The advice market for young(ish) women has been filled to the brim with self-help magazines and self-help books for a long time. But there is no similar parallel for young men. — baker

Yes, young girls have been taught forever how to be pretty and submissive. It's past due time young boys be taught how to be machos.

Thank God for YouTube because reading is for pussies! Hooray!

I was talking about this subject under the pretense that the problems/causes are equal, so we're not talking scale of problem here. For instance, if there was the same problem of the same magnitude that needed solving both in your own community and also in a community halfway around the world, which should you attend to? Presumably the one in your own community. If all those problems in your community are solved, it makes sense to go to the other community to help them solve it.

What would not make sense would be if there were severe problems in one's own household and one goes halfway around the world to help another random family solve a similar problem. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yes, young girls have been taught forever how to be pretty and submissive. — Pierre-Normand

I suggest you read some women's magazines, esp. those secular ones targeted for teenagers and younger women.
No trace of submissiveness there.

What's dubious about the portrayal? Peterson styles himself as a culture warrior against the left. — Echarmion

Lol. Yeah right, a culture warrior. You don't even notice how funny you sound.

Peterson owes much of his influence to his media appearances and social media productions. I've read his 12 Rules for Life (and chunks of his earlier Maps of Meaning) because friends of mine wanted my opinion. I've tried my best to demonstrate to them how very badly he misrepresents philosophers and the political left. They've shrugged their shoulders and now are under the spell of Lindsay and Pluckrose Cynical Theories that likewise portrays anything that deviates in the least from their understanding of the tenets of classical liberalism, or from Randian objectivism, as an existential threat to human civilization.

If all those problems in your community are solved, it makes sense to go to the other community to help them solve it. — BitconnectCarlos

Well a) that isn't how problems arrange themselves, and b) it isn't obvious what a community is. To me, the logical 21st century community is the global community, in which case there's no difference. If my neck of the woods is much the same as another, it makes sense logistically to focus my efforts here and not there, since there has its own contributors. But it doesn't seem to me that East Africa faces the same problems to the same degree in the same way, otherwise, sure, what would be the point of pitching in, or of foreign aid? Some causes lend themselves to local action, some don't. But either or both are good. And neither, as long as you do no harm, us fine too.

Remember when Jordan Peterson participated in a debate on Marxism and announced the only book by Marx he had ever read was the Communist Manifesto and that he had only previously read it once before, when he was in college.

Remember when Jordan Peterson participated in a debate on Marxism and announced the only book by Marx he had ever read was the Communist Manifesto and that he had only previously read it once before, when he was in college. — Maw

There's an awful lot of similarity between Peterson and Stephen Hicks. Does Canada only have twelve books or something?

I suggest you read some women's magazines, esp. those secular ones targeted for teenagers and younger women.
No trace of submissiveness there. — baker

That's great, but then they offer no good complement to Peterson's advice to boys; and no good parallel to his advice to girls. In his college lectures and media appearances, as well as in his writings, he often blames the despair of young men as resulting from the toxic influence of feminism that represses their natural tendency to flourish through striving to assert themselves in the human "hierarchy of dominance". At the same time, he warns women who would attempt to compete on the boy's own turf, in order to achieve professional careers, that they are bound to become very depressed or even suicidal in later life. He likes to provide examples from his clinical experience of career women who became very depressed because they lost their opportunity to flourish through raising children. In his lectures to young college students, he suggest to the girls how they should rejoice at the enviable role Darwinian nature has assigned to them, which is to actively select alpha males and pressure them into being loyal servants to them, and effective competitors against their male peers, or else dump them as the worthless losers that they are. Hurray for Girl Power!

Lol. Yeah right, a culture warrior. You don't even notice how funny you sound. — ssu

If you want an example of what I mean, watch his interview with Steven Pinker. I'd guess you probably agree with Pinker's positive outlook on the achievements of capitalism, enlightenment philosophy and liberalism. So it should be very apparent how Peterson tries to shoe-horn cultural marxism into the discussion constantly to turn the Pinkers's generally more positive and optimistic outlook into some kind of attack on the "post-modern cultural marxists".

I think we seriously need to consider the self-help and responsibility-focused philosophy of Jordan Peterson, author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, who afterwards became addicted to benzos and was placed in a medically induced coma for eight days in Russia.

Why can't kids listen to serious philosophers instead of this pop psychology/religion mumbo-jumbo? — BitconnectCarlos

It's all about 'reading age'. My young nephews have curious minds and are open to ideas, but there's no way they would fathom Kant or Hegel, neither of them have a university education.

he often blames the despair of young men as resulting from the toxic influence of feminism that represses their natural tendency to flourish through striving to assert themselves in the human "hierarchy of dominance". — Pierre-Normand

That's a contradiction! How can feminism repress "their natural tendency to flourish through striving to assert themselves in the human "hierarchy of dominance""? Shouldn't this natural tendency of young men naturally assert itself over feminism??

I mean -- should the world get out of the way so that young men can assert themselves in the human "hierarchy of dominance"?

It's all about 'reading age'. My young nephews have curious minds and are open to ideas, but there's no way they would fathom Kant or Hegel, neither of them have a university education. — Wayfarer

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[Kung Fu Monkey -- Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]”
― John Rogers


source

That's a contradiction! How can feminism repress "their natural tendency to flourish through striving to assert themselves in the human "hierarchy of dominance""? — baker

You don't believe natural tendencies can be repressed? Whatever the case may be, you would have a beef with Peterson.

It's all about 'reading age'. My young nephews have curious minds and are open to ideas, but there's no way they would fathom Kant or Hegel, neither of them have a university education. — Wayfarer

I was being sarcastic; obviously Kant or Hegel is not appropriate reading for children. I don't even know if Hegel is appropriate reading for anybody. I guess I should start putting /s tags on some of my posts if it's not clear.

You don't believe natural tendencies can be repressed? Whatever the case may be, you would have a beef with Peterson. — Pierre-Normand

It's like when Christians complain how they are not allowed to express their religosity and how they are victims etc. etc.
Well, if God is with them, who could possibly be against them?!

If someone truly is, by their nature, inherently, superior, dominant, surely then this will show on its own and nothing can stop it.

Well a) that isn't how problems arrange themselves, and b) it isn't obvious what a community is. To me, the logical 21st century community is the global community, in which case there's no difference. If my neck of the woods is much the same as another, it makes sense logistically to focus my efforts here and not there, since there has its own contributors. But it doesn't seem to me that East Africa faces the same problems to the same degree in the same way, otherwise, sure, what would be the point of pitching in, or of foreign aid? Some causes lend themselves to local action, some don't. But either or both are good. And neither, as long as you do no harm, us fine too. — Kenosha Kid

a) I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically here. It seems entirely plausible that there could be two communities which face essentially the same problem like bad roads or littering or something like that. Just imagine two theoretical communities which are basically good places but they just have a problem with the roads. You'd help out your own community first, and then it's fine to go off the help the other, right? And this is the right thing to do, right?

b) I feel we can be a little charitable here. I know 'community' isn't always straight-forward but just bear with me here. Of course East Africa has way different, more severe problems; I'm talking about two relatively comparable communities that face the same problems. Lets also leave transportation/logistics out of this. I'm trying to make a theoretical point and I think you're on board.

Lol.

While meat-only diet works for them, I don't think it's a great idea to propagate it and portray it as the solution for depression and disease (?), very simplistic.

What does believing that a meat diet cured their problems say about their critical ability?

At first Pinker sounded too optimist and that he forgot in one article to mention the First and Second Civil Wars of Congo (and the millions of dead in those conflicts) made me angry, but I've come to value Pinker very much (and he's not so optimist at the present as before).

I've not been a huge admirer of Peterson, however as he (Peterson) has been quite outspoken with his conservative views, this has caused the anger and the attacks on him, even politics (or philosophy) isn't his actual subject as I think it's clinical psychology. Yet his opposition to the Canadian bill made him part of the "culture war", an unholy thing to do. Still I don't think him as a "cultural warrior", someone eager to comment on everything and to take the role to be a defender / attack of one side. Holding conservative views now days makes you a rambling "cultural warrior", I guess.

Besides, the OP has it's obvious bias, as I don't think Peterson simply isn't a philosopher, even if he's interested in it. He's more like a commentator, who hasn't been anymore on the stage.

Still I think academic people ought to engage in political debate and not shun away from it, even if it's not their specific field. Many are far too timid to comment publicly the "hot potatoe" subjects. And perhaps they have a point with cancel culture and how hostile public discussion has become. Yet many of them are still smart and the those in academy should take part in public discussion. Good example from the left is the leftist-libertarian Noam Chomsky who named his first book aptly The Responsibility of Intellectuals. Still Chomsky is a linguist and that he doesn't see anything good in the US and especially it's foreign policy basically makes him an odd political historian. Yet naturally he isn't one. He is more an activist, just as his first books name refers.

While meat-only diet works for them, I don't think it's a great idea to propagate it and portray it as the solution for depression and disease (?), very simplistic. — deusidex

It's been proven to work but it's also been widely misunderstood. Killing a caged animal in order to consume its meat instantly cures its depression.

You wish to label me alt-right even though I say I despise the alt-right because you think it sounds right. In the very same post that you criticise me for "making up" your connection with intersectional feminism. All you'd have to do is allow me your shitty standards for what I'm saying to be totally fine, what's your reason for not giving me just that?

I have no real interest in arguing about this with you, it is not important to me to give you a label, and I'm not interested in dealing with your many ridiculous labels, the names change nothing.

You have repeatedly stated that you don't know about the relationship between Peterson and the alt-right, but are you at least aware that there is some sort of connection? (It's the answer to why Peterson is associated with the alt-right in the first place, while himself disavowing it). — VagabondSpectre

I know that the alt-right was split on whether Peterson was an ally or not, I know that the media loved to bring up the alt-right connection. I don't know much about any connection besides that.

My post chronicled the rise of the alt right as it intersected Peterson's claim and rise to fame. I thought I explained fairly clearly how once the proto alt-right elements of the SJW crowd (which was large and diverse) evolved toward ethnocentric ideology, before ultimately signalling their abandonment of Peterson. — VagabondSpectre

You claimed that the video you posted marked the birth of the alt-right and I said it was wrong. You posted your comment in a thread about JP, you said it was your long take on JP and then you talked about the alt-right and how JP unwittingly led to its creation. You said he was completely unaware of this alt-right presence, which, he was aware and especially by 2018. You claimed he was making money off of his "notoriety" but then you don't even want to commit to saying that JP's base was largely alt-right or "proto alt-right".

Honestly, most of your first post is debunkable and it's just a matter of whether we bother to go through the whole thing. We're not even halfway through, I don't know though if I can be bothered since his reputation here can't get any worse probably.

I mean, it works for them, that's okay but it might not work for others, let alone everyone. Many have moral issues about eating animals so if vegans ate animals they would get depressed. I just don't like this oversimplified argument that something works for someone and that indicates it should work for everyone. Especially Peterson criticizes those simple reasonings yet meat is the CURE now.

You claimed that the video you posted marked the birth of the alt-right and I said it was wrong. — Judaka

You're leaving out some context and nuance from what was written. I stated that the clip marked a formal launch of the definitive alt-right, unifying its direction. It should be pretty clear that what I have been focusing on is not the decades long history of neo-nazism, but the so called "alt-right" movement that rapidly grew in the 2012-2018 era. I realize that you're vastly unfamiliar with the details of this neo-alt-right, but please understand that trivial issues like when terms first came into use does not address my observations. If you're not familiar with the (internet)cultural/ideological developments that occurred within the alt-right (and in what ways Peterson was used), on what basis are you even objecting?

You posted your comment in a thread about JP, you said it was your long take on JP and then you talked about the alt-right and how JP unwittingly led to its creation. — Judaka

Philosophers have a hard time formulating sound views about Peterson if they can't disentangle his ideas from the polemic theatre that surrounds him. I had to go through it in order to clearly explain my views on Peterson without being misunderstood (and to also implicitly comment on the views of others). Yes, he is an unwitting player in that polemic theatre (he is/was in over his head, as I have said), but I never said he led to the alt-right's creation: he was just an arbitrary milestone along the way. As I have repeatedly clarified, his cardinal error was confusing his psychiatric metaphors for political science.

You said he was completely unaware of this alt-right presence, which, he was aware and especially by 2018. — Judaka

I posted the exact moment that Peterson was forced to accept that early/proto alt-right ideologues were seriously within his orbit. He disavowed "fascism" from day one, but there was too much noise for that to matter. The video is also the exact moment he was abandoned by them. That event just so happened to function like a call to declare sides in the section of anti-SJW's that veered right; it was a catalyzing event.

You claimed he was making money off of his "notoriety" but then you don't even want to commit to saying that JP's base was largely alt-right or "proto alt-right". — Judaka

What does selling books about chaos dragons, room cleaning, and religion have to do with his followers being largely alt-right? I am saying that Peterson couldn't keep himself from shutting up, thus he persisted in making vague and easily abused political statements, many of which were legitimately malformed, so there's no reason for me to pull punches or mince words about this. Why do we need to expect Peterson to have insightful political beliefs? Can't we accept his views as having clinical psychological merit, but no necessary political merit?

Honestly, most of your first post is debunkable and it's just a matter of whether we bother to go through the whole thing. We're not even halfway through, I don't know though if I can be bothered since his reputation here can't get any worse probably. — Judaka

I spent a non-trivial amount of time digging up the exact evidence that you had previously asked for, but here we are at the rhetorical end, kneading the shit about whose hands stink the worst... I honestly felt that my long take on Peterson should help to raise the average opinion that people have of Peterson though, so I'm not sure where your objections really come from. He's not an alt-right ideologue, not an anti-semite, but he certainly did Mr. Magoo his way through an affair with them while they were rapidly growing and organizing. I think his ideas might have genuine merit for his patients, but philosophically they just don't have much going for them, and politically they're vague, average, and repetitive. Religion is a saturated topic, green-haired marxist feminists won't destroy civilization, and there might be more to life than the possibly increased chance of emotional stability that comes from leading a conservative lifestyle.

I mean, it works for them, that's okay but it might not work for others, let alone everyone. — deusidex

I was just kidding. I said killing animals cures depression: the animal's depression.

I spent a non-trivial amount of time digging up the exact evidence that you had previously asked for, but here we are at the rhetorical end, kneading the shit about whose hands stink the worst. — VagabondSpectre

The evidence you "dug up" refuted the very thing I was claiming you had spoken untruly about.

Free speech was included in his initial argument/protest, but what made him fervent was, as he explained, the fact that being forced to memorize a slew of new pronouns and to tip-toe around them was too much of a cognitive burden to expect anyone to endure. — VagabondSpectre

It's not strictly the invented pronouns that he was objecting to, it was the compelled use of language to begin with (which he sees as a psychological intrusion). The singular pronouns were just at the center of it all. In two of the three sources I gave Peterson clarifies that he is not averse to using preferred standard pronouns, and in one he states that he normally uses the pronoun that people present as. — VagabondSpectre

Why is this not a contradiction in your eyes? Every bit of evidence you gave just supported my initial assertion but then you act as though I ignored it, what do you want me to do with it?

You're leaving out some context and nuance from what was written. I stated that the clip marked a formal launch of the definitive alt-right, unifying its direction — VagabondSpectre

Is this supposed to mean something specific? A random youtube clip is not a "formal launch" by any reasonable definition of the word formal. The movement was already "launched" and so honestly, what do you want me to do? What deeper nuance am I missing? I don't know to what extent JP's base was recruited into the alt-right but I am not saying this didn't happen. I don't think your narrative is reasonable because your entire "take on' JP is a history of the alt-right.

Yes, he is an unwitting player in that polemic theatre (he is/was in over his head, as I have said), but I never said he led to the alt-right's creation: he was just an arbitrary milestone along the way. — VagabondSpectre

Sorry, when someone says "formal launch" I don't take that to mean "arbitrary milestone".

The alt-right didn't really exist when his first protest went viral; at the time the main driver of the movement was simply a rejection of progressivism gone wild. — VagabondSpectre

You claimed alt-right didn't really exist by September 2016, they only had a formal launch in 2018, are you fucking kidding? What do you think I'm refuting? Then you complain about it. Should I just take everything you say to mean "around about that, somewhat, kind of"?

While Peterson thought he was exporting his clinical talk-therapy ideas to a culture that needed them, his "followers" were actually festering in darkened internet-corners, fuelling and reinforcing their shared delusions. — VagabondSpectre

I've given you every chance to give credibility to your statements. If Peterson's base is 0.01-0.05% alt-right then Peterson's "followers" not actually "festering in darkened internet corners". You show me a video with 40k views and tell me that Peterson, who has over 200million views on youtube and expect me to accept all of the conclusions that follow from this point of yours? All he could do was make money off his "notoriety"? He was "over his head from the start"? This is the story of how your "Long take on JP" "all went down"? You are so full of it, my god.

honestly felt that my long take on Peterson should help to raise the average opinion that people have of Peterson though, so I'm not sure where your objections really come from. — VagabondSpectre

What circles do you occupy where you think your story raises the average opinion of JP? Quite an astounding claim, lmao, what haven't we heard yet? How much worse can it get from what you've written?

I agree with @ssu, Peterson is not famous as a philosopher, he offered a critique of our culture which resonated with people. If you want to understand him then that's what you look at first, after, you look at the self-help stuff he's done, the advice he's given which is not deeply philosophical. After that, his philosophical stuff, that is the last thing he's known for and is honestly, brought up more by detractors than supporters.

Probably our main disagreement comes from the fact you think you're elevating the public perception of JP rather than slandering him horrifically. Who would want to listen to JP after reading your "take", I have no idea, but if you say in your opinion, you're helping to make him look good, what can I say, agree to disagree lol.

I understood but I meant in regards to Peterson and his daughter's argument on depression and meat-only diet which came to mind by your comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/sep/10/my-carnivore-diet-jordan-peterson-beef

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifestyle/2018/12/i-followed-jordan-petersons-all-beef-diet-and-it-ruined-my-life.html