winters of my childhood to the winters of the past few years. What reality is this man living in?
I know, right? What should we do, despise the planet we live on (in all senses)?
twiliter I don’t know why you’re going off on all these tangents. I think the point of the post is pretty obvious – it’s funny (and sinister, but I focused on the comedy) that self-appointed gurus like Peterson fly into paranoid grandiose rages to the effect that We Will Bury You. It’s absurd, it’s grotesque, it’s silly, it’s pathetic; the gurus should be able to see that, and stop, but they don’t, they just fly into even noisier paranoid grandiose rages. That’s all. It’s not complicated.
Point taken. I think after reading the responses, it seemed to me as if everyone was responding to Slocum’s piece in their reply to a post about Peterson, and attributing it to Peterson. I just thought it was odd, and I’m not defending JP by any means, I have my own issues with him. And alas, me going off on tangents isn’t a new thing either as you know, sorry about that.
No, it was an honest denial. His point was that monogamy produces fewer disaffected young men, which is a fair enough point imo.
Disaffected (Podcast guy, not incels) sounds a lot like a young person of gender I saw recently on Facebook. He (?) informed the world that his pronouns are they/them, and that
So that’s us all warned.
twiliter @ 20 – you’re forgiven!
Lady M @22 Like most of us I’m sure. I can’t begin to count how many people’s lives I have no place in, but then again, I’m not so sure I’d want to, especially if it’s going to cause the poor things trauma. ;)
It strikes me that a lot of young men (and women) would be more likely to settle down into happy monogamy if they understood how to actually participate in a respectful and well-balanced relationship. In my experience very few young people do, and young men tend to be worse at treating their partners with disrespect *. Frankly, I think Incels, and their marginally more successful cousins – the guys who can get a partner but can’t keep her – would do the world a great favour by becoming hermitic monks or something. Preferably with a vow of silence and abjuring the internet.
I think we’d all agree that women (and men) are not a prize to be given out to make others happy. That would be akin to slavery after all.
* An over simplification I know, that also ignores some women’s tendency to retaliate in minor and passive aggressive ways (because it’s physically safer than other means).
Monogamy may or may not produce fewer disaffected young men (I’m not convinced it does). But it often produces a lot more trapped women.
Men should not get to say they have a right to women. They don’t. The only one with rights to a woman is the woman. And those societies that have laws that dispute and deny that are not any place I would want to live.
Some of Disaffected’s claims:
None of these three have been demonstrated to be true, have they?
The intelligence report said that the quick dismissal of the Wuhan Lab Leak Theory was unwarranted because sufficient investigation had not been completed at the time that scientists were saying that it wasn’t a possibility. That’s not the same as saying that it actually was a lab leak. New studies suggest that raccoon dogs, a Chinese breed that is used for fur and food and sold live in Wuhan markets is a strong possibility for the candidate of bringing the virus into contact with humans. It’s still not certain, but neither is the lab leak theory. A roadblock in the way is the tight control that the CCP has on information that may make them “look bad.” There were scientists who had found this leak in 2020 but much of the data they wanted to release was squelched by the Chinese governments. And, there was good reason to suspect an element of racism in wanting to blame a Chinese Lab Leak. If we all recall, there was a spike in crime against Americans of Asian (not just Chinese) descent when Trump was calling this virus the “China Virus.” Someone check me if I’m wrong, this is also the issue where we started seeing Josh go off the rails in denying this and talking about how “they are coming for you.”
As far as his claims regarding Fauci, they are off on two areas. I don’t know of anyone who has elevated him to a demi-god. I do know that he’s been painted by the conspiracy theorists the most evilist man ever who lied about something or other causing people to die.
I can’t even find out what he lied about. He’s just a scientist who gave the answers that he could based on the science available at the time, and he had to change course on masks. But is that lying? The same sort of thinking that hates Fauci for the way that he contradicted Trump in a press conference is the thinking that hates JKRowling for being transphobic. It’s just hate looking for a justification.
Josh continually posted warnings about people with borderline personality disorders, to stay away from them. Guess what? That’s who he is. But these rantings don’t stem from that. It’s an absolute certainty that one is right that leads to this sort of thing. I don’t know enough about Peterson to think that’s what is behind his “teachings.” He’s a guru to people who should learn more about critical thinking. But Josh is the type that is never wrong, and when he talks about his enemies, he is referring to people who challenge him.
Well said. That’s why it’s so striking to me – the proud dogmatism. The repetition of “we were right that [dogmatic unsupported wild claim]” is so……..well, a lot of things, but one is “not a good look.”