Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
uziq
Member
+146|1491
yeah, i'm just being facetious. although you're right the instability in the top levels of australian politics is insane (not to mention very confusing).
uziq
Member
+146|1491

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

if you boil off all his specious and tendentious impurities it’s literally just a book of self-help clichés. you’d have to be very lost and very hungry for meaning to swallow all his mystical anima/animus stuff borrowed tout court from jung (men as order, women as chaos, i mean lol wow).

i’m not surprised jay finds a lot of sympathy with it, seeing as he relied on the state as a daddy figure to impose their ‘rules for life’ on him. his ‘white males’ formulation is a nice little bit of alt-right/peterson-esque pleading.
I agree, but for some, it's what they need. There's a reason that he has millions of followers on Youtube. I was only introduced to him after that shrieking harpy on BBC got destroyed by him.

One thing I'm happy about here in America is that classist attitudes aren't nearly as prevalent. Everything you write is dripping with condescension towards people you feel are your class inferiors. It's sad. Especially since you'd be shit without a few pop records produced by one of your ancestors. I think that is what we can really boil it down to here, is that chavs getting a leg up because they found a mentor to lead them to better things is a direct threat to you and your own place in the world. Their own kids will replace yours in the pecking order (though I doubt you'll ever have kids so those thoughts shouldn't trouble you).
i'm not worried about 'chavs' getting their legs up over my place in the world. i have a nice career. i am well-educated. i can discuss wine lists and theatre seasons. i am conversant in european literature. i am concerned about the plight of burma's minorities. we need to remember sri lanka. my place in the world and pecking order is fully secured -- off my own back, thanks, as i've established here many times. i won scholarships and earned my place through merit, not a giant government welfare scheme.

in any case, chavs and the lower orders aren't the ones reading peterson in the UK. it's not a class thing at all, in fact. it's a social and behavioural problem -- young men who aren't socialised properly, rather than people from a certain place in socioeconomic ladder. i'd argue that most people who get suckered into the peterson-preacher show are from pretty regular middle-class homes (the fact they even read and spend hours watching turgid debates online says a lot about their habitus). for a host of reasons, they are full of hatred towards women and perceive their own place in the pecking order as being threatened.

i'm not the one here acting like i'm feeling threatened, full of fear and hate about 'cultural marxists', 'feminists', 'SJWs', 'liberals', etc. most people who are into peterson had every opportunity and privilege in the world, or at least as much as anyone else. assuming personal responsibility seems to be a recurring message in his books. that says a lot. it's a generation of shut-ins and social maladjusts who blame everyone but themselves for their lack of employment/loneliness/messiness etc.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,599|4145|eXtreme to the maX
So where do I find this Petersen person.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+146|1491
he’s been everywhere on the internet in the last year or two.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,962|3397|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

if you boil off all his specious and tendentious impurities it’s literally just a book of self-help clichés. you’d have to be very lost and very hungry for meaning to swallow all his mystical anima/animus stuff borrowed tout court from jung (men as order, women as chaos, i mean lol wow).

i’m not surprised jay finds a lot of sympathy with it, seeing as he relied on the state as a daddy figure to impose their ‘rules for life’ on him. his ‘white males’ formulation is a nice little bit of alt-right/peterson-esque pleading.
I agree, but for some, it's what they need. There's a reason that he has millions of followers on Youtube. I was only introduced to him after that shrieking harpy on BBC got destroyed by him.

One thing I'm happy about here in America is that classist attitudes aren't nearly as prevalent. Everything you write is dripping with condescension towards people you feel are your class inferiors. It's sad. Especially since you'd be shit without a few pop records produced by one of your ancestors. I think that is what we can really boil it down to here, is that chavs getting a leg up because they found a mentor to lead them to better things is a direct threat to you and your own place in the world. Their own kids will replace yours in the pecking order (though I doubt you'll ever have kids so those thoughts shouldn't trouble you).
i'm not worried about 'chavs' getting their legs up over my place in the world. i have a nice career. i am well-educated. i can discuss wine lists and theatre seasons. i am conversant in european literature. i am concerned about the plight of burma's minorities. we need to remember sri lanka. my place in the world and pecking order is fully secured -- off my own back, thanks, as i've established here many times. i won scholarships and earned my place through merit, not a giant government welfare scheme.

in any case, chavs and the lower orders aren't the ones reading peterson in the UK. it's not a class thing at all, in fact. it's a social and behavioural problem -- young men who aren't socialised properly, rather than people from a certain place in socioeconomic ladder. i'd argue that most people who get suckered into the peterson-preacher show are from pretty regular middle-class homes (the fact they even read and spend hours watching turgid debates online says a lot about their habitus). for a host of reasons, they are full of hatred towards women and perceive their own place in the pecking order as being threatened.

i'm not the one here acting like i'm feeling threatened, full of fear and hate about 'cultural marxists', 'feminists', 'SJWs', 'liberals', etc. most people who are into peterson had every opportunity and privilege in the world, or at least as much as anyone else. assuming personal responsibility seems to be a recurring message in his books. that says a lot. it's a generation of shut-ins and social maladjusts who blame everyone but themselves for their lack of employment/loneliness/messiness etc.
I didn't read it as a how-to for my own life, but I did take away some insights into why we are in a situation that creates so many maladjusts.

We're in a place and time where there are more women than men going off to college and becoming educated. Why? Girls tend to be more diligent about their studies. Boys tend to be less so because they're wilder in school, more headstrong, more rebellious, all things that lead to higher levels of creativity if harnessed properly, but that will tend to lead to poor results in school and later on at work if they don't go into a field better suited for them. My personal opinion is that we've tried to create a one-size-fits-all society where people are assembly lined from birth to school to white collar work to death. Everyone is being groomed to be a proper corporate drone that doesn't question anything, just puts their head down and works. Those who can't adapt get left by the wayside, which is why we see so many downtrodden young men. They see the life as what it is, boring hackery, and don't want to buy in. What's left is nihilism.

Back in the day they would have a wife and kids to support and care for, and that made putting up with the drudgery worth something. Now women are self-sufficient and a lot of men are lost. I'm not saying this because I wish to return things to the way they were, that ship sailed long ago, and I feel we are better off anyway. We simply need to do a better job of directing young men where they will find success rather than exalting one path and denigrating those that don't follow it. Or we need someone like Peterson to tell them to man up, get a fucking job, and get over it. Rather than being anti-feminist, he's trying to help lift up men and make them worthy of the women that have been leaving them behind. He's doing good work.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+146|1491
the core self-help stuff doesn’t bother me, obviously. it’s inoffensive. but also extremely obvious and commonplace advice. he is noxious because he flirts with alt-right political rhetoric, cosies up to white nationalists and the breirbart end of the media, and frequently makes extremely spurious, quasi-scientific claims about gender essentialism.

this is a guy who says he’s not sure if men and women should work together in a workplace. a man who says that a woman wearing lipstick or makeup to work can only be a sexual provocation ‘because reddening of the lips is a primal sexual display’. all this faux-scientific quackery. it’s textbook jung.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+181|1759
The maladjusted young white men of the world do have a lot to be angry about. Western economies are shit, the political and cultural leadership from left to right is alien to them, and they live in a world in which they are targeted because of the faults of the older Western leadership. I mean would there be as many young liberals who want to "destroy the patriarchy" or put white guys in their place if the GOP didn't make social issues a core tenant of their philosophy in the 80's? Would there be as many Muslims looking to kill them if the Bushes didn't create a few wars in  Iraq? The answer is probably no on both.

That is where my sympathy ends though. If you really think the feminist at your college is a more important target than the wealthy white men who sold off your country to the highest bidder then you are an idiot. If you think women in video games is a bigger threat to your way of life than a lack of affordable housing then you deserve to live with your parents forever.

There is something I have noticed about white people that is relevant to this discussion: White people are experts at fucking over other white people. Intentionally and unintentionally. And the more fucked over by other whites they get, the more they justify it and/or  blame anyone but other white people. It is a fascinating cultural trait and what I think about often when I hear about the American cultural wars or this whole Russia thing.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,962|3397|London, England

uziq wrote:

the core self-help stuff doesn’t bother me, obviously. it’s inoffensive. but also extremely obvious and commonplace advice. he is noxious because he flirts with alt-right political rhetoric, cosies up to white nationalists and the breirbart end of the media, and frequently makes extremely spurious, quasi-scientific claims about gender essentialism.

this is a guy who says he’s not sure if men and women should work together in a workplace. a man who says that a woman wearing lipstick or makeup to work can only be a sexual provocation ‘because reddening of the lips is a primal sexual display’. all this faux-scientific quackery. it’s textbook jung.
Well, it is the purpose of makeup... it's not just to hide blemishes, it's to signal sexual willingness. Most women don't understand it as such, but it was the original intent.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+146|1491
that’s so far besides the actual sociological point of why women wear makeup to work now that it’s irrelevant. female cosmetics have been a thing for a long time. it’s perfectly ok for a woman to want to put on makeup because it boosts her self-esteem and makes her feel professional, just like a man puts on formal attire and does up his tie – she’s not being ‘provocative’ or sexually suggestive. that’s just he sort of shit that sexually frustrated neckbeards want to read and agree with. we don’t need to ponder the historical origins of the tie as a sartorial symbol for mercenaries, do we? so let’s drop the evolutionary psychology nonsense (a hugely discredited and outmoded field fyi; a bulletin peterson didn’t get). the fact jordan uses this to further arguments that maybe men and women aren’t ‘evolved’ or ‘socialised’ to work together is pernicious fucking nonsense.

this is exactly what i meant in my first post when i said that his books aren’t left with much valid advice once you drill through the silly bullshit.

Last edited by uziq (2018-10-10 07:50:00)

SuperJail Warden
Member
+181|1759
Maybe I should read his book to figure out how "women who wear makeup are sluts" managed to come up in a book about how to manage your life.
uziq
Member
+146|1491
he said that in an interview about sexual harrassment in the workplace. his basic rebuttal was ‘we’ve only shared a workspace for 50 years, that’s nothing out of our evolutionary history, maybe we can’t work together at all’. it’s just an example of the super spurious shit that informs his politics and outlook generally. i don’t see why people wanting a kick up the ass need to go to such a questionable source.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+282|4815|Moscow, Russia
this peterson dude is an interesting specimen. he's a populist right wing oriented piece of shit masquerading as sociologist and he does it so well it takes some time and effort to see through. he's, basically, a trump-kind of figure for lazy people who think of themselves as intellectuals but cannot really be bothered to spend some time and get properly oriented in matters not directly connected with their professional areas of expertise - no wander he managed to enthrall quite a bit of those.
i was actually quite interested in what he had to say at first - after a couple of interviews a came across. but then he named solzhenitsyn among his sources of info about "authoritarian regimes" even specifically called "gulag archipelago" a "chronicle of what was happening in soviet union".
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,962|3397|London, England

Shahter wrote:

this peterson dude is an interesting specimen. he's a populist right wing oriented piece of shit masquerading as sociologist and he does it so well it takes some time and effort to see through. he's, basically, a trump-kind of figure for lazy people who think of themselves as intellectuals but cannot really be bothered to spend some time and get properly oriented in matters not directly connected with their professional areas of expertise - no wander he managed to enthrall quite a bit of those.
i was actually quite interested in what he had to say at first - after a couple of interviews a came across. but then he named solzhenitsyn among his sources of info about "authoritarian regimes" even specifically called "gulag archipelago" a "chronicle of what was happening in soviet union".


You have to be a troll account.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+282|4815|Moscow, Russia
nothing to say, huh? it's okay, man. happens to everyone.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
uziq
Member
+146|1491

Shahter wrote:

this peterson dude is an interesting specimen. he's a populist right wing oriented piece of shit masquerading as sociologist and he does it so well it takes some time and effort to see through. he's, basically, a trump-kind of figure for lazy people who think of themselves as intellectuals but cannot really be bothered to spend some time and get properly oriented in matters not directly connected with their professional areas of expertise - no wander he managed to enthrall quite a bit of those.
i was actually quite interested in what he had to say at first - after a couple of interviews a came across. but then he named solzhenitsyn among his sources of info about "authoritarian regimes" even specifically called "gulag archipelago" a "chronicle of what was happening in soviet union".
solzhenitsyn is one of those people who have a complex reception in the west. he's a confusing case for western liberals who wish to seem enlightened whilst ignoring half the things he had to say (especially later in life). of course, in many ways he was a convenient 'figure' to 'represent' the 'truth' of the soviet union to the west. it's complicated.

you are spot on with peterson. the guy regularly rallies against 'the left' and 'cultural marxists' but has evidently never read a left-wing text in his life. he backed out of a debate with slavoj zizek and a few other left-wing intellectuals recently, and then claimed in public that 'the marxists won't meet with me'. too bad half the sources started posting screenshots of email conversations with peterson's agent/secretary turning down all their requests/invitations to debate. a typical shill. to be honest a debate between peterson and marxist philosophers would be incredibly dull, in any case, as after about 10 minutes it would become painfully obvious that he had not done the reading. like all right-wing populists 'the left' is merely a bogeyman term to incense and rally people. ironically most of his actual critiques of liberalism and campus culture are the same critiques that the left have been making for decades, e.g. identity politics, privileging of the individual/groupuscule over class and community, etc...
SuperJail Warden
Member
+181|1759
He is a psychologist by education. Not a philosopher or political scientist. Of course when he gets pressed by actual philosophers and poli sci people he folds instead of engaging.
uziq
Member
+146|1491
not really even a psychologist -- a jungian. the vast majority of psychologists do not take jung seriously (freud gets off marginally better).
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+704|4724|United States of America
On a different note, the #metoo "backlash" of dudes saying shit like "you can't even flirt with a woman without being accused of harassment" or saying they don't know how to act in the workplace anymore is a crock of shit. At best, it's either clueless dudes not being able to tell they're creeps and making women uncomfortable, but at worst, it's predators lamenting they can't get away with shit as easily anymore.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,962|3397|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:

On a different note, the #metoo "backlash" of dudes saying shit like "you can't even flirt with a woman without being accused of harassment" or saying they don't know how to act in the workplace anymore is a crock of shit. At best, it's either clueless dudes not being able to tell they're creeps and making women uncomfortable, but at worst, it's predators lamenting they can't get away with shit as easily anymore.
Eh, it's more than that. The problem is that what's fine for one person makes the next want to scream "attempted rape!". You never know if you're gonna hit on the crazy one or not. I'd be scared to date the old fashioned way  in this environment. At least on tinder or whatever both sides are actively putting themselves out there up front. I don't know anyone that dates in the workplace anymore, way too dangerous.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+146|1491
when was dating in the workplace ever a good idea, in any case. 'don't shit where you eat' comes to mind. society and dating rituals are more open now so it's not like your options for female contact are confined to extended family, friends-of-friends and the workplace like it was in 1750 or 1955 or whatever.

and i agree with desertfox, it's a time where men have to learn some self-control and respect, not play the victims. jordan peterson's following would claim that a woman wearing red lipstick to an office is somehow triggering their low-level hominid mammalian primal urges or whatever-the-fuck and they simply can't help themselves. get. a fucking. grip.

Last edited by uziq (2018-10-11 00:53:01)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,599|4145|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

the core self-help stuff doesn’t bother me, obviously. it’s inoffensive. but also extremely obvious and commonplace advice. he is noxious because he flirts with alt-right political rhetoric, cosies up to white nationalists and the breirbart end of the media, and frequently makes extremely spurious, quasi-scientific claims about gender essentialism.

this is a guy who says he’s not sure if men and women should work together in a workplace. a man who says that a woman wearing lipstick or makeup to work can only be a sexual provocation ‘because reddening of the lips is a primal sexual display’. all this faux-scientific quackery. it’s textbook jung.
Well, it is the purpose of makeup... it's not just to hide blemishes, it's to signal sexual willingness. Most women don't understand it as such, but it was the original intent.
In ancient Greece prostitutes were required to wear makeup to distinguish them from other women.

This sums up my experience of harassing women in the workplace,

https://pics.me.me/know-the-work-rules-appropriate-lookin-good-susan-awww-youre-sweet-33260257.png

I have also been sexually harassed, I enjoyed it, I don't see what the fuss is about.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,599|4145|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

yeah, i'm just being facetious. although you're right the instability in the top levels of australian politics is insane (not to mention very confusing).
Its simple, we more or less have a Westminster system with the upper house decided by a form of proportional representation and the Prime Minister isn't particularly significant.
There is a long queue of moronic egotists who are determined to be PM whether the country elected them or not, and 3 year govt terms make for very little change or progress.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+146|1491

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

the core self-help stuff doesn’t bother me, obviously. it’s inoffensive. but also extremely obvious and commonplace advice. he is noxious because he flirts with alt-right political rhetoric, cosies up to white nationalists and the breirbart end of the media, and frequently makes extremely spurious, quasi-scientific claims about gender essentialism.

this is a guy who says he’s not sure if men and women should work together in a workplace. a man who says that a woman wearing lipstick or makeup to work can only be a sexual provocation ‘because reddening of the lips is a primal sexual display’. all this faux-scientific quackery. it’s textbook jung.
Well, it is the purpose of makeup... it's not just to hide blemishes, it's to signal sexual willingness. Most women don't understand it as such, but it was the original intent.
In ancient Greece prostitutes were required to wear makeup to distinguish them from other women.

This sums up my experience of harassing women in the workplace,

TODO: FIX GAL IMAGES

I have also been sexually harassed, I enjoyed it, I don't see what the fuss is about.
i know you're joking but neither of those scenarios are appropriate at work.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,599|4145|eXtreme to the maX
The point is women don't view the same behaviour by men they find attractive as harassment, they view it as flirting or compliments, whereas when its unwanted it is harassment.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2018-10-11 04:19:14)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
SuperJail Warden
Member
+181|1759
Wait if a female co-worker you are friendly with got their hair done it is inappropriate to tell them it came out nice? Or is it just a matter of delivery? I am not a fat man if that makes a difference.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2018 Jeff Minard