The New Yorker's attempt to take down Peterson

Are you saying he wants women to behave like lobsters?

What he is ultimately saying is that women should pay even less attention to the average Veeky Forums user than they already do.

Yes, women should mate with preferably as few men as possible, perhaps even with just one per city. Men in turn rather than finding frustration with this should be happy to have the challange of fighting for that single position.

Most Fascists seek humanity to be like Lions but Peterson sees them as weak degenerates and knows it is the crustacean that is the most glorious form of life.

Lobsters are blue-blooded, immortal and hierarchical and so hint at Peterson's secret neoreactionary aristocratic traditionalist agenda.

The best way to ignore a joke is to stop telling it. Just look at the Trump election, he only got through because the media turned everything he shat from his mouth into a headline.

iirc he defends hierarchies by saying that they exist in nature, that even lobsters have a natural hierarchy or some shit. i could be totally wrong, though. he talks about it in that interview he did with that british woman who intentionally kept twisting his words to paint him as a misogynist

youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1555
25:55

Lobsters broke off from us in the evolutionary chain hundreds of millions of years ago, but they still have dominance hierarchies. Also they can take prozac. Therefore dominance hierarchies are natural (hence good or worthwhile). That's the reasoning I trace, at least.

“Attempt to take down”?
This is one of the best articles about Peterson I’ve read. It’s an honest analysis without blind doggish praise or dishonest/incoherent critiques. They didn’t even go for the “can you believe this guy thinks humans are the same as lobsters??” route I thought it was going down at a certain point
I’m pleasantly surprised that the New Yorker published this. Great read

I’ve been keeping a close eye on him since 2016 and didn’t notice a single factual error in the article

But bonobos are much more closely related to us than lobsters are and their version of a dominance hierarchy is that everyone fucks everyone else all the time, it is the go to solution to any and all bonobo social problems.

Ditto
I'm not a fan of Peterson, but I found that the article was pretty reserved and near neutral in tone. It almost criticizes him but doesn't ever quite say anything negative; it just shows his views.

Most studies indicate that females have a higher social status in bonobo society.[4] Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. A male derives his status from the status of his mother.[38] The mother–son bond often stays strong and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies do exist, and although the son of a high ranking female may outrank a lower female, rank plays a less prominent role than in other primate societies.[39]

Because of the promiscuous mating behavior of female bonobos, a male cannot be sure which offspring are his. As a result, the entirety of parental care in bonobos is assumed by the mothers.[40]

It seems like they do have hierarchies, just not as strong as normal chimpanzees or humans

It’s not hard to see that the author has some gripes with him but you’re right, he simply lets him speak for himself. None of the quotes could easily be considered “out of context” except for maybe the “rabid harpies” line.

Here's one.
>PewDiePie is a fan of JBP
Saying a couple nice things about a book doesn't mean you're a fan of the writer.

>Lobsters are blue-blooded, immortal and hierarchical and so hint at Peterson's secret neoreactionary aristocratic traditionalist agenda.
>iirc he defends hierarchies by saying that they exist in nature,
>Lobsters broke off from us in the evolutionary chain hundreds of millions of years ago, but they still have dominance hierarchies. Also they can take prozac. Therefore dominance hierarchies are natural

Funny thing is: none of those guys who defend hierarchi see themselves - and their relatives and loved ones - as the lowest of the low. They are never the shudras and the untouchables.

Other funny thing:
If we cant change things that are “natural” to us, like abolishing hierarchies, then why don’t we just stop living against what was designed to occur by natural laws and just accept any illness as the will of the universe?

>Funny thing is: none of those guys who defend hierarchi see themselves - and their relatives and loved ones - as the lowest of the low. They are never the shudras and the untouchables.
How likely are you to see the published thoughts of the lowest of the low, dumbass?
Besides, I'm fully for the defense of hierarchy and certainly don't see myself as an "alpha." The hierarchy shouldn't be seen as something you win, it should be seen as something you continually strive to climb.

>If we cant change things that are “natural” to us, like abolishing hierarchies, then why don’t we just stop living against what was designed to occur by natural laws and just accept any illness as the will of the universe?

I think that recognizing hierarchies as natural in animals is unrelated to moral statements or justifications.

It's more a matter of stating what actually tends to happen than what should happen.

Why hasn't Memerson responded to Sniff Man's accepting his challenge? Is this charlatan too afraid to go against anybody credible?

>he defends hierarchies
Then why dones he hate Hitler and Stalin?

Like what? The article isn't singing his praises but it's not representing him unfairly, either. Seemed like they made a good-faith attempt to look at why he believes what he believes, and why he's resonating with some young men.

Pattern recognition is a kind of cognitive bias
Why doesnt peterman know that?

lobsters look like a dick and peterson is so deep in the closet phallic symbols unconsciously appear in his writing

He chose to give a positive endorsement of Peterson's work on his channel. That counts as being a fan.

>The hierarchy shouldn't be seen as something you win, it should be seen as something you continually strive to climb.

Yeah, yeah. Then the suns of wealthy executives start with much more chances than you do and you need to be bound to accept that you are “inferior” to those people. The sons and daughters of people in the publishing industry or the movie industry are “normally more gifted” than you are, you just didn’t work harder enough to publish your book/got your chance as an actor/got a chance to film your screenplay, etc.

I would accept something as hierarchy if everybody had the same chances from the start. If the children of both the mechanic and the wall-street investor would go to the same public schools. Then we would see who is who.

But right now we just have this pattern here:

vagabomb.com/This-Comic-Will-Forever-Change-the-Way-You-Look-at-Privilege/

There is no way of talking in a fair fight. For all we know we might have many people who are naturally more gifted both intellectually and physically living in slums.

Being born naturally more gifted, intelligent, or attractive is also unfair, it is literally impossible to make things fair.

the problem with "our" incessant need to destroy hierarchies is that it will mostly affect the leaders of our own societies; white men. nothing wrong with that but the mantle isn't going to be picked up by people further down the dominance hierarchy (white women? gay black people? disabled dwarves?) but rather outsiders like the chinese, the jews or the arabs.

Here's another.
>his accent and vocabulary combine to make him seem like a man out of time and out of place, especially in America
Nobody has ever said this. If anything, it's familiar. The meme is that he sounds like Kermit, one of the most recognizable characters in America. His vocabulary isn't unusual either.

No it doesn't. You could be paid to endorse something on your channel, and that wouldn't make you a fan, would it? Or he could have made the video to get more viewers. Your definition doesn't logically follow.

Some people are going to have a much harder time climbing it due to inherent differences in ability, as well as variance in starting positions and random chance. That doesn't mean we can't all strive to do what we can instead of comparing ourselves to the hyper-successful in despair

fascist? really?

>Nobody has ever said this.
The author just did you fucking moron
It's not a news article, it's a lite opinion piece
He made a subjective statement of his view
That isn't factually innacurate

Right, so the question is how low of a standard of living should these people have? People who do not have the traits or abilities to be successful in current society?
And it is possible to give more people a fair shot at making something of themselves.

well, yeah, you have a good point.

Problem is that we have a lot of playboys defending guys like Peterson who don’t have any clue about their actual value and capacities. They actually believe they somehow make it all based on their efforts, and deem poor people and unprivileged people as “inferior”, when, had they been born in the same conditions, they would fare as bad as them or even worse.

It is impossible to do it perfectly so dont even consider it

god i'm so glad i don't care about this shit anymore

> just accept any illness as the will of the universe
We should do that you stupid faggot.

>lobsters look like dick
you must have a weird dick

the only way to assure a high standard of living and to maximize the potential of people "down there" is to assign the task of running society to moral and responsible people who are able to plan long-term

Jews are just more dominant i guess

Here let us solve the problems we create because we are obviously smart :*)

His opinion is shit then, like my anus and yours. Literally whos shouldn't make these kinds of articles. A who at least has some stake in their opinion.

Well yeah, they're filling the vacuum being opened up by the fall of white men. Our society has collectively torn down the dominant leaders of itself and now a foreign group who have yet to be torn down (and if anything have been propped up) are taking the place.

The only person who would be opposed to a hierarchy is someone who ends at one of the lower points: the whining of losers that resent those at top.

That's just the author's impression, it's not really something you can label as false statement. As for Pewdiepie, what would he have to do to be considered a fan? Any public statement is potentially paid for. Legally, you have to disclose advertisements so I'm going to assume he wasn't paid to review the book and chose it for his own reasons (maybe he personally is a fan, maybe he thought it would be popular with his fanbase). He thought highly enough of Jordan Peterson's brand that Pewdiepie chose to publicly endorse him and expand Peterson's audience. Saying that it's incorrect to call him a fan is a huge stretch.

>he says while feeling compelled to inform everyone of how much he doesn't care

>Peterson, formerly an obscure professor, is now one of the most influential—and polarizing—public intellectuals in the English-speaking world.
aren't all professors obscure unless they are a meme for some reason?

>The reprisals only raised Peterson’s profile, and he capitalized on the attention on his Patreon page, where devotees can pledge monthly payments in exchange for exclusive Q. & A. sessions and online courses.
paypigs got off too easy

>Kelefa Sanneh
has any non-white man ever written a hitpiece on Memerson? i feel like it's always either women or whitey trying to fit in with the women

>Then, rather audaciously, he sought to explain exactly how our minds work, illustrating his theory with elaborate geometric diagrams (“The Constituent Elements of Experience as Personality, Territory, and Process”) that seemed to have been created for the purpose of torturing undergraduates.
>Peterson has a way of making even the mildest pronouncement sound like the dying declaration of a political prisoner.
keked

>“He had this odd habit,” Doidge writes, “of speaking about the deepest questions to whoever was at this table—most of them new acquaintances—as though he were just making small talk.”
sounds annoying

>a grim story about a troubled friend who committed suicide, and then to a remembrance of a professor who boasted that he and his wife had made an ethical decision to have only one child, and from there to an argument that both the unhappy friend and the arrogant professor were “anti-human, to the core.”
how will antinatalists ever recover?

>Near the end of the chapter, he tries to coin a new catchphrase: “Toughen up, you weasel.”
pls no

How do you ignore a guy who gets 63 million votes?

Ok, and?

I don't have a solution, but a top-down approach won't work. The world is too complex for that at this point.

lobster is a known phallic symbol, especially in the field of art. It is also considered an aphrodisiac.

Jewish dominance is really fucking old. In the middle ages when most white folk were doing agricultural work as serfs (basically slaves) the Jews had jobs in finance, merchantilism, accounting, and formed the middle class. While the average peasant was illiterate and couldn't even read his own bible, Jews educated all of their children for the sake of letting them read the Torah. The only reason the Jews did not go on to become aristocrates (the top of the heirachy) is because there were laws in place that made it impossible. As soon as those laws were removed the Jews, with their natural dominance, vaulted to the top.

The only reason the Jews were not at the top in the time of the Greeks, Romans, and Babylonians is because those societies had a fanatical devotion to hierarchies, much more than Jews. While the modern societies shake at the idea of eugenics the Romans literally had documents trying to contemplate which babies were worth keeping and which the mother should dispose of.

>Jews were always dominant
>The only reason why the Jews weren't dominant in the past is because someone else was dominant
Do you see the contradiction here?

THAT is your complaint with the article?

Part of that was Jews practising usury though. I'm not contesting their general dominance but it is kind of easy to become rich in a society of people who aren't allowed to lend money.

But winning and losing are based on having a rich white daddy just as often as they are based on actual merit. Distributing power to the top allows for consolidation that slowly chokes everyone else.

>watch some Peterson vids to see what the fuzz is all about
>he seems like just an ordinary self-help psychologist

Can someone explain to me why some people on the right think he's the new Messiah while some on the left think he's Satan? Because i don't fucking get it.

he was and still is a walking joke
if people stopped spreading his shit he would have never gotten the nomination

No, he's also mad that the author said Peterson sounded timeless when she CLEARLY should have said he sounds like kermit Really damages the credibility of the article tbqh.

>This article appears in the print edition of the March 5, 2018, issue, with the headline “Sort Yourself Out, Bucko.”
someone from the future has the pic?

the thing is us discussing this right now is itself a part of the natural formation of hierarchies in society.

"redistribution of wealth'' championed by a small group of revolutionaries is also just the unfolding of dominance hierarchies. It's just different people climbing the power pyramid, society remains shaped like a pyramid regardless.

>be a stupid white farmer. Literally need a loan to buy the essentials of farming. No money because harvest isn't for 6 months
>Take a loan so I don't starve to death

You're basically complaining the Jews didn't allow your ancestors to starve to death.

>but it is kind of easy to become rich in a society of people who aren't allowed to lend money.

More examples of white people being dumb and shooting themself in the foot. Catholic church passed the "law of Gracian" which gave Jews a literal monopoly on money lending. So naturally they charged outrageous interest rates since competing with them is illegal.

Because saying "Having 52 genders is dumb" is now considered neo-nazi tier

>reddit spacing

There are legitimate arguments to be made against the practice of usury. Many different societies have outlawed because they saw it as having extremely negative effects.

There's no contradiciton. You just suck at thinking.

The point is from the middle ages onward the Jews were the superior group in terms of culture. Probably a genetic level too.

But people who like what he had to say are going to spread it.
How do you get people who dislike you to stop doing what you don’t want them to do?

>t. insecure internet gatekeeper

Wealth is not the same as dominance. Just look at the Soviet Union (below the level of heads of state/the highest tiers of government).

pea brain basement kiddos think he is revolutionary because he "BTFO" sjws and gives them basic summaries of books they don't read.
annoying leftists think he's satan because he doesn't want to recognize preferred pronouns and his audience is all manchildren

No there is a silent majority who are tired of marxist leftist postmodernist commies creating an ideological nepotistic circle in every institution they find themselves in and destroying society in the process.

bonobos prefer "chad jerks" over "beta helpers" though
today.duke.edu/2018/01/bonobos-prefer-jerks

I wasn't saying wealth and power are the same thing, I was just pointing out that you can't actually 'level' power structures, they are just naturally pyramidal.

>when you can't make counter points or find typos just talk about formatting

White trash

Yeah. The Catholic church made those arguments and that's why they banned it for all Christians. The thing is farmers do not like starving to death and explorers/enterpenurs like having money to start their business. So they still need loans. And since they made it illegal to receive loans themself they are literally begging to be exploited.

It's not the Jews fault people took loans. Its' the people's own fault for taking them. This is nigger-tier thinking. Going into massive dept and complaining abut your debtor.

>Therefore dominance hierarchies are natural (hence good or worthwhile).
i don't think he says that dominance hierarchies are good. Just that they are not caused by "capitalism" or are not essentially socially constructed, which means that if you want to destroy hierarchies you can't just remove capitalism, but you have to fundamentally change human nature or apply very strong socially engineering on humans, which depending on the social engineering that you apply may be worse than the hierarchies themselves because you have basically no idea what you are doing

people voted for him because he acted like an apish child and screamed at everyone. If it was anyone else; if Cruz, or Jeb had won and were president now I would have no qualms saying the voters agreed with their platform. Most people who voted trump, which keep in mind wasn't the majority of the vote, mainly voted on how he said it rather than what was said. What the Trump persona represented rather than the actual platform of his campaign. Sure, some people agreed with him 100% but to say that 100% of his voters did so is a reductionism of a highly complex election.

I am not some ressentiment-filled antisemite, I don't care if Jews are overrepresented in positions of wealth and power.

But you're not being fair about this, the Catholic church wasn't just being stupid, they thought that usury was social poison, and they weren't alone in thinking that. You can find similar sentiments in ancient Indian Buddhist and Vedic texts, and in Greece and Rome. I think even Judaism has a history of prohibiting usury at times

So some power structures will endure even through the "redistribution of wealth." Doesn't sound like the unfolding of dominance hierarchies to me. Also, not all dominance hierarchies are created equal.

Dude you are barely intelligible. Stop trying to speak in metaphors until you get a better grasp of language.

Obviously studies of primitive tribes have confirmed hierarchies (usually correlated with strength, hunting ability). Surely there arent any people out there thinking that hierarchies are strictly a byproduct of capitalism right?

>Funny thing is: none of those guys who defend hierarchi see themselves - and their relatives and loved ones - as the lowest of the low. They are never the shudras and the untouchables.
that's because the untouchables are not part of the hierarchy, they are outside of the hierarchy and it means your society is already fucked.

they are basically either migrants or war prisoners that you didn't kill for pity and let stay even though they aren't part of your society

It is literally impossible for dominance hierarchies to be anything other than a social construct. Saying a social construct isn't the same as saying it's not real, or that it can be fully eradicated. Just that conceptualizations of it (i.e. who can be dominant, what it means to be dominant) are flexible.

They were neither and are still neither, and neither has anything to do with dominance. Jews were not dominant in the Middle Ages, the European nobility was. Hell, even after the overthrow of the nobility Jews were still ultimately below the European industrial capitalist bourgeoisie. It wasn't until the 20s when rentier capitalism began to take off that Jews really began to climb the dominance hierarchy with post WW2 Holocaust guilt being the final nail in the coffin to pave the way for the takeover of academia.

People voted for Trump as a vote against the dominant narrative not because of how or what he said.

The power structures can be replaced with new power structures, in the case of revolutionaries redistributing wealth what is happening is that the old system(whether a nobility or some other ruling class) is discarded and the revolutionaries become the new ruling class.

My point is that the shape remains the same, and the responsibilities and privileges of the rulers may change superficially but they fundamentally have the same job- retaining their power, directing society as best they can, etc.

oh no they're attacking my internet daddy!!

the zero book podcast also challenged him to a marxist debate and he has weaseled out of responding to them

The moral philosophy behind hierarchies, at least my understanding of it, is precisely the opposite of this dumb social climber attitude Americans have.

You were born a farmer? Good, take up farming and be happy knowing you’re living your life to the fullest fulfillment of its duty. Be the best farmer you can be, and don’t worry about other people.

You were born a king? Same concept.

Born a mid tier civil servant? Don’tet your greed and ambition drive you into trying to usurp the throne and becoming a tyrant, throwing the world into anarchy in the process. Serve your function to the fullest, content yourselves with what you have, build your families estate for your descendants, and have good relations with your neighbors.

It’s When everyone’s trying to push over each other to get ahead, and what’s worse, when they convince themselves that it’s not the happy accident of their birth but rather some inherent merit that’s afforded them their social position, that society is headed for destruction and decadence.

Of course this only works if everyone owns land.

>I would accept something as hierarchy if everybody had the same chances from the start.
that would break the chain between parents and children and be more detrimental than hierarchies themselves

And this is why the American double party system is retarded. People vote for brands, not for products.