Tens of millions of beta males are celebrating him. This is true.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Tens of millions of beta males are celebrating him. This is true.
Both Alpha and Beta I would imagine. His schtick is well timed around the fumes of the MeToo movement.
I hate both terms. Bro culture walking around saying "alpha as feck" and a generation of misogynistic socially maladjusted young men raised on the internet where their social construct of the world lacks the consequence of shit talking a 6'4 220 pound dude who is as broad as he is tall, and who call anyone they disagree with a ****, or a beta.
These are the people I feel Peterson is appealing to. Whether it is his intention to pander to "alt-right" type people, or not, that's what he is doing. The internet is a wonderful place, but it's also the worlds largest echo chamber. Look hard enough and you can find any group of people you want to belong to, look hard enough and you can shut out any sort of competing or dissenting view.
At the risk of being a "get off my lawn" type, the internet and and now even more so, smart phones, have robbed these young men of meaningful and consequential social interaction, and they can't let go of that umbilical, while they rail against the emasculation of their generation. I'm not even that old, I went to HS in the 90's just as the internet was becoming a thing, and I went down that internet rabbit hole as well, obviously, I'm here! However, people from my (our) generation, at least had balance. I remember playing outside from dawn till dusk in the summers. I remember that my nintendo was awesome, but I didn't play it 18 hours a day. Now, kids live on their computers and consoles. PE is opt in in many places.
Peterson has definitely tapped into something, it's just kind of ugly, and his fix, whatever it might be, is a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
Also probably a way for those insecure men to try and simplify complex issues. People - and by extension life itself - are complex things, and so packing them into two or three different social 'groups' is basically a simple way for them to try and classify people.
From what I‘ve gathered so far I find it surprising that he managed to keep hinself in academia.
This is a long read but it does a good job of discussing the issues people have with Peterson: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
The same writer has a good article on Shapiro as well: https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-***********
The same writer has a good article on Shapiro as well: https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-***********
Is it not a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide?
Last edited:
These are great articles if you disagree with Shapiro and Peterson politically. They're myopic, biased, and poorly written for everyone else.
He's a bit like those pua's who get rich by peddling the dream of banging hot chicks to ugly dudes.
Alpha males..
feck outa here son.
Alpha males..
feck outa here son.
I guess some of the smartest people also lecture at universities, write less-read books and are invited to public talks much fewer people ever hear of. It's not like there aren't any academics or scholars beyond people like Peterson.
What a bizarre post.
I’m still waiting to see you explain how Shapiro didn’t literally mean ‘Arab people like to live in sewage’.
Shows how pointless measuring intelligence is, there’s a good chance that some of the brightest academics wouldn’t have a chance at learning the knowledge of London, have the creativity and dexterity to become a great hairdresser or the insight to understand why Pogba can work in a midfield two if he pulls his finger out.
I’d say they could probably do all of the above, if they devoted enough time to it.
His post was - I think - some sort of sarcastic reductio ad absurdum argument that anyone who expresses any doubts about any of Jordan Peterson’s work is trying to claim that they’re more intelligent/educated than he is.
I’m willing to accept that Jordan Peterson is more intelligent and well educated than me but I still think he talks a load of impenetrable nonsense and is a borderline misogynist. Being intelligent doesn’t make you a reasonable or kind person.
The fact that some intelligent people decide to use their intellect to appeal to the gut of the masses in order to gain fame and inflate their ego doesn't make them dumb. It just makes them morally bankrupt arseholes.
We have this same movement in Holland with Thierry Baudet. He's also this new type of conservative (intellectual) with a PHD in something something and several best selling books to his name by the age of thirty. There's no question that the guy has a high IQ, same as there's no question he is a narcissistic shitbag of a person. I doubt he truly stands behind all the things he says, but he knows it appeals to a lot of disgruntled people who adore him for saying it. He basks in this adoration, his goal is this adoration.
It's the same for Shapiro when he says there is no real discrimination against black people. I'm quite sure he knows this isn't true, because he's not an illiterate hermit living in a small hut in the desert, but he knows his supporters will coo and scream his name in elation when he says it. He craves the adoration of the crowd. If he were funny I'm sure he'd want to be a stand up comedian.
Being smart and being a bad person isn't mutually exclusive. Most historical supervillains are probably very smart. Doesn't make them any better.
Last edited:
Could you elaborate on why you* think they're myopic or biased?
*or 'everyone else' for the minimal chance you haven't made that up.
This small piece from that article perfectly sums up the strategy of these so called great debaters:
Shapiro isn’t interested in discussing any of this seriously. Just look at how he distorted his questioner’s response about moose: he says “Why aren’t you a moose?” and when she replies “That’s different,” he interjects “That’s right, men and women are different.” She clearly said that species and gender are different (which they are, in that there’s a good argument for revising one of the categories but not for revising the other). But he tried to convince his audience that she had essentially conceded his point, by seizing on and spinning the word “difference.” (We call this “sophistry” rather than “logic.”)
It's a lot of spin and wordplay, but when you get down to it, it's chest thumping nonsense. It's actually not Shapiro that's stupid, it's people that can't see past stuff like this that are the problem.
Shapiro isn’t interested in discussing any of this seriously. Just look at how he distorted his questioner’s response about moose: he says “Why aren’t you a moose?” and when she replies “That’s different,” he interjects “That’s right, men and women are different.” She clearly said that species and gender are different (which they are, in that there’s a good argument for revising one of the categories but not for revising the other). But he tried to convince his audience that she had essentially conceded his point, by seizing on and spinning the word “difference.” (We call this “sophistry” rather than “logic.”)
It's a lot of spin and wordplay, but when you get down to it, it's chest thumping nonsense. It's actually not Shapiro that's stupid, it's people that can't see past stuff like this that are the problem.
I don't quite get the admiration people seem to have for Shapiro. Peterson I can sort of understand, judging by the little time I've spent listening to him and watching clips of him on youtube, but Shapiro is just an annoying little twerp.
Yeah, at least Peterson gives the illusion of having hidden depths.
your question is great if you disagree with Shapiro and Peterson politically. It's myopic, biased, and poorly written for everyone else.
I see what you're saying but frankly, I think the same whenever I hear those two speak. That's just them getting the same treatment they dish out to others which at least proves that they aren't the prophetic geniuses their fans portray them to be.
Mea culpa, sir. My feeble mind cant possibly comprehend the greatness of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Perterson.
I don't think Petersons message is in any way deep.
Good and evil exists. People are fallible (sinners), but can improve their own lives and help to push the world towards the good, if they are willing to put in the work. That the most used story in the history of mankind. Thats why he sees so much value in literature from the bible to Dostojewski.
I guess it gives his followers a good feeling to be part of team "save the world" against team "evil neomarxists". He gives people on the right a home/identity, that don't feel represented by liberal mainstream culture. Religion loosing cultural significance opens up space for new actors to promote different conservative identities. Peterson is repackaging the message of religion into a secular from. The difference between a cultleader and a prophet (fig.) is marketing. I think Peterson is very eloquent, charismatic and confident. He is a very good communicator and that allows him to capture a sizable audience.
Good and evil exists. People are fallible (sinners), but can improve their own lives and help to push the world towards the good, if they are willing to put in the work. That the most used story in the history of mankind. Thats why he sees so much value in literature from the bible to Dostojewski.
I guess it gives his followers a good feeling to be part of team "save the world" against team "evil neomarxists". He gives people on the right a home/identity, that don't feel represented by liberal mainstream culture. Religion loosing cultural significance opens up space for new actors to promote different conservative identities. Peterson is repackaging the message of religion into a secular from. The difference between a cultleader and a prophet (fig.) is marketing. I think Peterson is very eloquent, charismatic and confident. He is a very good communicator and that allows him to capture a sizable audience.
Pretty much this. Its an old story that works because it often gives purpose to the people that hear it, this is just the 2017/18 version.
But if people are surprised why it has appeal even outside of what you might call the alt-right (and the numbers seem to indicate that it does), you do need to reflect about what the current "liberal message" (for lack of a better definition) says to white men in particular about their place and especially mission in society. "Step aside" isn't much of a mission to live-up to, and doesn't translate to very much in your day-to-day life. Self-improvement does.
This is pretty much my view. He seems to be pretty knowledgable about the subject matter he talks about, which can at times be very interesting and at others a bit tedious. The main problem as I see it isn't Peterson, its the people who have latched on to him as some sort of guru of all things anti-liberal orthodoxy/victimhood culture/post-modernism etc. Those are all very interesting arguments from his end, but the fact that so many members of the right have suddenly gravitated towards him is bound to make him more controversial than problem solving.
I think that’s more or less on the money but Peterson’s message isn’t secular. He’s actually quite religious.
More like 'stop/don't be a cnut'.
I doubt any significant number of those white men go through life being victimized by black people or 'crazy SJW feminists'. They choose to live in an echo chamber of their own choosing and devote their energy to that victimhood culture where in their mind everything and anything is working to strip away their rights (privileges).
The 'liberals' are not responsible for what these white men choose to do with their own lives. It's a tad ironic that the alpha wannabes need a source of affirmation and guidance for their actions, kinda goes against the whole 'personal responsibility' so beloved by the right.
Shapiro has made his views on racial discrimination clear enough that they deserve not to be misrepresented in this way. His position is essentially this - 'For sure, there are racist people in America, but American society is not racist. Don't go round chanting 'institutional racism' without concrete evidence, but instead highlight instances of racism and I'll fight it alongside you.'
This seems to me to be a reasonable position to take. I found Larry Elder quite persuasive on the topic and recommend you watch this short video (though perhaps you may ultimately disagree with him), which I believe more truthfully aligns with Shapiro's views.
Another perfect example of the word play this alt right rat pack uses.
It's the same as Geert Wilders saying, I have no problems with muslims, I have a problem with Islam as an ideology. If you think western society is in no way racist you're alarmingly blind or just unwilling to face the truth.
The most grating thing about Shapiro however, is his inconsistency, or even hypocrisy when it comes to anti semitism. When it comes to African Americans he refuses to call even the most blatant incidents racist, but at the same time he calls Obama a "jew hater" after speaking out against an Israely attack on Palestinians saying: "Obama despises Israel because at root, Obama despises the traditional Judeo-Christian underpinning of Western civilization" and other garbage rethoric of the same level ad nauseam.
In another talk he claims arabs are the root of all darkness and like to live in open sewage. This last thing alone should disqualify him from any form of serious debate in my opinion. The guy is a populist arsehole who plays on dimwitted bigots' feelings to get attention. People like Ben Shapiro thrive on bigotry, shortsightedness and ignorance. People like him make the world a polarized shithole and if I ever met him I would rip of his tiny little cock and fcuk him with it.
Has he fought many examples of racism? He seems far more interested in discrediting the people who are fighting racism than doing it himself.
Any issues with what Elder is saying in the Rubin video above ?
Hard to argue with him if you're not American. How a country is portrayed in the media and the reality on the ground tend not to align perfectly. Would your prison system not be an example of systemic racism? Cops being reluctant to murder black people is good, how would it effect their willingness to pull them over for traffic violations or 'random' spot checks?
I dont know. He probably has a point. I'm not sure society is really working on the right areas to combat racism.
I googled Larry elder and it turns out that one of his favorite books is atlas shrugged, which isnt just an argument for a very stupid philosophy but is one of the worst books ever written from a literary standpoint.
I tried to watch the video. Elder says there is no racism, recites the usual FBI crime stats and blames everything on black lives matter. But I had to turn it off when Rubin calls himself a liberalAnything with Dave Rubin involved is about as intellectually engaging as an episode of Friends. And Rubin isn't remotely likeable and is an awful comedian to boot. Basically a cnut you'd love to punch. Sorry if that offends anyone but..
Muh freeze peach
Muh freeze peach
Not at all. I'm not at all saying that every bad thing happening to black people is racism or the angry white man is trying to keep te black man down. This very reasonable video does not at all compare to the garbage Shapiro spouts. Though I do believe he is cherry picking a bit.
As someone else pointed out, it's hard for an outsider to really judge what goes on in the United states, but the figures of black people being sentenced to longer sentences for the same crimes and black people with similar backgrounds having more trouble finding jobs are pretty much everywhere. Are they all wrong?
Also his snippet of more white kids being born out of wedlock seems a bit archaic in this day and age. Lot's of wealthy happy couples have children out of wedlock. I don't think that's a fair metric to use when estimating someone's chances to succeed in life.
Also, something completely anecdotal; I work as an international recruitment consultant and some of my clients working with American companies don't consider people from the middle east, because it doesn't feel right in the current global climate and there might be sanctions against certain countries in the future. When I pointed out the gentleman I put forward was actually a Dutch citizen the line went quiet. Ofcourse that's anecdotal and I might just be lying, but I'm not and not hiring someone because they were born in the middle east is racist.
Btw Rubin would vote Trump in 2020, which makes him a bit hard to take seriously in all honesty.
I haven’t read Peterson but there doesn’t necessarily need to be a conflict drawn between secularism and religiosity, the two can and do coexist perfectly. Does Peterson push for the imposition of his religious beliefs on broader society?
I used the phrase "secular" in a wrong way. I have no idea if he is religious or not. What I was trying to say is the following:
Peterson is trying to give identity to people and he is talking about the meaning of life. These are domains, that have been strongly influenced by religion for a very long time. Instead of throwing all of that out of the window, he borrows many of these ideas/concepts/narratives (one might call them platitudes) from religion, mythology, literature and history. He argues that they have value/utility. I don't think one has to be an actual believer to do so.
In the end I don't think he is much different from other "self-help Guru", with the exception of his style of delivering the message. In this field of writing, style actually matters to some extend. It only "works" when it is actually able to inspire/convince one to some extend.
(all of that could be wrong; I have almost exclusively read stuff that other people have written about him)
Peterson is trying to give identity to people and he is talking about the meaning of life. These are domains, that have been strongly influenced by religion for a very long time. Instead of throwing all of that out of the window, he borrows many of these ideas/concepts/narratives (one might call them platitudes) from religion, mythology, literature and history. He argues that they have value/utility. I don't think one has to be an actual believer to do so.
In the end I don't think he is much different from other "self-help Guru", with the exception of his style of delivering the message. In this field of writing, style actually matters to some extend. It only "works" when it is actually able to inspire/convince one to some extend.
(all of that could be wrong; I have almost exclusively read stuff that other people have written about him)
Last edited:
Definitely not. I just meant that his life philosophy is closely linked with hreligious ideology. And he believes in God.