Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

[Cynical-Carnivore-88]

I made this with respect to our king of Jungian lobsters and logos dick sucking, enjoy!

 

[Popper Whiting]

I love the Jubilee video, and it shows how to go after someone like Jordan. Which is cut through the issue, call out the sophistry and stick to your guns. Peterson is so used to bullshitting and highhanding everyone that he is legitimately on the back foot when he's forced to put cards on the table and just be striaght with people.

That was Kathy Newman's issue, she was bullshitting. She was engaging in an aggressive form of bullshit, but it was still bullshit and to his credit Jordan Peterson is a much more adept bullshitter who knew the game that was going to be played before he did the interview. Because she was on unfamiliar ground, she lost, didn't know what to do.

Watching JP get caught on unfamiliar ground and have a similar moment is just awesome. The kids didn't give him the room or the convenience to play the game Jordan wanted to and stuck straight to the point and never let up when they had the advantage.

 

[SpergPatrol]

"You're really quite something."
"Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing."

Destroyed.

I think this one little exchange with this kid may have officially ended Jordan Peterson's career.

Old Grifting Loser gets DESTROYED with FACTS AND LOGIC!

 

[Waffle Iron]

That was Kathy Newman's issue, she was bullshitting.

Nah, she was just using basic high school debate club tactics. Constantly interrupting someone, saying "so you mean..." constantly, oversimplifying his statements, ask curveball questions. Jordan won out because he debated enough edgy 18 year olds that attended his classes. It was on the level of "when was the last time you cried" to try and trip someone up so you can steamroll them. Jordan didn't let himself get interrupted, didn't agree with "so you mean" to try and make her stop, didnt let her oversimplify his statements, and deflected her stupid questions.
Apparently was also nice to Jordan before the interview. She was 100% trying to confuse and trip up Jordan to try and make him look stupid on camera.

 

[Popper Whiting]

Nah, she was just using basic high school debate club tactics. Constantly interrupting someone, saying "so you mean..." constantly, oversimplifying his statements, ask curveball questions. Jordan won out because he debated enough edgy 18 year olds that attended his classes. It was on the level of "when was the last time you cried" to try and trip someone up so you can steamroll them. Jordan didn't let himself get interrupted, didn't agree with "so you mean" to try and make her stop, didnt let her oversimplify his statements, and deflected her stupid questions.
Apparently was also nice to Jordan before the interview. She was 100% trying to confuse and trip up Jordan to try and make him look stupid on camera.

I see it more as a journalist tactic. What I meant by bullshitting was they brought him in, Kathy and the staff were nice, polite and accommodating until the camera switched on. After that happened she put him on blast and went extremely aggressive with her questions, in an attempt to catch him on the back foot and make him look stupid and unable to answer. It is a tactic I believe a lot of Journalists use, and it is effective, people don't expect the swerve, followed up with the curveball questions. It is however complete and utter bullshit, it is manipulative, and it is dishonest.

 

[Cynical-Carnivore-88]

I believe a lot of Journalists use, and it is effective, people don't expect the swerve, followed up with the curveball questions. It is however complete and utter bullshit, it is manipulative, and it is dishonest.

The argument that these types would use is that they’re just using ‘regular journalistic practices’ in order to ‘get the to truth’, but that justification is complete BS when you understand the basic level of human psychology that most people will lower their guard around you if you show them some decent respect and amicability when initially engaging with them. The fact that these kinds of Journalists use it as a ‘Hack’ to get their targets to open up to their loaded questions is nothing short of unintentionally manipulative at best or willfully malevolent at worst.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I love the Jubilee video, and it shows how to go after someone like Jordan. Which is cut through the issue, call out the sophistry and stick to your guns. Peterson is so used to bullshitting and highhanding everyone that he is legitimately on the back foot when he's forced to put cards on the table and just be striaght with people.

I'd argue the people in the circle were unimpressive too. Most of them focused on hypotheticals and semantic sparring, did not make any substantive metaphysical challenges, and didn't really press any of the fatal internal contradictions in Peterson's worldview.
You can't really debunk or refute moral pragmatism with other flavors of moral pragmatism imo

 

[Popper Whiting]

The argument that these types would use is that they’re just using ‘regular journalistic practices’ in order to ‘get the to truth’, but that justification is complete BS when you understand the basic level of human psychology that most people will lower their guard around you if you show them some decent respect and amicability when initially engaging with them. The fact that these kinds of Journalists use it as a ‘Hack’ to get their targets to open up to their loaded questions is nothing short of unintentionally manipulative at best or willfully malevolent at worst.

The is a certain level of hell reserved for most journalists. The reputation Lawyers have of being dishonest and manipulative should firmly be on journos, and I am not talking one side here, it is across the entire practice. It is why journalists who are actually honest and seek the truth are treasured, unfortunately most of the parasites in that profession (aka nearly all of them) leach off of the reputation of the good ones.

Jordan Petersen is a result of this same media mindset though, he got promoted, pushed as a kind wise father figure who cared when in truth is he's a weak willed sophist and an addict who's complete fuck up of a daughter left her child back in Canada to get dick downed by the Tates. Take away all the spin, and all the gloss that is what Jordan Petersen is, he is just a drug addict and a failed father who bullshits his way through situations. Having a PHD doesn't change this basic fact. He just a well groomed junkie who has read a thesaurus. Shiny shoes and a lecture on Disney's Pinnochio doesn't change the fact he's still shaking a tin cup.

With each passing year I hate those who commerce in media more.

 

[bindar dundat]

I started the Jubilee video but only lasted a few minutes.

JORDAN PETERSON VS 20 YOU'RE NOT MY DADS

debating JP is akin to wrestling a pig?

Spoiler: duh

you both get dirty and the pig likes it

 

[Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown]

I see it more as a journalist tactic. What I meant by bullshitting was they brought him in, Kathy and the staff were nice, polite and accommodating until the camera switched on. After that happened she put him on blast and went extremely aggressive with her questions, in an attempt to catch him on the back foot and make him look stupid and unable to answer. It is a tactic I believe a lot of Journalists use, and it is effective, people don't expect the swerve, followed up with the curveball questions. It is however complete and utter bullshit, it is manipulative, and it is dishonest.

The other JBP interview that I recall from that time period that went just like you describe with the Cathy Newman one was his Jan 2018 sitdown on the CBC National News in Canada with Wendy Mesley.

Preservetube

For context, this is Canada's government/taxpayer funded public broadcaster. Wendy Mesley is a girlboss national news anchor, married to Peter Mansbridge, who is Canada's Dan Rather/Tom Brokaw/ Peter Jennings on the same network.

In kek fashion, Mesley soon after this would be fired for using "nigger" behind closed doors in an editorial meeting (there's a Francophone book with a title that translates that Quebeckers are the "niggers of Canada" that she was quoting.)

In this clip, which seems to be an edited down version of a longer segment, Mesley

- states the purpose of her interview series is to talk to "interesting people"
- starts off fake professional & polite with Peterson live in studio ("Prof Peterson, you must be exhausted?")
- describes his viral pronoun issue at the U of T as "free speech vs transphobia"
- brings up that Ezra Levant's Rebel News crowdfunded 200k for him after the government cut his research funding over his public comments, Mesley tries somehow to link Levant/Rebel News to Charlottesville?, asks Peterson why he would go on the platform
- has a preprinted picture physically on the desk of Peterson in a photo with a fan with a Pepe flag, asks him why he would allow himself to be photographed with a hate symbol
- tries to link Richard Spencer and the OK/WP "hate" hand symbol to a picture with a fan
- asks if he sees himself as the next Billy Graham, is he a prophet (making veiled jabs at Christianity)
- wraps up the interview with fake smiles & pleasantries

Take away all the spin, and all the gloss that is what Jordan Petersen is, he is just a drug addict and a failed father who bullshits his way through situations. Having a PHD doesn't change this basic fact. He just a well groomed junkie who has read a thesaurus. Shiny shoes and a lecture on Disney's Pinnochio doesn't change the fact he's still shaking a tin cup.

After digging up that 2018 article that Peterson decided one day in 2015-16 or so (pre-fame) to add a third floor to his Toronto home modeled completely to reenact a traditional West Coast native longhouse, then flew an entire Indian band council to consecrate it for authenticity, I think someone should do more digging into his past.

He seems to have more money and be more delulu even back then to be some stodgy basic bitch U of T & Harvard professor.

I posted another clip in this thread where Peterson talked about his own bio BITD on some random podcast pre-COVID when looking into his claims of writing some UN Climate Change report and the potential of him being a glowie.

The UN stuff seemed to be a nothingburger (Peterson embellishing his contributions with his name on the report among hundreds of authors). But IIRC, he bragged in his own self intro about doing lots of consulting work for high-powered Toronto law firms and was very involved in vetting & hiring for Silicon Valley startups long before his internet fame.

 

[Fox Girl Enjoyer]

"You're really quite something."
"Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing."

Destroyed.

I think this one little exchange with this kid may have officially ended Jordan Peterson's career.

Imagine getting so blown the fuck out that they have to change the title of the YouTube video. Total Godless Zoomer Victory

I did watch that video and its fucking awful. Discussions go fucking nowhere because Peterson wants to keep redefining terms or question what basic words mean. Peterson, this shit doesn't make you smart. It makes you annoying. The beefy older guy had a good discussion before Peterson ruined it with WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY BELEIVE shit. The second guy was fucking awful and Peterson should have just slapped him. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF LOBOBOBO ARE YOU REJECTING LOBOBOBO. Go back to fucking Reddit.

 

[Cynical-Carnivore-88]

Discussions go fucking nowhere because Peterson wants to keep redefining terms or question what basic words mean. Peterson, this shit doesn't make you smart. It makes you annoying.

It’s insane to me how his fans don’t notice that the way he argues for an almost infinite regress of terms when engaged in discussions like this makes him sound just as annoying as the postmodernist he rallies against. Peterson’s entire “I’m not postmodern I’m archetypal” posture is like a guy drowning in quicksand who insists he’s swimming because he brought a Jung book with him.

But peel back what the way he argues in that video and you’ll clearly see he:

• Sounds like a postmodernist,
• Debates like a postmodernist,
• Dodges like a postmodernist, and
• Relies on interpretive license like a postmodernist

but justifies it by claiming a higher moral arc. An attempt to identify the ‘sacred’ underpinning the search for ‘truth’ for those willing to engage in discussions unlike those ‘deconstructing demons’ he calls most postmodernists; but when the fucker engages with questions like “Do you believe in God?”he transforms it into a semantic relativist riddled meltdown with anxiety filled ‘clarifying questions’ like :

• “Well, what do you mean by ‘believe’?”
• “What do you mean by ‘God’?”
• “What do you mean by ‘you’?”
• “What do you mean by ‘do’?

Sound familiar?

The fucker is a postmodernist in denial, and when you strip away the Jungian window-dressing, the intellectual machinery is the same:
Deconstruct, evade, reframe, cry, and repeat.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The fucker is a postmodernist in denial, and when you strip away the Jungian window-dressing, the intellectual machinery is the same:
Deconstruct, evade, reframe, cry, and repeat.

It is a crime against the YouTube audience that so few debaters or intellectuals are objectivists. Anyone with a solid understanding of objectivist epistemology can completely and utterly wipe the floor with these relativists

 

[Lemmingwiser]

You're really quite something."
"Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing."

Destroyed.

I think this one little exchange with this kid may have officially ended Jordan Peterson's career

I wanted to make sure this was posted here. Absolutely destroyed. If he had any relevancy left, it would go viral.

 

[Turquoise]

I wanted to make sure this was posted here. Absolutely destroyed. If he had any relevancy left, it would go viral.

Disagree. Peterson should've bent the squeaky little shitlib over his knee and given him six of the best.

And I don't like Jordan Peterson.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Disagree. Peterson should've bent the squeaky little shitlib over his knee and given him six of the best.

And I don't like Jordan Peterson.

Did you see the whole thing or just that clip?
If I didn't know I would have thought they were the christians and he the shitlib. The intellectual dishonesty from him was incredibly grating to listen to.

Perhaps the clip doesn't play quite the same without the context.

 

[Turquoise]

Did you see the whole thing or just that clip?
If I didn't know I would have thought they were the christians and he the shitlib. The intellectual dishonesty from him was incredibly grating to listen to.

Perhaps the clip doesn't play quite the same without the context.

Oh, Dr P's dishonesty is not up for debate. He's a turd but that kid who made the 'nothing' quip had Steven Bonnell energy.

And at least JP didn't cry.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

And at least JP didn't cry.

nah that would have made the clip better

 

[dec05eba]

It’s insane to me how his fans don’t notice that the way he argues for an almost infinite regress of terms when engaged in discussions like this makes him sound just as annoying as the postmodernist he rallies against. Peterson’s entire “I’m not postmodern I’m archetypal” posture is like a guy drowning in quicksand who insists he’s swimming because he brought a Jung book with him.

But peel back what the way he argues in that video and you’ll clearly see he:

• Sounds like a postmodernist,
• Debates like a postmodernist,
• Dodges like a postmodernist, and
• Relies on interpretive license like a postmodernist

but justifies it by claiming a higher moral arc. An attempt to identify the ‘sacred’ underpinning the search for ‘truth’ for those willing to engage in discussions unlike those ‘deconstructing demons’ he calls most postmodernists; but when the fucker engages with questions like “Do you believe in God?”he transforms it into a semantic relativist riddled meltdown with anxiety filled ‘clarifying questions’ like :

• “Well, what do you mean by ‘believe’?”
• “What do you mean by ‘God’?”
• “What do you mean by ‘you’?”
• “What do you mean by ‘do’?

Sound familiar?

The fucker is a postmodernist in denial, and when you strip away the Jungian window-dressing, the intellectual machinery is the same:
Deconstruct, evade, reframe, cry, and repeat.

Jordan peterson did a video with Richard dawkins and Richard said this to him and Jordan said that the postmodernists are right on some of these things

 

[Lucas Silva #4903141]

This showed up in my Youtube recommendations. I feel like I should remove that Peterson video from my history, but oh well. At least it's content for this thread.
Title: What it's like to watch Jordan Peterson fall apart... (from a fan's perspective)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wUNp0AmjiY

Archive:

Kindly, the uploader put timestamps:

Nobody loves running cover for conservatives more than I do.

Timestamps:
0:00 Everyone is attacking Jordan for his Jubilee episode
0:46 Why the Right and Left are piling on Peterson
2:10 Peterson is correct about the ambiguity of a word like "believe"
4:02 Stop denying that Peterson can sounds absurd
5:56 The BEST critic of Jordan Peterson is... Jordan Peterson?
7:52 Peterson admits that he was changed by his embrace of the Right
8:48 Part of Peterson knows he is lying and its EATING at him
10:52 It's time to rescue the father from the belly of the whale

Full disclosure: I only skimmed through this.