Dr. Jordan Peterson Triple Feature

Posted in Commodity Wisdom, Library of Congress, Undogegorized by chamblee54 on July 27, 2019

Dr Jordan B Peterson is a smidgin less popular now than a year ago. He chose to stay on the road, and make the mo$t out of his fifteen minutes. There was a pay-per-view smackdown with Slavoj Žižek, with Dr. displayed prominently in front of JP, in case anyone forgot about the PhD. The republic survived, a year older and a trillion dollars deeper in debt. This saturday morning features a Dr. P triple feature. The posts are Jordan Peterson, Prager University AKA PU, and Dr. McWhorter Vs Dr. Peterson. Pictures, as noted elsewhere, are from The Library of Congress.
Jordan Bernt Peterson has become quite the public nuisance recently. He performed at a theater downtown Tuesday night. I did not attend. YouTube has a video of a show he did Saturday night, in San Francisco. (The video is no longer available.) It is probably similar to the Atlanta show. The performance is loosely based on the book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

This report is starting at forty minutes in. JBP is 3 rules into his show, out of 12. JBP says that you should only be around people who support you as a human being. This does not account for instances where you have to be around jerks to keep your job, or because they are in your family. Some of these rules for living are going to be easy to pay lip service to, but tough to actually follow. But, if you are attending the JBP show because you want to make a better person out of yourself… as JBP flatters his followers by saying … then a few inconsistencies are going to be easy to explain away. If nothing else, you just make jokes about the left, which also helps make you a better person.

JBP was talking about the advantages of having a regular sleep schedule, which has never been an issue for me. Meanwhile, I was googling to see what the B stood for. When you type in Jordan Peterson to google, the first thing to come up is sophistry. This is a word a lot of people use to describe this act. Another is “the stupid person’s smart person.” JBP is an example of what Marshall McLuhan meant when he said the medium is the message. A painfully learned man, speaking to you, in polysyllabic bursts, is teaching you how to be a better person. The specific things that he says are beside the point. BTW, the B stands for Bernt, like toast. JBP was born in 1962, in Edmonton, Ontario. He is as Canadian as Hockey, and driving to Florida on I75. June 12 is his birthday.

At 57 minutes, JBP is talking about sleeping, and eating. “What stupid things am I doing that is making my life wretched?” I am tempted to say it is listening to this video, and to motivational speakers in general. However, if I did this, I could not complete this report. I would have to talk about how DJT is screwing up the world, with the profitable assistance of the Democratic party. I could blather about racism. I could look at facebook, and see why my neighbor’s knickers are in a twist. Maybe JBP isn’t so bad after all.

@ggreenwald “Beyond the fact that she treats her audience like 8-year-olds – repeating the same banal points 5 times in increasingly dramatic fashion to make sure they retain it & believe it’s earth-shattering – she’s now the most militaristic, and the most conspiratorial, commentator on TV:” Does it really matter which blow dried talking head this is? The medium is the message. One rule of public speaking is to treat children as though they were adults, and adults as though they were children. It doesn’t matter what the suit on the stage is saying. He is talking, you are sitting quietly in your chair, hopefully your phone is in your pocket, maybe having naughty fun with the vibrate mode, and this is all going to make you a better person.

The next rule is to not let your children do anything that will make other people not like them. This is very, very important, and must be done by the age of four. JBP does not offer many specific tactics for this battle, but spends a lot of time talking about the overall strategy. It should be noted at this point that some people will say that I don’t understand what JBP is saying. This may be true. Or, it could be that I understand it too well. This is true of all criticism. If you say something negative about a leader, to a follower, the follower will say that you don’t understand the message. Maybe the medium is the problem. If the medium were well done, things would taste better.

Rule six is to put your house in order before you criticize the world. Physician heal thyself. On the surface, this is a good rule. Hypocrisy is always a handy argument when someone is generous with their opinions. In a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do world, rule six will get a lot of praise. What blather will JBP illustrate this point with? One might be to save your document, before going back to listening. The redo post is never as good as the one that was lost because you forgot to save your work.

Save is a curious word to use at this point. As you quickly learn, JBP gives you a rule, and then says *stuff*… lots and lots of it … that has little to do with that rule. When the message was paused at 1:22, JBP was talking about creating heaven, and avoiding hell. If you don’t believe hell is real, then you are not paying attention. This is very different from the Christian message about hell, and how Jesus died on the cross… Maybe, hell is sitting in an uncomfortable chair, in a crowded tabernacle, listening to a well paid performer make a better person out of you. At least with YouTube you can pause whenever you need more coffee, or to excrete the coffee already consumed.

Rule eight is not to lie. This is similar to the ninth commandment, and just as liberally interpreted. When the wonder box was paused in self defense at 1:34:01, JBP was railing about the arrogance of using the language to deceive people. There are lots of pithy sentences strewn throughout this monologue, which, as we speak, are already appearing in facebook memes.

At 1:40, JBP says “thats all I have to say about that,” and leaves the stage. The emcee, possibly Dave Rubin, comes on, and tells people to think about what they have heard for the last TWO HOURS. This is after 100 minutes, the first ten minutes being the introduction. Maybe the truth telling rule does not apply here. “And think about what was on CNN for the last two hours… aplause and laughter … Wolf Blitzer talking about porn stars. We’re winning. ” The Atlanta show was less than a quarter mile away from CNN headquarters.

The next part of the show is Q&A. @RubinReport sits in one comfy chair, @jordanbpeterson sits in the other. We interrupt our regularly scheduled snark to bring you a pro JBP comment David Joshua Rubin, the sidekick of the Atlanta and San Francisco shows, tweeted this today: @RubinReport Hi, I’m Dave. I’m married to a dude and I eat chicken sandwiches whenever I want.” DJR is a gay Jew, and is matter of fact about both. We are into another level of gay assimilation, where an Intellectual Dark Web® member can be casually queer. The JBP show, whatever its shortcomings, seems to be free of anti-gay nonsense. Some radicals will not approve of the CFA eating assimilation. We now return to your regularly scheduled snark.

During the Q&A, JBP got onto Bill Maher, and the gratuitous, over the top, Trump bashing that went on back stage. JBP thought it was boring and stupid, and, for once, I agree. People are getting tired of the non-stop Trump hating, and it is creating a backlash. Actually, a lot of what JBP says is worthwhile, but you have to wonder how many of his followers actually do tell the truth. Maybe, with 10 minutes to go in the video, this is a good time to wrap up this report. Pictures are from The Library of Congress. Russell Lee was the photographer. The location was Texas, in February 1939. The spell check suggestions for JBP are JAP and BP.

It was a peaceful sunday morning. Being home churched has advantages. PG made the choice to listen to a video by Uncle Hotep. The video was about an article at the root, 10 Things I Already Know About You if You’re Listening to Nas’ New Album Nasir. Item 3: “You believe that interracial relationships produce a better grade of black hair.” PG had never heard of Nas’, and asked Mr. Google to direct him to a video. After 16 seconds, the artist used the n-word. Good times.

Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids is a video by Prager University, starring Jordan B. Peterson. The pregame video for UH promotes this product. PG called on Mr. Google to direct him to the PU site. One of the results was an article, Free speech champion Jordan Peterson threatens to sue professor over Twitter name calling. This is not satire. While the offending tweet is deleted, the apology is up. @THEWRENCHLEFT AS PER THREAT TO SUE FOR LIBEL, I HEREBY APOLOGIZE TO JORDAN PETERSON FOR REFERRING TO HIM AS AN INVOLUNTARY CELIBATE (INCEL), A MISOGYNIST, A COMMITTED WHITE NATIONALIST, AND SOMEONE WHO HAS DESCENDED INTO RANK BIGOTRY. The Daily Caller presents the other side of the story, Pro-Flag-Burning Prof Calls Child-Having Jordan Peterson A ‘White Nationalist’ ‘Incel’.

Incel (a portmanteau of “involuntary celibates”) is a word that has become popular recently. Popular is not a word frequently associated with incels. The Urban Dictionary defines incel as “A sexist sack of shit who thinks all women owe him sex.” The spell check suggestion for incel is Celine.

Whatever his other shortcomings, JBP has 2 grown children. He had sex twenty something years ago, so he is not an incel. Unfortunately, JBP made a video for PU. Since this show has a transcript, it will be easy to criticize. The lecture style of JBP involves throwing lots of big words at you in rapid fire succession, so you don’t have time to think. With a tranny transcript, you have the luxury of hitting pause, and spreading snark.

PG has been out of the classroom for a while, so there may be trends in higher education that he missed out on. However, is it really true that “It’s now possible to complete an English degree and never encounter Shakespeare—one of those dead white males whose works underlie our “society of oppression.””? JBP does not say which institution offers such a degree. A google search turns this up, Yale ‘decolonizes’ English dept. “Previous requirements for the major included two courses in “Major English Poets,” including Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton and Eliot, among others. But that two-course series petitioners had deemed actively harmful due to its focus on white male poets. The series is no longer a graduation requirement for Yale’s English majors.” No longer a graduation requirement” is not the same as “never encounter.

“You’re underwriting this gang of nihilists. You’re supporting ideologues who claim that all truth is subjective …” There is a difference between not requiring a course in a subject, and saying that a graduate will “never encounter” that subject. JBP was lying when he made that statement. This is an example of truth being relative.

“Their world is instead a Hobbesian nightmare of identity groups warring for power.” You should give JBP (or his ghostwriter) credit for knowing how to turn a phrase. It should be noted that JBP is not completely wrong. “They don’t see ideas that run contrary to their ideology as simply incorrect. They see them as integral to the oppressive system they wish to supplant, and consider it a moral obligation to stifle and constrain their expression.” Social Justice Jihad does have a collateral damage problem. It is a handy target for strawman jousting jerkoffs.

“Second is rejection of the free market … Meanwhile, in once-prosperous Venezuela—until recently the poster-child of the campus radicals—the middle class lines up for toilet paper.” Holy strawman, Batman. While some “campus radicals” may be Marxist, that is far from a requirement for Social Justice Jihad. This *free market* rhetoric will play well with the conservatives who make up the bulk of PU listeners. Also, has anyone seen any posters praising the revolution in Venezuela? Maybe they are kept in the same library as the Shakespeare shredders.

“Post-modernists don’t believe in individuals. You’re an exemplar of your race, sex, or sexual preference. You’re also either a victim or an oppressor. No wrong can be done by anyone in the former group, and no good by the latter.” Here again, identity politics can be yucky, but good grief, does anyone really believe this?

The video only lasts 5:02. Staying within the attention span of your target audience is a good idea. In the last part of the message, the naughty professors are labeled as communists. The evils of this tacky ideology are fervently denounced. Does anyone notice what has happened in the Soviet Union? The former KGB dudes changed their colors. Russia is a post-Marxist kleptocracy today. Their leadership is buddy buddy with Donald J. Trump. Pictures today are from The Library of Congress. .

“Jordan Peterson Questioned By Linguist John McWhorter on Pronoun Stance” is the video that started it all. Dr. Jordan Bernt Peterson, aka “The stupid person’s smart person,” was appearing at the Aspen Ideas Festival. During the Q&A, he was queried by Dr. John Hamilton McWhorter V, who is one of “the Black guys on Bloggingheads TV”. The moderator was Bari Weiss, the namer of the Intellectual Dark Web. PG posted the video link to a *radical community* facebook page, with the note “This is a thoughtful conversation about gender and pronouns.” Some were not amused.

In the video, JHM asks JBP “I teach trans students. And I’m asked often to call people singularly they. It started probably about four years ago. It struck me as very odd. I’m 52. And some of them you can tell that it’s coming from a very deep place. That’s how they feel, and they deeply need to be called they. Some of them, my horse sense says, that they’re kind of enjoying giving me a certain shock, and there’s a certain theatrical element. That’s my horse sense … my general feeling has been that whatever they ask I just go with it, and let’s change the usage of the pronouns because we have a lot to do. … You said that how you make the difference in deciding these cases is that you have psychological training, and you can tell. What I want to know is, for my own elucidation and also because many of us wondered but then it kind of went by: How do you know?”

JBP replied. “Well, first of all I wouldn’t know … I would be willing to do that despite the fact that I might be wrong. Having said that, in any reasonable situation I would err on the side of addressing the person in the manner in which they want to be addressed. But that’s not the issue for me. The issue is that now I’m compelled by law to do so. It’s like: No, not doing it. Not now, because it’s compelled by law, so that’s the end of the game so far as I’m concerned. There’s no excuse for compelling it by law. I don’t think it was an isolated legislative move. I think it was part and parcel of a whole series of legislative moves that have been made. I think it’s an attempt by a certain radical ideology to get the linguistic upper hand, which I think is a terrible thing to do…. ”

Bill C-16 was a proposal in the Canadien Parliament. It would, essentially, extend Civil Rights protection to Gender Identity issues. The bill was passed by Parliament, and is now law. JBP gained some fame, and notoriety, with his opposition to C16.

One issue in this video is whether, or not, the use of non-preferred pronouns is against the law. According to Brenda Cossman, a professor of law at the University of Toronto, Peterson is “fundamentally mischaracterizing” Bill C-16. “I don’t know if he’s misunderstanding it, but he’s mischaracterizing it,” Cossman says. … Cossman says it seems Peterson is trying to argue that the misuse of pronouns could constitute hate speech. “I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada,” she says. Our courts have a very high threshold for what kind of comments actually constitutes hate speech, and the nature of speech would have to be much more extreme than simply pronoun misuse, according to Cossman.”

During the Facebook conversation, PG made this comment: ” I agree with Dr. McWhorter that, as a matter of respect, you should call someone by their preferred pronoun. I may have doubts about their sincerity, but I will call them what they want to be called. … I am not familiar with the C-16 struggle. Apparently, there was some Canadien legislation regarding these issues. While I don’t have a problem calling someone they, I really don’t see this as an appropriate issue for legal action. That may not be what the proposed law said, and I don’t want to research it now. However, if C-16 mandated singular they, then I would agree with Dr. Peterson…. which might be the only time I ever agree with him.” Now it appears that this notion … that the law requires the use of singular they … is a creation of JBP’s overheated imagination.

The video linked above does not include a section of the discussion preceding the question by JHM. This exchange changes the character of the conversation between JBP and JHM. PG did not know about this previous exchange when he posted his ill fated comment on facebook. Here is the exchange, between BW and JBP.

BW: “You are often characterized, at least in the mainstream press, as being transphobic. If you had a student come to you and say, I was born female, I now identify as male, I want you to call me by male pronouns. Would you say yes to that?” JBP: “Well, it would depend on the student and the context and why I thought they were asking me and what I believe their demand actually characterized, and all of that. Because that can be done in a way that is genuine and acceptable, and a way that is manipulative and unacceptable. And if it was genuine and acceptable then I would have no problem with it. And if it was manipulative and unacceptable then not a chance.”

JBP said one thing first…. that he would call a student *they* if it was “genuine and acceptable.” After the questions by JHM, the focus became whether, or not, the law was requiring the usage of non-binary pronouns. This is not the first time that JBP has been too slick for his own good.

Was the question by JHM sincere, or was he trolling JBP? JHM was clearly playing with JBP. “Are you saying that psychological theory has nothing to teach us about this? Because you’re talking around my question. You’re gorgeously articulate. You’re smarter than me. Does psychology have anything to teach us or not? Yes or no?

It is tough to say. It may have been a combination of sincerity and rhetoric. Whatever the motivation there, the question struck a nerve with PG. It is easier to just be careful, use the preferred pronouns, and keep your concerns to yourself. Trans issues are a part of modern life. You don’t have to understand everything.

Pictures today are from The Library of Congress. The quotes are from a transcript published in this artice, Jordan Peterson Comes to Aspen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: