Sam Harris in Dublin next July

Hector Savage

Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Douglas Murray will be having an event at the 3 arena next July.

https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/status/977142482118029312


Should be very interesting, I just hope it won't get cancelled for the snowflakes that don't like different opinions.

mickydcork

Got my tickets!

I'm just a little disappointed it involves Jordan Peterson as I'm not a fan and think he's a waffly christian apologist.

Although I don't agree with everything he says - Douglas Murray is generally great though!!

robindch

Hector Savage wrote: »

I just hope it won't get cancelled for the snowflakes that don't like different opinions.

Seems that the excellent Mr Peterson is no fan of different opinions himself! In response to this article on the New York Review of Books, Mr Peterson chose to deliver a set of racially-charged, foul-mouthed insults, not to mention threatening violence:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975941048550572034
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975941537619107840
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975942395584856064
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975942603479826432

JBP wrote:

You arrogant, racist son of a bitch Pankaj Mishra: How dare you accuse me of "harmlessly romancing the noble savage." That's how you refer to my friend Charles Joseph (http://charlesjoseph.ca/ ), who I've worked with for 15 years? And you call me a fascist? You sanctimonious prick. If you were in my room at the moment, I'd slap you happily. You say "Peterson claims that he has been inducted into “the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe” Just what do you mean by "claims" you peddler of nasty, underhanded innuendo, you dealer in lies and halftruths? This happened in part because of the work I have been doing alongside Charles: https://www.mbam.qc.ca/en/news/unveiling-of-a-spectacular-totem-pole-created-by-charles-joseph-of-the-kwakiutl-nation/ … Is that a "claim," too, and something brought about by the romance of a fascist with a noble savage? Fuck you.

Reading his angry, entitled prose, one can certainly understand - albeit sadly - why he's something of a hero for other angry, entitled people.

Hotblack Desiato

Pay money to listen to an unhinged xtian with anger issues?
I'll decline.

vapor trails

Whatever about Peterson, I am going to listen to Sam Harris. The guy delivers his points in such an articulate and calm manner I can't help but admire him.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Didn’t see any racial attacks there from Peterson. All of these guys are dislikable in their own way.

nozzferrahhtoo

mickydcork wrote: »

Got my tickets! I'm just a little disappointed it involves Jordan Peterson as I'm not a fan and think he's a waffly christian apologist.

If it makes you feel any better, it sounds like Harris intends (though remains to be seen if he follows through) to pull him up on exactly that. Here is a quote from behind Harris' paywall which might interest you....

Questioner. For the last year I have been listening to a lot of Peterson's material and am in the process of finishing his program "Past and future authoring". Even though there is something about his material that does not feel right that I can not articulate.

Harris. I have these events coming up with Jordan where I will hash this out. Generally I see how much value people are finding in what he is saying. It is not a mystery to me why that would be. He is giving a very standard Self Help Curriculum with more moral and political urgency. There is a quasi religious undertone to it. I see why that would land with so many people. But I also see that there is a fair amount wrong with it, not grounded in a careful intellectually honest analysis of what we have good reason to believe, and reject. I will save my specific arguments for when we meet. I think he has exposed a hunger for meaning and structure in the secular community that I sensed was there, but never really saw this clearly. It is not a surprise to me that that is there, but it is a surprise how many people are willing to imbibe precisely what he is delivering without issue, because this is a kind of religious communication in the end. But I do think 90% of what he is saying is interesting, worthwhile, but it is being vitiated by the other 10%. It would be nice to strip that 10% out and have a truly honest and interesting conversation about meaning and values and profundity and the sacred. And even the utility of thinking in terms of myths, that could potentially be useful. But I think we have to be honest about what we think is true while we do that.

Snickers Man

mickydcork wrote: »

Douglas Murray is generally great though!!

Does Douglas Murray have anything to say other than whinge about the number of Muslims in Europe and about how they don't like him because he's gay?

The man is a piece of vermin; a 21st century Titus Oates. I might go along just to throw something at him.

Peterson, I am new to, but some of what he says is interesting. Harris is just a humourless "celebrity atheist", the sort of which Frankie Boyle wanted to consign to Room 101. To general approval.

nozzferrahhtoo

Subjective I guess. I find him very funny. But it is a very very dry, with a tinge of linguistic mischievousness, form of humor. Which just happens to appeal to me a lot. But I can see why a lot of people would not be into that.

Most of his Podcasts have little to nothing to do with atheism these days though. So whether or not someone thinks "celebrity atheist" actually applies is one thing........ but how relevant it is is certainly another. In fact Harris himself recently spoke about how at his lives show he got a lot of backlash from some negative comments he made about religion. And he realized that a huge part of his current listener-ship are not even all that aware of his opinions on religion.

mickydcork

Snickers Man wrote: »

Does Douglas Murray have anything to say other than whinge about the number of Muslims in Europe and about how they don't like him because he's gay?

The man is a piece of vermin; a 21st century Titus Oates. I might go along just to throw something at him.

Peterson, I am new to, but some of what he says is interesting. Harris is just a humourless "celebrity atheist", the sort of which Frankie Boyle wanted to consign to Room 101. To general approval.

Yes, Douglas Murray has more to say on many topics and his position on immigration is little more nuanced than that to be fair.

Can't agree in anyway with you about Harris, so much so that I assume you are trolling by posting as such in this thread.

mickydcork

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If it makes you feel any better, it sounds like Harris intends (though remains to be seen if he follows through) to pull him up on exactly that. Here is a quote from behind Harris' paywall which might interest you....

Questioner. For the last year I have been listening to a lot of Peterson's material and am in the process of finishing his program "Past and future authoring". Even though there is something about his material that does not feel right that I can not articulate.

Harris. I have these events coming up with Jordan where I will hash this out. Generally I see how much value people are finding in what he is saying. It is not a mystery to me why that would be. He is giving a very standard Self Help Curriculum with more moral and political urgency. There is a quasi religious undertone to it. I see why that would land with so many people. But I also see that there is a fair amount wrong with it, not grounded in a careful intellectually honest analysis of what we have good reason to believe, and reject. I will save my specific arguments for when we meet. I think he has exposed a hunger for meaning and structure in the secular community that I sensed was there, but never really saw this clearly. It is not a surprise to me that that is there, but it is a surprise how many people are willing to imbibe precisely what he is delivering without issue, because this is a kind of religious communication in the end. But I do think 90% of what he is saying is interesting, worthwhile, but it is being vitiated by the other 10%. It would be nice to strip that 10% out and have a truly honest and interesting conversation about meaning and values and profundity and the sacred. And even the utility of thinking in terms of myths, that could potentially be useful. But I think we have to be honest about what we think is true while we do that.

Great! I'm on board with that.

His podcast where he called out Peterson about 'objective truths' was excellent too.

vapor trails

Snickers Man wrote: »

Harris is just a humourless "celebrity atheist", the sort of which Frankie Boyle wanted to consign to Room 101. To general approval.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22cYcsVPOok

This made me chuckle. But having said that, I think he's a committed atheist. Humour is not his main aim here.

silverharp

mickydcork wrote: »

Great! I'm on board with that.

His podcast where he called out Peterson about 'objective truths' was excellent too.

I listened to that over xmas over 2 walks to Poolbeg lighthouse :pac: Sam deffo had the stronger rebuttal but couldn't remember much now to state the positions. The first interview got bogged down but still entertaining to listen to

Pelvis

€55.00 - €143.00 according to Ticketmaster?

Eh, no.

silverharp

Pelvis wrote: »

€55.00 - €143.00 according to Ticketmaster?

Eh, no.

even at €55 they would need to be doing a couple of sets after , 20/25€ is about as much as I would pay for such an event.

robindch

Mod:

Snickers Man wrote: »

The man is a piece of vermin; a 21st century Titus Oates. I might go along just to throw something at him.

Not really the posting standard expected in A+A - forum charter is here - please review.

magicbastarder

Pelvis wrote: »

€55.00 - €143.00 according to Ticketmaster?

Eh, no.

the sound quality is so much better in the €143 seats though. and if you ask a question/espouse an opinion, they're obliged to agree with you.

Danzy

robindch wrote: »

Seems that the excellent Mr Peterson is no fan of different opinions himself! In response to this article on the New York Review of Books, Mr Peterson chose to deliver a set of racially-charged, foul-mouthed insults, not to mention threatening violence:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975941048550572034
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975941537619107840
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975942395584856064
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975942603479826432

Reading his angry, entitled prose, one can certainly understand - albeit sadly - why he's something of a hero for other angry, entitled people.

The author of that article called a First Nations friend of Peterson a noble savage.

He was right to be pissed off, it was a tissue of lies and click bait.

Balf

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Harris. <>I think he has exposed a hunger for meaning and structure in the secular community that I sensed was there, but never really saw this clearly. It is not a surprise to me that that is there, but it is a surprise how many people are willing to imbibe precisely what he is delivering without issue, because this is a kind of religious communication in the end. But I do think 90% of what he is saying is interesting, worthwhile, but it is being vitiated by the other 10%. It would be nice to strip that 10% out and have a truly honest and interesting conversation about meaning and values and profundity and the sacred. And even the utility of thinking in terms of myths, that could potentially be useful. But I think we have to be honest about what we think is true while we do that.

That's sounds like a good place to start with Petersen's material. He is striking a chord with many people. The fact he's striking a chord with many people is actually evidence that he's on a strong track.

And 90% isn't a bad hit rate. Its actually very, very good for social science.

To be questioned over 10% of the content almost sounds like a disagreement over presentation.

robindch

Danzy wrote: »

The author of that article called a First Nations friend of Peterson a noble savage. He was right to be pissed off, it was a tissue of lies and click bait.

The author of that article said that Peterson was " the latest in a long line of eggheads pretentiously but harmlessly romancing the noble savage" in the context of something about the, er, "coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe" and the "Native American longhouse he has built in his Toronto home". Given what the phrase "noble savage" means (see here) and that the author was explaining in abstract terms, one of Peterson's traits, and not referring to any specific individual I can see, I don't see how you can conclude that the author of the article called some First Nations friend a "savage", noble or otherwise.

Balf wrote: »

He is striking a chord with many people. The fact he's striking a chord with many people is actually evidence that he's on a strong track.

I would suggest that his striking a chord with lots of people is indicative of him telling them what they want to hear. Teh 90/10 ratio seems a little unbalanced - of what I've consumed of his output, I'd say that 60% falls into the category of "trivially true", half of the remainder is "trivially false", and the bit left over is less insightful than inciteful of a range of emotions best left where they fester.

Balf

robindch wrote: »

I would suggest that his striking a chord with lots of people is indicative of him telling them what they want to hear.

That's part of it. I'd suggest that the fact lots of people want to hear his specific message is a non-random phenomenon of potential significance.

Why do you feel people want to hear what he says?

robindch wrote: »

Teh 90/10 ratio seems a little unbalanced

I guess we all agree that Harris doesn't mean it as a real quantification.

It simply reads like an acceptance by him that Peterson is substantially on target.

nozzferrahhtoo

What worries me with such things is that even the most out there nonsense fad tends to be "substantially on target". And a 90-10 split while numerically true might not focus enough attention on how bad, or how much nonsense, the 10% CAN be.

Diet fads are a great example of this. People telling you that cayenne pepper is this magic substance for example. So people go putting it in everything, and ingesting huge quantities of the stuff. And testimonials roll in as to the efficacy of the fad.

But like all diet fads, 90% of it is on target useful stuff. WHILE taking on this cayenne pepper en masse.... the fad also has you taking on more water, using more fresh produce, preparing your own food and meals instead of using pre-prepared or overly processed variants. And so on. But because their diet is based on Cayenne Pepper.... the testimonials from people tell you how powerful they found that pepper to be in their life.

That is an innocuous example, but it is not always so. Sometimes that 10% can be built around positively damaging and harmful things. Religion is an example of that for me. While perpetuating unsubstantiated nonsense about their sky fairy of choice, or mystical notions of power.... the core 90% tends to be about things like getting people together socially, fostering a notion of togetherness, packaging and shipping a moral system and so forth. All good stuff. But the harms and damages that 10% nonsense perpetuates into the world is measurable in real world conflict, suffering, division, and harm.

Which end of that spectrum Peterson lies on, I am not in a position to say. I have listened to some of his stuff on Harris' podcast, Joe Rogan, and two of his own solo talks but I still feel ignorant about what his actual message and approach is. Perhaps I need to read some of the articles more critical of his views. And for the most part I found it all to either be A) Stating the absolute blatantly obvious or Stating a few hand wavey "deepities" that sound profound but I could find no way to translate them into anything actionable or parse them into any kind of real world relevance.

But the overall tone and content for me contained nothing more than your average self help book. Though I have not read a LOT of such books in the past, usually just when I was in someone elses house who had one and I sped read them for something to do, very little seemed to distinguish them from Peterson's offerings.

robindch

Balf wrote: »

Why do you feel people want to hear what he says?

Because he feeds and justifies their emotional needs - principally, it seems, their anger. And this makes people feel good. And people like to feel good.

Balf wrote: »

It simply reads like an acceptance by him that Peterson is substantially on target.

It's unclear to me how you can conclude that I might believe that a viewpoint is correct because it's popular - the history of the humors of the blood, or the flatness of the earth would be useful things to bear in mind here.

Of what Peterson says, what, for you, would be the most profound statements he's made, the ones for which you'd be prepared to make some change, however small, to the way you run your life?

Balf

robindch wrote: »

Because he feeds and justifies their emotional needs - principally, it seems, their anger. And this makes people feel good. And people like to feel good.

So the most effective appeal to be made to to many people is to their anger?

I mean, that's fine as a contention. Its just where that leads as a guide to action.

In passing, I'm not sure that Peterson is stoking up anger. Anything I've seen by him is more an appeal to individual responsibility that actually invites people to set aside their anger. As I see it, there's nothing particularly objectionable in what he says.

robindch wrote: »

It's unclear to me how you can conclude that I might believe that a viewpoint is correct because it's popular - the history of the humors of the blood, or the flatness of the earth would be useful things to bear in mind here.

I'm not sure your analogy works. There's a difference between deciding questions of fact on the basis of a vote, and people finding an account that they can relate their personal experience to.

If someone tells you the world is flat, you can contradict them with evidence. If someone tells you Peterson connects to how they feel, you can hardly say you know better than them.

The conversation inevitably has to shift to why people feel like that. Which, in your case, involves suggesting that Peterson is making a successful appeal to bad emotions.

Which leads to a discussion on whether people are mostly moved by bad emotions.

Which, ironically, is when religious folk start looking smug, because that's their contention.

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And for the most part I found it all to either be A) Stating the absolute blatantly obvious or Stating a few hand wavey "deepities" that sound profound but I could find no way to translate them into anything actionable or parse them into any kind of real world relevance.

I listened a little more to Peterson in another conversation he had on stage and I have to say that what I just wrote above there seems to keep holding true.

For example I listened to the first 8 or 9 minute of it, then went and listened to it again three times. Twice in high speed and once at normal. And the entire monologue from Peterson seemed to have not actual content. There is a few phrases he clearly thinks SOUND like he is saying something like "metaphorical substrate".... and he very much likes dropping names. But listening to the same monologue a total of 4 times found no actual content in anything he said. He basically seemed to be using as many words as possible to simply say "I am not (can not?) rebutting anything atheists say, but I do not think they take what they say seriously enough because words".

Then this interaction following that substance devoid monologue just blew me away:

Dillahunty: "I agree people take drugs and report experiences they describe as mystical. We have no way to confirm something supernatural actually happened".
Peterson: "It stops people from smoking"
Dillahunty: "Well you can stop smoking without supernatural intervention".
Peterson: "No, not really"
Dillahunty: "You CANT stop smoking without supernatural intervention?????"

Aside from this navel gazing being demonstrably false by the most cursory look at reality where people stop smoking all the time, he at this point started to try to construe people having such an experience, and it being trans-formative, as evidence the experience actually was of a supernatural event. You would think someone who is meant to be a public intellectual would know the difference between the effects of a belief on the individual, and the implications those effects have for actual evidence about reality. Which is almost none. A belief can have all the most wonderful effects in the world, that does not mean one iota of it is actually true.

There is another 1 hour 20 minutes left in this conversation. I hope it gets better.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not getting much better. Essentially the same thing as the smoking claim above is permeating a lot of the rest of the nonsense he is spewing out here. Like this interchange:

Dillahunty: "What are you afraid of if we lose religion, demonstrate me me any benefit"
Peterson: "Oh you would lose art, poetry, drama, narrative and story telling".
Dillahunty: Oh why, are there no godless artists and poets?
Peterson: There are artists and poets who think they are godless.

He then follows up that doozy with the classic "morality comes from a god source" argument by claiming that Dillahunty "Acts like he believes in god" whenever he makes a moral choice.

At this point Peterson does not just just physically remind me of William Lane Craig..... he is starting to sound like him too. Though even Lane Craig is more mature than this guy who at this point in the discussion has stopped rebutting and is simply laughing in Dillahunty's face a lot and saying things like "That's just sad" at him. Real intellectual heights he is reaching there.... for a schoolyard maybe.

Before this talk I had considered flying home to Ireland to go to this event with Harris and Peterson. The more I watch this talk the less I have ANY interest in seeing Harris debate essentially a childish version of Lane Craig who thinks you can not give up cigarettes without the supernatural.

Hotblack Desiato

Sucks to be a person who's paid money to listen to that sort of gobshitery

nozzferrahhtoo

Well Douglas Murray is there too which could be interested. When he talks about the facts and the data he talks well. I listened to the "controversial" (it was anything but) podcast he did with Sam Harris before.

There has been some suggestion he goes off the rails a bit when he discusses what we should now do WITH those facts. So perhaps Sam will push him on that aspect of it now, rather than just the data set itself, and things could get even more interesting.

So some potential for fun and interest at the show. Just not, I suspect, coming from Peterson.

nozzferrahhtoo

Comical that I mentioned not only thinking he looks a bit like Craig, but is sounding like him now too. I just googled it to see if anyone else has noted any physical similarities between them.... only to find they actually did do a 2 hour talk together!!!

I am wondering my my levels of self masochism will extend to listening to it. I suspect they do. Wish me well.

NIMAN

Up to €143 a ticket !!

Tell me thats a joke. As interesting as these guys can be on YouTube, anyone who parts with that sort of cash to listen to him say all the stuff you've already heard him say many times over must be too rich.

nozzferrahhtoo

I once had the vagaries of how ticket prices are set explained to me. It was a deep and complex issue far beyond my ken. Suffice to say that while the actual act itself can be blamed for SOME of it, a huge aspect of it is out of their control.

Anyway I have to give SOME credit where it is due. I went full masochim and watched the 2 hour Peterson-Lane talk, which actually included Rebecca Goldstein. And even when talking complete nonsense, Peterson is a charismatic and competent speaker. He is engaging even when his material is not.

And, perhaps a personal thing, my respect for peoples speaking abilities shoots up when they do not read from cards or notes but pace the stage speaking their subject from their mind. Even with MANY years of practice Lane for example read his opening speech out from cards in mostly a monotone (though he put some emotion into reading quotes from a book). While Peterson stepped entirely away from the podium and paced the stage saying his piece from memory with a lot of emotion and tone.

Still most of what he spoke was nonsense OR coherent but devoid of anything substantive. But context changes a lot and next to Lane the same stuff that seemed total nonsense in other contexts started to sound somewhat moderate and meaningful. I did like some opening lines he made about how we ask the wrong questions in psychology sometimes. Such as when we ask "Why is this patient anxious all the time?" we should be asking "Given the human condition, why are the rest of us NOT anxious and living in perpetual terror most of the time?".

But in general a total lack of substance, bolstered solely by sounding good compared to the total appeal to emotion trip Lane comes out with.

Anyway I endured the 2:20 hours so you all don't have to You're welcome hehehehe

Just off the phone with him (Sam Harris) Nice guy

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

While Peterson stepped entirely away from the podium and paced the stage saying his piece from memory with a lot of emotion and tone.

As somebody once said, if you can fake sincerity, you have it made. Where one doesn't need to say anything in particular, this seems a little easier than usual.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But in general a total lack of substance, bolstered solely by sounding good[...]

Where "good" could be replaced with "full of conviction"? A few lines by Yeats spring to mind:

WB Yeats wrote:

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere.
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst.
Are full of passionate intensity.

guestwifi

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sucks to be a person who's paid money to listen to that sort of gobshitery

Coming from the account that went on a rant at several users in the Late Late thread because they called out transgenderism being pushed on small children....I'd say that's reason enough to consider buying a ticket

mickydcork

Deleted User wrote: »

Just off the phone with him (Sam Harris) Nice guy

Really?

Do tell?

Hotblack Desiato

guestwifi wrote: »

Coming from the account that went on a rant at several users in the Late Late thread because they called out transgenderism being pushed on small children....I'd say that's reason enough to consider buying a ticket

WTF are you on about.

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

As somebody once said, if you can fake sincerity, you have it made. Where one doesn't need to say anything in particular, this seems a little easier than usual.Where "good" could be replaced with "full of conviction"? A few lines by Yeats spring to mind:

There is a heavy dose of all of that yes. It is just a personal thing for me though. If I am going to go see a speaker talk, I want to see him talk. Not read. And I seriously find my respect, even for people I like, eroded when they stand at the front of a podium reading their material in a dead monotone.

Not sure it is just (not just, but including) fake sincerity and conviction though. In that talk he just seemed to have a bit of capability and presence too. He was talking his usual combination of complete nonsense mixed with empty nothing that he makes sound like something. But at least HE was engaging even if his material was not. Goldstein and Lane just kinda monotoned me into a sleepy trance. Shame to see good speakers wasted on tripe material and good material wasted on bad speakers I guess.

But it is definitely a testimony to just how poor Lanes material is that, in it's presence, Peterson's actually starts to sound good. That is no small achievement in failure.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sucks to be a person who's paid money to listen to that sort of gobshitery

guestwifi wrote: »

Coming from the account that went on a rant [...]

Folks - a bit of chill would go down well at this point.

Thanking youze.

Hotblack Desiato

guestwifi wrote: »

Coming from the account that went on a rant at several users in the Late Late thread because they called out transgenderism being pushed on small children...

You must be confused because I have never posted in that thread.

guestwifi

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You must be confused because I have never posted in that thread.

My sincerest apologies, I'd gotten your username mixed up with another user, I retract my dig at ya! Hug?

Also, love him or hate him, he did an exquisite job at picking apart Louise O'Neill's ideological views in this podcast -

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/997847661192663040

magicbastarder

he's a little earnest, i'll grant him that.
and why is he wearing a hat indoors?
and why is the cameraman pointing his camera at a person who is clearly insane?

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

he's a little earnest, i'll grant him that.

Earnest? He makes leaps of logic so vast that the rest of us puny males are left spinning helplessly in his manly wake, staring at him with awe and wondering how we too could stride the world like he does.

Here's Peterson on DNA, stating that he believes that ancient Chinese, Australian Aboriginal and Egyptian artists represented DNA in their artwork, although as for the reasons he believe this? "it's very complicated to explain why":

https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/997575537089564672

And here, Peterson announces that DNA isn't a chemical, but actually something called "a social construction":

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/930268109159636993

ancapailldorcha

I don't know what his motive is there. Is he just trolling? He doesn't seem daft enough to believe in nonsense like that. It seems to me like he's packaging the nonsense elements of the modern right along with what your grandparents would have called common sense (Think tidy your room) and phrasing it in such a way that anyone who questions it is made to appear ridiculous for questioning the Messianic figure that some people see him as.

Anyway, it gets worse:

Apparently, Feminists have an "unconscious wish for brutal male domination:"

https://twitter.com/_Saeen_/status/955889027957297152

He isn't above advocating violence either:

The letter also calls attention to Peterson’s at times violent tone, quoting one video where Peterson suggests anyone who speaks like a “postmodern neo-Marxist” should be “punched in the nose hard enough to knock you out.”

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975941537619107840

And at the end of all this, he is making bank on Patreon:

Jordan B Peterson, currently raking in $80,000 per month on Patreon, and with a global bestseller to boot, is someone who believes in white male victimhood above all else. Peterson will literally weep, actual flowing salty tears, in front of a video camera, over the fate of the young white male. And then he will upload the result to his YouTube channel, where a small army of devoted followers eagerly lap it up.

robindch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know what his motive is there. Is he just trolling? He doesn't seem daft enough to believe in nonsense like that.

He mixes together a confusing melange of post-modernist/rad-feminist claptrap like the social construction comment above, with things which are obvious ("don't tell lies", "be precise in your speech"), with pseudo-profundities, with things which he should be told to do himself ("don't tell lies", "be precise in your speech"), all the while delivering and validating a sense of victimhood within one of his main target audiences - angry, young, white males.

In the above, he's not unlike the odious Tory politician Jacob Rees-Mogg who revels in tactics like these, though Rees-Mogg seems to aim his wayward comments at older people.

As to whether Peterson is a troll? That judgement is best made by him, since he's the only person who knows whether he actually believes all of the frequently incomprehensible prose he generates. On the basis of what I've seen, it's unlikely he'll ever convince me that he's not a troll and it seems unlikely he ever will make that effort anyway since he's making far too much money to want to stop.

ancapailldorcha

robindch wrote: »

He mixes together a confusing melange of post-modernist/rad-feminist claptrap like the social construction comment above, with things which are obvious ("don't tell lies", "be precise in your speech"), with pseudo-profundities, with things which he should be told to do himself ("don't tell lies", "be precise in your speech"), all the while delivering and validating a sense of victimhood within one of his main target audiences - angry, young, white males.

Exactly. He's basically selling victimhood to working class whites á la Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage, etc... I know he has that book out but I don't see too many people actually doing anything useful because of it.

robindch wrote: »

In the above, he's not unlike the odious Tory politician Jacob Rees-Mogg who revels in tactics like these, though Rees-Mogg seems to aim his wayward comments at older people.

Rees-Mogg has, unusually for an Etonian Tory, upped the level of "poshness" where the likes of David Cameron tried to appear less so. Rees-Mogg has turned himself into a one man freakshow where the accent makes the soundbytes that he spouts on cue appear intellectual. Peterson has precise phrasing in that he structures in arguments such that questioning them at all serves to make the critic look foolish. Rees-Mogg's accent and manner appear to make him intelligent when the only work he's ever had to do is to gain acceptance among his peers in spite of his Catholic faith.

robindch wrote: »

As to whether Peterson is a troll? That judgement is best made by him, since he's the only person who knows whether he actually believes all of the frequently incomprehensible prose he generates. On the basis of what I've seen, it's unlikely he'll ever convince me that he's not a troll and it seems unlikely he ever will make that effort anyway since he's making far too much money to want to stop.

Hmm... If I ever ask him, he'll probably tell me that I don't know what a troll is.

Hotblack Desiato

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know what his motive is there.

$80k a month sounds like plenty of motive to me.

NIMAN

Pelvis wrote: »

€55.00 - €143.00 according to Ticketmaster?

Eh, no.

You're having a laugh? Are those serious prices?

To listen to a few guys chat?

silverharp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Exactly. He's basically selling victimhood to working class whites á la Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage, etc... I know he has that book out but I don't see too many people actually doing anything useful because of it.

I'd say the opposite, his outlook is more Libertarian, he is pulling these lads back from the brink and getting them to fly straight and take responsibility for their lives , literally the opposite of all identitarians left or right who promote victimhood over personal responsibility

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

I'd say the opposite, his outlook is more Libertarian, he is pulling these lads back from the brink and getting them to fly straight and take responsibility for their lives , literally the opposite of all identitarians left or right who promote victimhood over personal responsibility

Here's a more interesting interaction with Peterson, where he's interviewed by Philip Dodd:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b3fk63

Suffice it to say that there's much less of Peterson's trademark irritation on show, but as much as ever of his scattergun commentary, the cutting across, the postmodern claptrap and generally confused comments, many of which make superficial sense on an individual basis, but which, when bundled together, constitute confusion and little else.

BTW, in Peterson's view, one of the greatest threats to the world is - not, for example, an odious, corrupt Tangerine Maniac in the White House bereft of every talent necessary for statecraft, or the nuclear-rattling criminals running the Kremlin, but instead - wait for it - the political side-effects of courses such as "Gender Studies" in Canada.

As somebody else said, he'd make a much more convincing self-help guru if he could say something useful and/or avoid getting angry all the time.

Blowfish

This article is well worth a read, it's from a professor who worked pretty closely with Peterson:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html