The Blockchain of Gibberish

Here’s something that really should make no sense but if you read enough from 2018 sadly it does: Vox Day is hoping that Qanon chan boards will find pizzagate style dirt on Jordan Peterson. It’s gibberish turtles all the way down.

For references here is the nonsense: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/08/mailvox-on-hunt.html

37 thoughts on “The Blockchain of Gibberish

  1. two right wing nutcases going at it, to be honest I can’t really see any problems here?
    Perhaps accusations of paedophilia will bring Jordan Peterson back to the centre, instead of whatever right-wing fantasy land he’s been wandering through for the past few years, but I doubt it since he makes much of his money from The nonsense he spews about men, women and philosophy.
    there are three ways I can see this going down:
    One: vox days goons find, or more likely fabricate comments and evidence from Peterson linking him to the crimes of 2009.
    If this happens, I suspect that Petersons fans will then seek to attack vox day further alienating him from the centre right,. Since Peterson is more mainstream than Vox, I suspect that it will drive another nail into the queue anon conspiracy theory which most sensible Conservatives don’t believe in anyway, and now the manospherians Who make up much of Petersons audience will have a reason to reject it also.
    Two: this whole thing is a publicity stunt Vox day is pulling to get more views on his blog, and perhaps to get some Peterson fans into his way of thinking and radicalising them further.
    Three, it’s all smoke and mirrors, it will be forgotten next week and nothing will come of it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It’s typical idiotic rightwing reasoning: “There are pedophiles in Ontario” + “Jordan Peterson lives in Ontario” + “I don’t like Jordan Peterson’s face and fame” = “Jordan Peterson is a pedophile.”

      It also makes as little sense as this sort of thing usually makes. Nonetheless, I don’t feel particularly sorry for Peterson.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. The Qanon fans are white evangelical middle-aged Trumpers who believed back in the late 1990s in the conspiracy theories Gingrich and Murdoch floated then that the Clintons murdered their friend/staffer and several other people. They watch Fox Cable, are consequently obsessed with figures like George Soros and Mexicans, and are desperate to view the Democrats as pedophiles because of so many pedophile abuse cases with prominent Republican politicians and religious clergy that eats into their nice, righteous images of themselves. They’re the Flynn family crowd. Right wing media has been milking these folks for money for quite some time and now it’s become a regular thing for the alt right hustlers to try to milk them too, thanks to Trump.

    But the Qanon fans don’t really know who Peterson is or what his stuff is, and have no idea who Beale is. Peterson’s base are the younger, male alt righter white supremacists who like to terrorize women on-line and through doxxing and stalking, and who are into eugenics and pseudo-science “evolutionary” psychology. Some of these very same men came up with the Qanon conspiracy off of pizzagate to make money. They’ve more or less been outed: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531

    As the people who invented and initially ran with Qanon are possibly fans of Peterson, it’s unlikely that they’d try to link him to the Clintons for a bunch of middle-aged white people for whom he won’t resonate. That’s not the sort of thing that gets them the money clicks on this particular conspiracy. It’s true that Peterson got on the wrong side of Milo and some of the Breibart/Gamergater network, in which Beale has a small stake, but it’s never developed into a real feud and the Qanon fans wouldn’t care. There are some far right rabid anti-Semitics who are fans of Qanon, but since Peterson is doing the Christian mystic thing, I don’t think it would work with them either. I’m sure that Trudeau is considered part of the Qanon Clinton conspiracy rumor, but the reality is that the middle-aged Americans who fixate on Qanon have little interest in Canada and a Canadian professor. Peterson has no connection to the U.S. government and though he’s imitating Buckley in U.S. media the past year, he’s just not a well known enough figure to be worth dragging in.

    Beale was making progress in the right wing hierarchy harassing people in the tech world, like at Google. He’d do better concentrating on that and going after women led tech start-ups and investors. Or going after Shapiro, who has been moving up several rungs lately.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @KatG:

      Teddy is too old to really get on the latest RWNJ gravy train, then? He waited too long and spent too much time trying to screw with a literary award to really get in on the next big thing?

      Ben Shapiro’s also much younger than Teddy, so I don’t see what’s to attack there, particularly with Shapiro professing to be Orthodox Jewish — going after him immediately sets you up for the Nazi reference. So the younger openly anti-Semitic righties might go after him — but not Peterson. Ben’s got that millennial thing, all memes and podcasts and whatever These Kids Today like. Teddy’s got a blog, FFS. I don’t see that happening.

      I guess Rush, Jones, and Fox “News” are hanging on well enough with the old folks, but they don’t care about Peterson, though they’ve heard of him in passing. And would care even less about Teddy if they’d ever heard of him, which they haven’t — except maybe as daddy’s boy.

      This is another XanaD’OH gambit that’ll go nowhere. Makes even less sense than some of his others.

      Like

      1. Teddy’s big problem is that he’s never really had the talent and charisma to be more than a marginal hanger-on in the wingnutsphere–his column at WND lasted as long as father was one of the backers. While he picked up some followers in Gamergate, most of them seem to have gone their own way by now.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Naw, not too old. Peterson is old, for example. And the Pupolypse was an added in for him in the rightwing net, showing he could be useful, even if it didn’t really go very far since it was just some books or send women fleeing from their homes from death threats. So then he was going after some of the tech diversity stuff — which Peterson has little involvement in. That’s an area where he can carve some territory for himself, especially as it’s global.

        Qanon is in the Flynn and Alex Jones territory that flogged pizzagate, Sandy Hook trutherism, Obama memes and so forth. It’s old school conservative American political stuff — Soros, Alinsky, Clintons, etc. — which is why it draws the middle aged white people in. The alt righters mostly consider it silly, which I guess is why Beale thinks tying Peterson to Qanon might lose Peterson some followers. But again, Peterson is a Canadian professor, has nothing to do with any part of the U.S. government or American businesses, etc. He’s not a former pal of the Clintons or Mueller. And there’s really nothing to tie him into the Canadian pedophile cases except the sort of ambiguous speculation authoritarians like to engage in. If you wanted to cast him in a sabotage conspiracy of the right, Qanon wouldn’t be the one to use. Proud Boys maybe instead — that’s headed by a Canadian white supremacist McInnes and he and Peterson have both been buddies and debated/denounced each other at the same time.

        But I guess because Peterson came and sucked up some contingents of the alt right — something some of the atheist alt righters aren’t happy about either — and Beale had his connections in Gamergate, that Beale regards him as a rival for alt right followers. But Ben Shapiro is a much bigger rival there, as Shapiro isn’t just trying to flog a book, like Peterson is. Shapiro has a whole multimedia, multi-product platform. But maybe Beale doesn’t see Shapiro as an outsider, given the Breibart connections. But tilting at Peterson gets Beale exactly nothing in the U.S. right wing net, especially since Peterson has already been given a role as a brick in the wall of authoritarianism warriors saving Western culture by the press. (And thanks so much for that NYTimes.)

        Beale’s big problem is that he can’t enter the U.S. So he can’t do speeches, in studio media appearances, U.S. conventions, book tours, etc. He’s of limited usefulness to the factions of the U.S. right. So that means he’s got the European and U.K. right to play with, but I gather they all don’t really like him? Besides the tech stuff, he could also try to attach himself to Steve Bannon and his EU campaign right now. Beale has connections with Bannon, so maybe he’s already doing that. But going after Peterson doesn’t really help there either, that I can see.

        I would assume that Beale would also be working on Comicsgate; that’s a natural for him. But Peterson has no connection there either.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. One would think that the European right already has plenty of their own home-grown racist, sexist, homophobic dipshits and don’t need or want some American has-been/never-was/try-hard encroaching on their turf.

        And previous connections aside, it’s not like Bannon needs Teddy. He’s got plenty of people already, and the tax thing is probably a touchy subject given the lack of Trump’s returns. Bannon doesn’t need a rando has-been remittance man who can’t even go to the US for meetings — particularly if the EU righties already don’t like Teddy.

        Teddy’s going to have to work on something else if he wants to return to being a wingnut welfare parasite. He’ll probably get into Comicsgate next week. He’d better, before it flames out or all the good parts are taken.

        I guess Teddy is just really upset that Peterson’s a big success. His usual pattern of “Not jealous, nuh-uh!” crossed with “Notice me, senpai!” He’s got form.

        Like

      4. Well you know it never hurts to float a balloon. They just try something out and see if it sticks, pushes the Overton window on what they can do. If it doesn’t, they can always say they changed their minds later.

        Like

  3. It’s yet another example of the fracturing of the alt right.
    The alt right is made up of various groups that coalesced around a few central ideas, YouTube anti-feminists, Resurgeant white Nationalists and traditional Christian Conservatives opposing feminism and what they saw as the downfall of western civilisation.
    They thought of themselves as antiestablishment because the government, they believed was censoring or suppressing them, and as brave truth tellers against hegemonic leftist culture.
    once the right-wing president was elected, you might have thought there would be more agreement on the right but like every group that defines itself purely in opposition to an idea or set of principles, once the thing they oppose is removed from the picture, they go back to bickering and fighting because they actually have some stark and irreconcilable differences.
    And now the cracks are beginning to show, atheists versus traditional Conservative Christians, anti-Semites versus those who think right-wing Jews are okay, those who support broadly libertarian ideas and those who do not, fascists and neo-Nazis versus those who think fascism is a left-wing idea.
    I can’t 😏 imagine it will last much longer to be honest, and I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Would it be possible to use some kind of Do Not Link thingy when you refer to VD’s blog? I was curious about his latest delusions, but I really didn’t want to go there because it’s such a swamp. In the end, though, I gave up and went there. My thoughts can be summed up as “Wha—?”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I’m finding it harder and harder to parse Beale’s bullshit for sense. Do you think Trump’s rambling oratory “style” is rubbing off on Teddy, or am I just getting less tolerant of his nonsense?

    Like

      1. Teddy’s ongoing decline (from what was a fairly low-starting point to begin with) is largely the function of getting only positive feedback for lackluster efforts joining with needing ever more elaborate conspiracy theories to explain why he’s not doing as well as he would like.

        Like

  6. For several days, as I revisit this story, I’ve been trying to think of some incisive comment, but the sheer WTFery of this thing will probably defeat me. But then, I don’t follow culture-wars comic opera reliably enough to consistently know who hates whom, and why. Last I heard, wasn’t Prof. Peterson just an academic with a minor sideline as occasional public-affairs pundit?

    I became dimly aware of Prof. Peterson this past April on a mailing list where one of the regulars credulously cited his public objections to Bill C-16 in the Canadian federal Parliament in Ottawa. The bill added the four words ‘gender identity or expression’ to the list in the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code of factors like race and sex on the basis of which government agencies and businesses regulated by the national government may not discriminate. Peterson’s entire beef with this bill, which he claimed would made the use of non-binary preferred pronouns mandatory and criminalised ‘misgendering’ of those who identified as non-binary. This prediction was completely non-credible if you bothered to read the legislation, which I did when I saw the factual claim (having not read up on Canadian law since college back when that country’s constitution was still a Westminster statute called the British North America Act). Further, and even more damning, Peterson was still making the same claim in April of this year, even though the bill received Royal Assent (became effective) June 19, 2017. In other words, I asked the mailing list regular, even if Peterson’s prediction was credible ten months ago (which, basically, no), why was it still being taken seriously in April 2018, after almost a year’s passage of time had proved obviously untrue? No answer.

    But I’m aware he’s been making the talk show and debate circuit since then, to no particular effect (it seemed to me), less ‘alt-right’ than just intellectual gadfly at large, and it seems utterly mystifying that he should prove even interesting to Mr. Beale and his lot.

    If this is indeed purely a case of attacking someone with better name recognition in hopes of getting attention, it seems, to use the Toddler-in-Chief’s favourite expression, sad.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah, that was how Peterson got his notoriety — claiming first that he wouldn’t use preferred pronouns for his students at University of Toronto and then following it up with his lies about the Canadian bill. Before that, no one much knew who he was, but the U.S. far right picked it up as part of their general universities and liberal run governments are making us do things or will throw us in jail approach.

      That gave Peterson an opening and so he wrote a book that is a mish-mash of self-help therapy exercises, old men’s rights stuff from back in Warren Farrell’s day, pseudo-science eugenics and Christian far right mysticism pretending to be sociology. And he compared humans to lobsters to promote sexist discrimination, which intrigued Canadian and U.S. media because it was weird. So he attracted the alt right young men, as he was a professor spouting white supremacy and sexism eugenics and claims to philosophy which is their thing, and he attracted hard right Christians because he was pushing Christian supremacy and he got himself a bestseller and a chance to do the right-wing pundit tour circuit. He’s not very active in any groups or movements of the right wing in Canada or the U.S. but he gets to speak to them and they pay him. So he vaulted to the front of attention on the right wing net, particularly with the young white men.

      Beale is more on the fringes and has his in mainly through the Breibart crowd and affiliates, which harnessed the various factions of the alt right and took over Gamergate. As such, for him, Peterson seems to be an interloper in the territory of the young white supremacist males, mainly the American groups. And also might be seen as sucking up the hard right Christian dominionism crowds as well maybe.

      But again the Qanon folk are old school conservative white supremacists, the ones supporting Alex Jones, Jerry Falwell and the like. They are the people who believed that the Army exercises in Texas was an attempted martial law that would come get their guns and that sort of thing, and who go to Trump rallies and cheer when he says “lock her up.” They are the Sarah Palin people. There is some overlap there with the various factions of the right, but Peterson just doesn’t have any workable ties to major figures in the Deep State turned pedophile rings turned Trump-Mueller supposed criminal sting operation area of the pool. Of course a link is not always required, (poor Voodoo Donuts.) But the Qanon folk just mostly have no idea who Peterson is. It would make more sense to go after Peterson for being secretly a feminist or something like that.

      And ultimately Peterson is too useful to factions of the right to try to ditch. He’s furthering the claims of people like Charles Murray — supposed academic approval of white supremacist and sexist myths, no matter how well their claims are debunked. So we’ll probably be dealing with another one or two books from the man and not much push-back.

      Like

      1. Kat, I appreciate the dance card. Thank you.

        FWIW, I continue to find it difficult to take any of this mishegoss particularly seriously: I keep being reminded of bygone days on Usenet, when cranks discovered they could use the Net as an (apparent) force-multiplier, to, as my friend Don Marti said when he was magicking a crowd of five into a press-covered demonstration outside Unisys headquarters on Burn All GIFs Day, ‘look numerous’. Taking the long-term political view as is my won’t, I tend to see this as yet more meaningless ephemera. (If I’m wrong, boy howdy will I be disappointed, and to a small degree embarrassed.)

        (BTW, apologies for having not finished copy-editing a couple of sentences upthread. It was a busy day, and I posted before finishing editing.)

        Like

      2. A brief afterthought, Kat, and please don’t think this is a complaint about your cogent run-through, but rather a comment about some essential murkiness to this subject. (This is an attempt off the top of my head, so I’m very much not claiming to arrive at any cosmic truths.)

        When we speak of theoretical subgroup X ‘supporting’ Alex Jones, Jerry Falwell, and the like or some public figure du jour such as Prof. Peterson having ‘attracted’ theoretical subgroup Y, it’s not very clear what this means in the real world, beyond just reinforcing someone or someones’ confirmation biases. Many long decades running Internet infrastructure have made me jaundiced about most such alleged memetic influences. I tend to think that AM talk radio — which in my country (the USA) leans pretty crankish, IMO — tends to have a better claim to pulpit power, in general.

        As to who ‘QAnon folk’ are, on the basis of the small amount I’ve seen, I’d say you have a core group and a penumbral one. The penumbral lot are those who neither know nor care whether ‘Q”s ridiculous factual claims have any connection to consensual reality. All they really care about is in-group political power, and have as little actual concern with criminal conspiracies and the intelligence establishment as the Greens and Blues in Justinian’s Constantinople did with choice of colour. A much, much smaller core group, by contrast, appear to be literally crazy, meshugge, fou, verrückt, pazzo, a few sandwiches short of a picnic. (It’s easy to forget that a significant fraction of the public, at any given time, has always been a bit off its collective rocker — and that the Internet has given them transient spurts of Warholian prominence.)

        Talk on the Internet about what people claim to support, claim to be attracted to, etc., runs the risk of chasing after mirages. (YMMV.)

        Like

      3. As I mentioned, I hadn’t looked into Prof. Peterson since April when faced on a mailing list (the Skeptic mailing list, actually) with his obviously-wrong assertion about Bill C-16, and don’t intend to spend too much time on him, but I think this bit is not correct:

        And he compared humans to lobsters to promote sexist discrimination, which intrigued Canadian and U.S. media because it was weird.

        Am guessing this was the interview this past January by BBC4 presenter Cathy Newman, right? If so, his talking point about lobsters did not purport to promote sexist discrimination, but was about something else: He was disagreeing with an academic tenet (he says) holds that hierarchical structures are sociological constructs. Both humans and lobsters, he said, despite 350M years of evolutionary distance, have nervous systems relying on serotonin as a neurotransmitter, whose levels correlate to perception of place in dominance hierarchies. He implies this means hierarchies aren’t caused by sociology (or at least not primarily; I’m not sure). This teleology relies on very shaky logic, and if I’d been in the room I’d have had a fabulous time asking Prof. Peterson whether he posits that eyeglasses cause embezzlement, and similar imputations of doubtful causation, but the point is he didn’t raise the lobster/seratonin matter to ‘promote sexist discrimination’, even if Ms. Newman so suggested.

        I think Prof. Peterson’s pop-psychological career has overshot its Dunning-Kruger warning markers spectacularly, but attributing to him more-extreme claims he (to my knowledge) never said doesn’t help fix that.

        There is indeed research about dopamine, oxytocin, seratonin (5-hydroxytryptamine = 5-HT) and the latter’s precursor tryptophan, among others in relation to social hierarchies. There’s one in Frontiers of Neuroscience, 2015; 9: 154, that looks interesting (link omitted to avoid seeming spammy, but not difficult to find).

        Like

  7. He put the lobster comparison in his book. Basically, he asserts that humans are like lobsters in mating habits and gender roles — that a sexist hierarchy is naturally biological to humans because lobsters. This was so funny that it guaranteed him a spot in a lot of media t.v. interviews. Essentially, the male lobsters, you see, are tough alpha males who dominate the females, etc. If you really want to wade in, there’s a Peterson resource page:
    https://www.patreon.com/posts/17972181

    And P.Z. Myers has regularly dealt with Peterson’s pseudo-science as well as highlighting other scientists’ takedowns:
    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/31/lobsters-are-not-people/

    There is of course the far right white male supremacist faction of the Skeptic and atheist movements (I’m an atheist but not involved in organizations,) that have embraced Peterson as a “philosopher” who trashes Muslims and supports again the white people are superior biologically line, which they like, despite his Christian mysticism.

    The Qanon folk are the AM radio folk — majority white, middle-aged, mostly male, very anti-government towards POC getting government aid while using tons of government aid themselves and devote supporters of Trump. That’s a bit different from the alt right young white dudes who regard the Qanon folk as embarrassments, even if they also support Trump, but as an arsonist, not a savior. The Qanon con was created by alt righters though as a profitable hustle. It’s kind of gotten out of their control now.

    To get Peterson to be less popular with the alt righters he attracts — which isn’t of course all of them but enough to I guess “concern” some folks like Beale — you would have to get him on something that they care about. And they don’t care about pedophilia and the Qanon conspiracy. You could possibly peel off some of the far right Christians who like him and with whom there is some overlap with the Qanon group, but they are remarkably okay with pedophilia rings in their own churches. So there would have to be some trail they could point to with the Clintons et. al. and Peterson, and there just isn’t anything. So Beale’s speculation isn’t going to get much traction. Whereas if he could laud a conspiracy that Peterson is a radical feminist plant to make them look bad, it might work with some alt righters better. But otherwise I don’t get why Beale is bothering with Peterson other than he’s maybe annoyed at Peterson’s current popularity.

    While it is tempting to regard these things as ephemeral and the leading figures in these movements come and go, I’m afraid that it is only ephemeral to straight white men for whom it’s mostly just an annoyance. These campaigns and attempts to keep mainstreaming active bigotry as a “reasonable” philosophy are increasing violence and discrimination far beyond the status quo institutionalized bigotry and functioning frequently as terror movements. The only black (Democratic) legislator in Vermont’s statehouse just now pulled out of running for re-election as a state rep due to online harassment and threats to her and her family. Women and LGBTQ folk have left comics because of Comicsgate harassment, etc. This is their goal and while it is a petty goal in terms of overall social shifts, it is effective in normalizing violent terror and harassment against civil rights. And it has been effective in getting people with their ideology into political offices both small and large.

    And one of the ways it is normalized is dismissing it as just temper tantrums on the Net. But it’s not just temper tantrums. These are co-ordinated campaigns, even if groups argue with each other, and while their main motivation is to make money and gain notoriety for a handful of con artists, they drive those campaigns forward by “victories” of harming individuals. Further, a lot of them are backed by well-funded right wing media to serve as a grass roots propaganda front — Fox/Murdoch, Breibart, the Gateway Pundit, etc. — that again makes money but also promotes ideology. And while we again can say that’s passing screaming — look who is in the White House and in charge of the major cabinet agencies that they are dismantling. Increasingly also these online attacks are affecting the way whole industries do business.

    Beale isn’t very important in these movements, but he is a figure in some of them and he’s occasionally a weather vane of them. But his dislike of Peterson is more his own thing, it looks like. I don’t know of any faction of the far right that particularly has a grief with Peterson, but that could change.

    Like

    1. There does seem to be an internet shitlord contingent to QAnon, though their sincerity to the… “cause” is naturally suspect–for most it is merely yet another chance to play games of semantics and antisemiticism. Teddy I think is in an awkward space between the two cohorts–it’s easy to forget that he’s getting on in years, thanks to his eternally adolescent mind–his AM radio upbringing warring with his shitlord savvy. But then, that’s pretty much been his calling card for decades now, hasn’t it?

      Like

    2. Kat, P.Z. Myers in criticising the lobster thing is referring to the precise BBC4 interview by presenter Cathy Newman I spoke of: Peterson’s claim about lobsters/seratonin in the interview is as I summarised, and Myers’s biologist colleague (whom he quoted), after pointing out an error of fact Peterson made (800M years of divergence, not 350M), adds some additional detail about seratonin’s additional functions, and comments on obvious and vast phylogenetic differences between the species (like one having brains and the other ganglia), then makes in different wording the same point I did that neurotransmitters being involved in the genetic underpinnings of brain chemistry in no way prevents the systems in question from being culturally driven, i.e., that positing the causation Peterson implies is a little kooky. (This was the thing I said I’d have mocked by asking Peterson if eyeglasses cause embezzling, etc.) What Myers’s biologist colleague does not say is anything about any Peterson lobster/seratonin claim promoting sexist discrimination, because he advanced no such claim in the BBC4 interview. Which was my point.

      I guess it’s possible you’re saying he made a different lobsters/seratonin claim in his book than he did in his BBC4 interview, but that would be a bit odd, since I gather that he was being interviewed about the book(?). I’m not going to lavish time and money on the book, because, well, it’s a crank pop psychologist going Dunning-Kruger by writing a self-help book, and I just remembered that my lint collection needs sorting. Fortunately, though, The New Yorker‘s book reviewer took that bullet for me, and it appears from a paragraph summary of the lobster thing that it’s the same teleology-tinged thing he said to Cathy Newman. And my point is that it’s a bizarre bit of weak and inverted logic, but its problem is not what you (or the BBC presenter, for that matter) said it was. That is attributing to him a claim he simply didn’t advance there.

      Skimming New Yorker reviewer Kelefa Sanneh’s book review and the comments of Myers’s unnamed biologist colleague (and my time watching the BBC4 interview yesterday), not to mention personally dissecting the deeply mistaken Bill C-16 claims when they hit the Skeptic list this past April (just to explain how this came about, I used to be Chair of Bay Area Skeptics, and the Skeptic mailing list was re-hosted a couple of years ago onto my linuxmafia.com Linux server when the mailing list lost its longtime home at Johns Hopkins) is more than enough Peterson for me, but it bothers me just a bit to see people pillory a speaker for what he or she did not in fact actually say (e.g., ‘male lobsters, you see, are tough alpha males who dominate the females, etc.’). Being a mistargeted objection, it’s among other problems one likely to be ultimately unpersuasive, which is a missed opportunity because there are valid objections.

      The man seems to be more an incidentally adopted mascot for the wingnuts than any kind of wingnut mastermind, being bobbed along by the crazy parade rather than even making a go at leading it.

      Like

  8. Dude, you can do your own research. I gave you the entire resource page where tons of different people go over all things Peterson. Believe me, no one is misquoting the guy. Peterson’s schtick in addition to the serotonin — which he gets wrong, along with wolf behavior and lots of other stuff — is that humans are like lobsters in domination hierarchies (which he snazzily relabels “competency” hierarchies which is why the alt right boys like him because he does the white men are supreme because of merit myth as the center of his thing.) His opening chapter emphasizes that male lobsters compete for the best territory to win access to the most females — alpha males. The female lobsters only mate with the dominant male in their population — they go for the alpha male first, the male who is not their equal but their superior. They have to compete submissively, put out pheremones to make the male less aggressive to them, have the male protect them from other males when they shed their exo-skelton for mating, and then leave the male’s den so that other females can have a shot. The male lobster dominates the lobster population and the females. And Peterson’s claim is that humans are exactly like lobsters in their social hierarchies and mating as a biological structure. He uses the lobsters to explain why he thinks that there are alpha males and males are superior to women.

    Here’s a lobster quote from the book: “If you’re male, you have preferential access to the best places to live and the highest-quality food. People compete to do you favours. You have limitless opportunity for romantic and sexual contact. You are a successful lobster, and the most desirable females line up and vie for your attention. …If you’re female, you have access to many high-quality suitors: tall, strong and symmetrical; creative, reliable, honest and generous. And, like your dominant male counterpart, you will compete ferociously, even pitilessly, to maintain or improve your position in the equally competitive female mating hierarchy. Although you are less likely to use physical aggression to do so, there are many effective verbal tricks and strategies at your disposal.”

    Peterson’s whole structure to his book and much of his writing, besides the white and Christian supremacy, the latter enforcing sexist gender roles, is that women are inferior, emotional and bring chaos and disorder to the system as well as often being mentally unbalanced and needing to be controlled. And it is men who are to dominate women in a dominance hierarchy of superior (white) men to inferior (MOC) men to bring order to the system, protecting women from their inferior natures and other men. Like lobsters. Seriously, the guy’s whole routine is first and foremost a repudiation of feminism as a cancer that destroys the natural dominance hierarchy, followed by white supremacy and Christian/”western” supremacy. He believes that women must accept workplace harassment and not consider it harassment, for instance. He asserts that the propaganda view of gender roles from the 1950’s is the one true, biological social order of humans. Like lobsters.

    You don’t have to read the book. There are numerous people who have done very thorough analyses of it. Camestros did a whole look at it in terms of self-help paradigms on this blog. Or you could go check out Peterson’s own videos. Enjoy.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, I’m certainly glad I don’t need to read the book, because, seriously? A self-help book from some Toronto professor going off the reservation and pontificating wildly? Wasn’t that sort of foolishness a 1970s thing?

      No, I didn’t visit the Patreon page you cited, because, seriously, a Patreon page? WTF? About a self-help book from some Toronto professor going off the reservation? When there was a perfectly competent New Yorker article that appeared to cover the matter I questioned from the BBC4 interview?

      OK, so I have a few minutes to kill, even though the declining days of my life are very much not about this silliness, so let’s see what you call ‘research’: To recap, the characterisation (yours) in question was ‘he compared humans to lobsters to promote sexist discrimination’. The quotation you trotted out, while profoundly stupid (IMO) on its merits and a depressing display of pseudoscientific hokum, does not do so. The Patreon page doesn’t, on ten-minute plow-through quickly cast any light on the matter I mentioned. The ‘research’ turns out to be just the usual big batch of link salad.

      I’m definitely not going to seek out this profoundly vacuous and time-wasting book, but if you actually care about the person and his PR presence of the moment among gullible people seeking a phudnik[1] as totem, your critiques would IMO be a whole lot better with less handwavium and better attention to detail. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

      [1] Memorably defined by Leo Rosten as ‘a nudnik with a Ph.D’.

      Like

      1. Yes, Rick, it is a post that happens to be on a person’s Patreon page that offers a round up of links about people writing about Peterson’s views and materials, same as people who put together link lists on Twitter, Tumblr, or their blogs, like Camestros does in his blog. You don’t have to donate to the guy to use the links. Camestros does in fact go into detail about Peterson’s book and its views on women right here, which you could also look up. Or you can just use search engines about Peterson’s expressed views on feminism and gender roles, instead of relying on one disastrous BBC interview. The man makes mega-mulah doing lots of videos, many of which are about men being order and superiority dominating women who represent chaos, etc., and using selected animals’ biology, such as lobsters, to be supposed biological evidence of this.

        You sea-lioned me and when I provided you with information at your insistence, you refused to look at any of it, while claiming to be absolutely sure that the current it-boy of anti-feminism is not actually promoting sexist discrimination. And then you tried to tone police and mansplain me on being accurate about details when you can’t be bothered about details. Like the detail of Peterson’s main thesis. So you know, you puffed up your shoulders and stood up straight. Way not to be a loser lobster.

        We’ll just agree to disagree and I’ll stick with my poor critiques, lol.

        Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.