I previously enjoyed some of Mr. Peterson's straightforward advice, a number of years ago when he was just getting started with his University of Toronto lectures being uploaded to Youtube. Some of his discussions about Disney and various archetypes were absolutely fascinating.
I think that his venture into global geopolitics might be a bit misguided and it's for that reason that I also stay away from Political Discussions as best that I can.
Jordan Peterson is no one's "useful" or "useless" idiot, and the fact that the author frames his disagreements with Peterson in such a manner says much more about the author than about Mr. Peterson.
Just so you know, authors virtually never compose the titles of their articles. That said, how would you characterize endorsement of a genocidal invasion?
Free and fair elections... It was a widely recognized coup. Maybe you should take up some line of work other than warmongering and hating people that turn males away from the suicide ratio of the Pre-Jordan decade
You are confused. Yanukovich abandoned the country in 2014. Putin stated: "I will say it openly - he asked to be driven away to Russia, which we did.” Do some research.
The 2019 elections that installed the current government were free and fair.
Scarlett: As God is my witness, as God is my witness they’re not going to lick me. I’m going to live through this and when it’s all over, I’ll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk.
It's not just herself as an individual she sets out to save, it's her family and her plantation.
She's not an admirable character but if she were the true individualist Putin claims, she'd have been on a train to New York the moment the fighting stopped.
It also seems to me that Putin's experience with Russian literature is limited - because I would think her Russian equivalent would be Anna Karenina.
I think there's only so many contradictions and nonsense a person's brain can hold until it breaks under the pressure. A pressure made worse by pretending to be an intellectual. I think he medicated for quite a while to deal with it, did his coma detox (in Russia funnily enough) and here we are.
The title of the article is: "Jordan Peterson: Putin's Useless Idiot"
Strong words.
The sub-title of the article is: "In the contorted logic of this anti-woke warrior, destroying Ukraine for the sake of the culture war is "not wrong"
Another strong attack.
----------------------------
The entire article is an outright attack on Peterson, so you'd expect the article to accurately represent 'the facts'.
And yet, the foundation of Peterson's "idiocy" form very first line when the writer finally speaks about Peterson goes on to vaguely define Peterson's rise to fame as an anti woke homophobic person..
How do they do it?
By misrepresenting what Peterson became famous for in one fell swoop.
He didn't attack gender pronouns. He attack compelled speech. He attacked the moral and legal implications of a government forcing people to speak a certain way.
And by incorrectly bludgeoning Peterson's fame, it incorrectly sets the tone for the entire piece in one direction.
If that's 'weak' I'm not sure what a big lie looks like.
If my kid handed in a paper like that I'd expect them to fail.
His attack on "compelled speech" was a complete lie, as well. Peterson completely misrepresented the nature of the bill in his opposition as it did not say what he claimed it said, although this was probably immaterial. Once he had a taste of the fame garnered by his phony opposition, the allure took hold and he rode the lie to more infamy and influence. Now, we have hordes of "former liberals", who have bought this narrative hook, line, and sinker, deciding this is somehow the demarcation line of civilization and have fallen to the usual demagoguery of the Right with "The Kids!" arguments, their most effective arguments alongside "Scary Dark People!" and "Communism!".
Authors do not write titles or headlines, I’m sad to tell you. Evidently you concede that the critique of his Ukraine comments is correct. That is what the essay addresses.
The point of my rebuttal had nothing to do with the headlines as I mentioned them only to show that the premise of the entire article and the essay's main point is to discredit Peterson
Something they attempt to do before they ever even address his position on Ukraine.
Which they do so by misrepresenting his past.
So the entire piece is based on bad acting and it's entire purpose is meant as a smear piece.
If they were genuinely interested in his position on Ukraine they wouldn't put so much effort into a misleading headline or a misrepresentation of his past.
In short, they'd be more interested in trying to discredit the message than the messenger.
And we all know that as soon as someone focuses on the messenger, that's basically a white flag and that they have nothing else left in the chamber.
The agenda isn't hidden. It's a smear on Peterson first and concern about the Ukraine 2nd, and that's where the problem lies. Your politics were apparent before your facts were.
Your article completely misrepresents Peterson and the UnPopulist is just another political smear publication. And this is from someone who WAS staunchly Liberal and is neither a lefty NOR a righty. Just a facty.
The article states that "Peterson rose to fame because of his unsparing slams on wokeness and its crusade over gender identity, pronouns and so on." with no links or attribution.
Very convenient to set the stage for a left leaning publication to hate Peterson by misrepresenting him.
In fact, Peterson rose to fame because of his testimony in Canadian parliament AGAINST COMPELLED SPEECH and it's implications. Something ANY reasonable person would agree with if they were objective. People have since misrepresented Peterson's position through a game of broken telephone to make it sound like Peterson is homophobic but there is a world of difference between being against compelled speech and being homophobic...but if it suits your argument, then the details don't seem to matter.
This lack of attention to detail on a key point which paints Peterson as an automatic antagonist against the Woke taints the entire article and misguides the reader. and the UnPopulist comes across as nothing more than another left heavy smear publication..
That’s rather weak. It is descriptive and not a misrepresentation of anything he said. So, was anything he said misrepresented? Or is he accurately quoted?
The idea that Russia is part of the West is exactly the opposite of what Vladimir Putin believes. There is a longstanding debate among Russians about whether Russia is part of Europe. The first principle of Putinism is that Russia is decidedly NOT part of Europe. Attempting to bring Russia into the European fold is the essence of what it means to be anti-Russian, according to Putin's worldview. So, Putin does not see himself fighting in a civil war with fellow Western nations. He sees himself as fighting a war of preemptive defense against decadent Western liberalism, an ideology alien to Russia.
Until a few weeks ago, Jordan Peterson was a champion of Western liberal values, such as freedom of expression. I find it the height of irony that he is now defending Putin, a self-declared enemy of those same values.
Are you sure about your analysis? They literally refer to themselves in Moscow was the 4th Rome. That seems very much amenable to being the final outpost of the West. Russia sees themselves as the last remaining bastion of Christendom, and in that sense, they are as West as Christendom was.
In its original context, in the late 15th century, the Third Rome notion (not Fourth Rome) was an apocalyptic narrative about the collapse of Christendom, with Moscow being the last outpost of "true" Christian civilization following the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. But it is premised on the idea that the Western Church, headquartered in Rome, had "fallen" through apostasy when it broke communion with Constantinople. And then Constantinople had fallen to the Turks as a divine punishment for its many attempts at reunion with apostate Rome. So, the Third Rome rhetoric is anti-Western at its core.
In the view of Catholics, the first Rome still stands. They don't even like the idea of Constantinople as the New Rome, despite the fact that it is enshrined in various canons of Ecumenical Councils that Catholics otherwise affirm. And, of course, Constantinople is still regarded by Orthodox Christians as first in honor among Orthodox churches, the pretensions of Moscow notwithstanding.
Peterson seemed more grounded in his job as college professor than political pundit. I kind of see his weakness is his intuition which is very good at lining up unrelated things into a pattern which is NOT a pattern, but one little random aspect of reality, and "seeing patterns" is what allows you to raise up bullies as heroes and ignore everything that doesn't fit the pattern.
I recall a some years ago, before the gender wars, his pet peeve was postmodernism, which apparently contained moral relativism that allows anyone to do anything they like as long as they can rationalize it. So, sure, sounds problematic. But then he has a weird debate with Sam Harris and fights tooth and nail for the idea that there is no absolute truth (same as his dreaded postmodernism) , but some sort of evolutionary truth that is basically "If it helped your ancestors survive and propagate, its truth, because the losers are not here to defend themselves." So I could try to see what he was trying to say, and I think there is probably a "mythic truth" in the sense of Joseph Campbell's "Myths to live by" and maybe in the long run, moral degeneracy is self-limiting, and we can safely trust higher spiritual values, like the Jesus parable sort, that turn the world upside down and make the weak strong, and the strong weak, can win in the end, if only because they give meaning and people are willing to die for meaning, and the willingness to sacrifices is somehow higher than the mere selfish gene that says the powerful always win, which is still statistically true.
1. I was talking about Peterson specifically, not "anything genuinely diverse"
2. I'm not doing it because anyone in power told me to
3. You need to learn to read better :P
The reason I stopped listening to Peterson is because he is mentally retarded and his vapid logic infuriates me, as he has amply demonstrated for several years now. As a result of avoiding his conspiracy-laden tweets, my life is much happier and more stress free.
Thanks. Great piece. Peterson is another alt-right fascist at heart. Nothing surprising at all. Murder and mayhem in the pursuit of some cultural purity is core rightwing ideology these days.
I previously enjoyed some of Mr. Peterson's straightforward advice, a number of years ago when he was just getting started with his University of Toronto lectures being uploaded to Youtube. Some of his discussions about Disney and various archetypes were absolutely fascinating.
I think that his venture into global geopolitics might be a bit misguided and it's for that reason that I also stay away from Political Discussions as best that I can.
Jordan Peterson is no one's "useful" or "useless" idiot, and the fact that the author frames his disagreements with Peterson in such a manner says much more about the author than about Mr. Peterson.
Just so you know, authors virtually never compose the titles of their articles. That said, how would you characterize endorsement of a genocidal invasion?
Peterson is not wrong here
Peterson is not wrong
Free and fair elections... It was a widely recognized coup. Maybe you should take up some line of work other than warmongering and hating people that turn males away from the suicide ratio of the Pre-Jordan decade
You are confused. Yanukovich abandoned the country in 2014. Putin stated: "I will say it openly - he asked to be driven away to Russia, which we did.” Do some research.
The 2019 elections that installed the current government were free and fair.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election
So the full Scarlett O'Hara quote is
Scarlett: As God is my witness, as God is my witness they’re not going to lick me. I’m going to live through this and when it’s all over, I’ll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk.
It's not just herself as an individual she sets out to save, it's her family and her plantation.
She's not an admirable character but if she were the true individualist Putin claims, she'd have been on a train to New York the moment the fighting stopped.
It also seems to me that Putin's experience with Russian literature is limited - because I would think her Russian equivalent would be Anna Karenina.
He is so far gone now (Peterson). Was it the all meat diet?? F*cking guy looks visibly physically ill...😳🙄 too.
Don't overlook Jordan Peterson's whiny voice and his perpetually indignant and self-righteous delivery.
I think there's only so many contradictions and nonsense a person's brain can hold until it breaks under the pressure. A pressure made worse by pretending to be an intellectual. I think he medicated for quite a while to deal with it, did his coma detox (in Russia funnily enough) and here we are.
The title of the article is: "Jordan Peterson: Putin's Useless Idiot"
Strong words.
The sub-title of the article is: "In the contorted logic of this anti-woke warrior, destroying Ukraine for the sake of the culture war is "not wrong"
Another strong attack.
----------------------------
The entire article is an outright attack on Peterson, so you'd expect the article to accurately represent 'the facts'.
And yet, the foundation of Peterson's "idiocy" form very first line when the writer finally speaks about Peterson goes on to vaguely define Peterson's rise to fame as an anti woke homophobic person..
How do they do it?
By misrepresenting what Peterson became famous for in one fell swoop.
He didn't attack gender pronouns. He attack compelled speech. He attacked the moral and legal implications of a government forcing people to speak a certain way.
And by incorrectly bludgeoning Peterson's fame, it incorrectly sets the tone for the entire piece in one direction.
If that's 'weak' I'm not sure what a big lie looks like.
If my kid handed in a paper like that I'd expect them to fail.
His attack on "compelled speech" was a complete lie, as well. Peterson completely misrepresented the nature of the bill in his opposition as it did not say what he claimed it said, although this was probably immaterial. Once he had a taste of the fame garnered by his phony opposition, the allure took hold and he rode the lie to more infamy and influence. Now, we have hordes of "former liberals", who have bought this narrative hook, line, and sinker, deciding this is somehow the demarcation line of civilization and have fallen to the usual demagoguery of the Right with "The Kids!" arguments, their most effective arguments alongside "Scary Dark People!" and "Communism!".
Do you mind expanding on how he misrepresented the nature of the bill?
Authors do not write titles or headlines, I’m sad to tell you. Evidently you concede that the critique of his Ukraine comments is correct. That is what the essay addresses.
The point of my rebuttal had nothing to do with the headlines as I mentioned them only to show that the premise of the entire article and the essay's main point is to discredit Peterson
Something they attempt to do before they ever even address his position on Ukraine.
Which they do so by misrepresenting his past.
So the entire piece is based on bad acting and it's entire purpose is meant as a smear piece.
If they were genuinely interested in his position on Ukraine they wouldn't put so much effort into a misleading headline or a misrepresentation of his past.
In short, they'd be more interested in trying to discredit the message than the messenger.
And we all know that as soon as someone focuses on the messenger, that's basically a white flag and that they have nothing else left in the chamber.
That's a checkmate. Good day.
You assume I had a hidden agenda other than addressing his justification for waging war in Ukraine. You fail to address that. Have a nice life.
The agenda isn't hidden. It's a smear on Peterson first and concern about the Ukraine 2nd, and that's where the problem lies. Your politics were apparent before your facts were.
I see. No need to address the substance then. Well played, my friend. Well played.
Your article completely misrepresents Peterson and the UnPopulist is just another political smear publication. And this is from someone who WAS staunchly Liberal and is neither a lefty NOR a righty. Just a facty.
What did he say that was misrepresented?
The article states that "Peterson rose to fame because of his unsparing slams on wokeness and its crusade over gender identity, pronouns and so on." with no links or attribution.
Very convenient to set the stage for a left leaning publication to hate Peterson by misrepresenting him.
In fact, Peterson rose to fame because of his testimony in Canadian parliament AGAINST COMPELLED SPEECH and it's implications. Something ANY reasonable person would agree with if they were objective. People have since misrepresented Peterson's position through a game of broken telephone to make it sound like Peterson is homophobic but there is a world of difference between being against compelled speech and being homophobic...but if it suits your argument, then the details don't seem to matter.
This lack of attention to detail on a key point which paints Peterson as an automatic antagonist against the Woke taints the entire article and misguides the reader. and the UnPopulist comes across as nothing more than another left heavy smear publication..
That’s rather weak. It is descriptive and not a misrepresentation of anything he said. So, was anything he said misrepresented? Or is he accurately quoted?
The idea that Russia is part of the West is exactly the opposite of what Vladimir Putin believes. There is a longstanding debate among Russians about whether Russia is part of Europe. The first principle of Putinism is that Russia is decidedly NOT part of Europe. Attempting to bring Russia into the European fold is the essence of what it means to be anti-Russian, according to Putin's worldview. So, Putin does not see himself fighting in a civil war with fellow Western nations. He sees himself as fighting a war of preemptive defense against decadent Western liberalism, an ideology alien to Russia.
Until a few weeks ago, Jordan Peterson was a champion of Western liberal values, such as freedom of expression. I find it the height of irony that he is now defending Putin, a self-declared enemy of those same values.
Are you sure about your analysis? They literally refer to themselves in Moscow was the 4th Rome. That seems very much amenable to being the final outpost of the West. Russia sees themselves as the last remaining bastion of Christendom, and in that sense, they are as West as Christendom was.
Yes, I'm sure.
In its original context, in the late 15th century, the Third Rome notion (not Fourth Rome) was an apocalyptic narrative about the collapse of Christendom, with Moscow being the last outpost of "true" Christian civilization following the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. But it is premised on the idea that the Western Church, headquartered in Rome, had "fallen" through apostasy when it broke communion with Constantinople. And then Constantinople had fallen to the Turks as a divine punishment for its many attempts at reunion with apostate Rome. So, the Third Rome rhetoric is anti-Western at its core.
In the view of Catholics, the first Rome still stands. They don't even like the idea of Constantinople as the New Rome, despite the fact that it is enshrined in various canons of Ecumenical Councils that Catholics otherwise affirm. And, of course, Constantinople is still regarded by Orthodox Christians as first in honor among Orthodox churches, the pretensions of Moscow notwithstanding.
Peterson seemed more grounded in his job as college professor than political pundit. I kind of see his weakness is his intuition which is very good at lining up unrelated things into a pattern which is NOT a pattern, but one little random aspect of reality, and "seeing patterns" is what allows you to raise up bullies as heroes and ignore everything that doesn't fit the pattern.
I recall a some years ago, before the gender wars, his pet peeve was postmodernism, which apparently contained moral relativism that allows anyone to do anything they like as long as they can rationalize it. So, sure, sounds problematic. But then he has a weird debate with Sam Harris and fights tooth and nail for the idea that there is no absolute truth (same as his dreaded postmodernism) , but some sort of evolutionary truth that is basically "If it helped your ancestors survive and propagate, its truth, because the losers are not here to defend themselves." So I could try to see what he was trying to say, and I think there is probably a "mythic truth" in the sense of Joseph Campbell's "Myths to live by" and maybe in the long run, moral degeneracy is self-limiting, and we can safely trust higher spiritual values, like the Jesus parable sort, that turn the world upside down and make the weak strong, and the strong weak, can win in the end, if only because they give meaning and people are willing to die for meaning, and the willingness to sacrifices is somehow higher than the mere selfish gene that says the powerful always win, which is still statistically true.
Whatever may or may not be the harm or benefit of transitioning, the harm to kids from Republican policies is orders of magnitude greater.
I consider the source, but this doesn't sound like a diatribe.
https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/sex-reassignment-doesnt-work-here-the-evidence
Peterson did his drug rehab in a Russian hospital. I think he may have allegiance issues.
At this point I have just stopped listening to anything Peterson has to say and my life is better for it.
Yes, refusing to listen to anything genuinely diverse is now kewl. After all, those presently in power tell you so.
1. I was talking about Peterson specifically, not "anything genuinely diverse"
2. I'm not doing it because anyone in power told me to
3. You need to learn to read better :P
The reason I stopped listening to Peterson is because he is mentally retarded and his vapid logic infuriates me, as he has amply demonstrated for several years now. As a result of avoiding his conspiracy-laden tweets, my life is much happier and more stress free.
Have a wonderful day!
Thanks. Great piece. Peterson is another alt-right fascist at heart. Nothing surprising at all. Murder and mayhem in the pursuit of some cultural purity is core rightwing ideology these days.