New Peterson should check out og Peterson’s stuff https://youtube.com/shorts/lC28siQp5WU?feature=share
There is no reference to child murder in the first clip, and no real connection between Peterson and pedophilia in the second. It's generally not advisable to get your information from hit pieces. You aren't going to get anything out of them except self gratification for hating a person you already hated. There's enough reason to be critical of him and a whole host of others without making stuff up.
I can't watch the clip, and I have a rule about context anyway. I've looked, and can't find any quotes from Paglia that show support for pedophilia. I found a reference to a time where she was derisive toward people who were surprised and hurt that Woody Allen turned out to be a pedobear, but that hardly constitutes support for pedophelia. And as for Netenyahu, if defending your country's borders from rocket attacks is child murder, then... know what? Not worth my time. I don't care who you are, I don't care what he's done or said before or since, the information in that short clip is solid and can help any person be a kinder, more thoughtful human being. That's all.
I did search for the connection, but I'm bad at searching and algorithms turn up different things for different people. The connection with NAMBLA didn't show on my first page, it was mostly either people reminding other people she was a pedophile without any trace to the source, so thanks for this. I did learn she was a controversial figure, a sort of black sheep feminist with a little something to piss just about everyone off, including us. She's pro-porn. Of course, knowing what I do about the industry and the effects it has on both performers and consumers, I don't see how one could support porn and claim to simultaneously support either men or women, but I assume she doesn't know or believe what I do. Context means I want to see the full interview, and know a little about the person. Peterson, for example, said a lot of things in an interview with Vice that made him sound downright misogynist, but it was an edited interview. With the whole thing, one could see how he was questioning premises, not advocating for certain policies as he seemed to be doing in the edited version. With Paglia, I still don't know exactly what she was up to, if she knew what was supporting, or if she's changed her mind about anything since 1995. I do know her fans are as unimpressed with her interview with Peterson as you seem to be with both of them, because they don't want people to believe she's part of the alt-right. She's actually an odd hybrid between Butler and Dworkin, I think. Both Peterson and Paglia agreed to the interview, I think, because they were rolling with the premise Peterson outlined in that clip I shared. They are really listening to one another, to find out what the other is up to. What was you first experience with Peterson?
It is true. We were having discussions on ovarit about this. You can find more about it here : https://archive.is/XlQby As for Peterson, he has always been a covert misogynist who liked to hide behind the concept of 'traditional' gender roles. The very same traditional roles that created the material circumstances which ended up in eroding female autonomy by making women depend on men, and restricting the way women could respond to abuse and harassment. Now he upgraded from being a covert misogynist to a more overt one.
He probably interviewed her to "shock" people. He may have an ego of gargantuan proportions, but he sure knows how to sell stuff.
He just speaks without saying anything. His whole thing is using fancy words in order to appear intelligent, meanwhile making no sense in the process.
Is Peterson still a big deal though? Granted, this is my only social media, but I’ve seen him discussed a few times and it’s either people who used to be fans and have soured on him, or people who hated his guts to begin with. His bizarre episode ending up in a Serbian clinic frankly makes more sense as a psyop, though, I’ll give you that. Is there anything in that clip we disagree with, though, that’s my other question.
I don't think Peterson was ever a big deal. He still maintains a small but cult-like following though. He's big with incels, MGTOW's and other "redpill" folk.
I do understand the appeal of self-help "bootstraps" angle, with the "it's okay to be male" championing tinged with "modern feminism as she is practiced is a net loss for everyone" rhetoric. However, he's kind of harsh to incels. Didn't have any sympathy for their defeatism, or resentment. Now I have no idea. I'm mostly concerned with his inconsistency. He says you have to listen to people, that if you're bored in a conversation it means you're the boring one, because that's a strange creature, man. But the behavior he models is dismissing anyone he doesn't like. He even did this in the earlier days, when "Intellectual Dark Web" was a thing. He'd sit down and talk with Sam Harris or Slavjov Zizek, because he liked them and found them intellectually challenging. He has always loathed talking to the MSM, though these are some of the most interesting interviews he's done, because he finds them emotionally exhausting. He dismisses them, and those lightweight challengers from the audience, as "ideologically possessed," claims he already knows everything they are going to say because they aren't even a person, just a sock puppet for an idea. Which, by the way, is an idea from Postmodernism, which he claims is so toxic. Carl Jung was the one who said "Ideas have people," but it was fleshed out, I think by Hegel, and it's what Postmodernists use to dismiss people and ideas that come "from power." The basis for all "white" people being inherently racist, for example, which is a notion Peterson claims to detest, but uses when it fits his purposes. That was my point, in posting the clip, to indicate his hypocrisy. Even so, it is dreadfully easy to not listen to people.
Jordan Peterson phenomena was fascinating to me, as someone who barely saw the appeal at all, and i followed his breakdown/fall from grace with interest. I've no idea what he is up to now, not particularly interested either. All of these types are obviously father figures for those of us in the 'West'/anglosphere who grew up without father figures, or with weak or ineffectual/distant father figures - which, lets face it, is most of us. When the feminine sympathy - the 'there, there' approach - doesn't yield results, what do we need? Daddy to come home and tell us to buck up our ideas. Failing that, Daddy Peterson can do it for us. He might dress it up in Jungian Psychology but he isnt doing anything much more complex than that (and he has no scruples about getting filthy rich doing it either). As self-help gurus go, he's a very odd one, though. He had a gentle feminine voice, often sounding on the verge of tears, yet he preaches male stoicism and strength. He suggests tidiness and self-discipline, yet glimpses of his house suggest disorder and squalor. He advocates traditional gender roles for family men, yet heavily depends on his wife (and, later, daughter). He peddles 'personality tests', of the sort that you used to find in magazines for teenage girls, but for men. Above it all, he seems desperately unhappy and a really poor advertisement for his own philosophy and ideas.
He works for the Daily Wire, which employs Ben Shapiro but is owned by Jeremy Boreing. He didn't promise anyone happiness. He promised suffering, and encourages us to find meaning in the suffering. It seems he does find meaning in his suffering. I soft agree on the "clean your room" inconsistency, though. I don't know his actual living situation, but I have seen clips that suggest he does not have his house in perfect order in a physical sense, he definitely does not have it in perfect order in a psychological sense, but he continues to criticize the world. This is a criticism I have for a lot of people, and a skepticism I carry. Even for myself. I dish out a lot of advice about quitting porn, but take a look at my counter. Talk is cheap and charisma can get a lot of people to listen, but we have to see that 1. it's possible to stick to the plan and 2. the plan delivers what it promises. There's a lot of ideas out there that don't deliver their promise. Some I'm more inclined to be skeptical of, and find it difficult to believe people still fall for it, stuff like Feminism (Marxism in a dress) and Marxism (Gnosticism in a work uniform). But there's the stories I want to believe in, like "porn addiction is the cause of most of your problems," and "discipline is freedom," but are those true? If it's happiness you're after, I recently heard studies fairly consistently lay it out flat. Close relationships with family and a select group of friends, and a religious affiliation produce happiness. Everything else, like access to affordable health care and a clean diet, exposure to sunlight, wealth, entertainment, whatever, doesn't make a difference.
I heard it, doesn't make it true. Just an idea I'm repeating. It doesn't specify which religion, just says a religion. It doesn't say these people are competent or right, or lead an objectively meaningful life, but that they're happy. It could be a false claim and you don't have to like it.
There was an interesting interview with Jeremy Boreing on Modern Wisdom. He talks about what liberals get right and what conservatives get wrong. He also admits he listens to NPR.
