Would jordan peterson be as popular if he weren't handsome?

i've never watched one of his videos. all i know about him is he doesnt like gender pronouns or sam harris, both of which are positions i can get behind. but i see a lot of people calling him daddy and shit. is there something low-key sexual going on? he's not paul newman, but he's a lot better looking than zizek and shit.

Wtf zizek is fuego coke daddy

He's not handsome.

He likes Sam Harris, just disagrees with him about how he perceives truth. I like most of his vids.

well groomed intellectual daddy > disheveled hobo coke daddy
marxists btfo yet again

the daddy thing sounds reddit. has that blonde guy hung himself yet

Nah, he has a pretty well-formed face IMO, mixed with the fact that he seems tall and his body isn't glaringly fat or glaringly skinny. You don't need to have a super rugged face with a huge, wide, square jaw and imposing brow to be handsome

He is an average looking person with an average looking wife. Zizek looks like a gremlin and has fucked literal models.

dude is handsome. find a better looking 60 yr old academic. sam beckett was hot too. im not gay

I prefer masculine types.

He's not handsome, he's just well groomed and isnt fat or balding

>average looking person
Having a face that's "average" (not too thin, too wide, in some way deformed) and symmetrical means you're handsome

>balding
what's it like to have innately bad sense for genetic health

>the lie averagefags tell themselves

I'm gay and find him more attractive than Peterson. Why are you mad about that?

I'm not average, I admit i'm ugly lmao. There are some people who are overtly handsome/beautiful (high cheekbones, very defined chin and jaw, piercing eyes, etc.) and some people who could be called handsome/attractive precisely by virtue of having average faces and average bodies. "Average" is more nice-looking than you think, go in a very crowded public place and look around, you'll see that (to be cynical) most people could be called below-average and kinda weird-looking.

all the handsome/"average" people we see in media skew our definitions of ugliness and beauty and what's handsome. Not to sound like a faggoty tumblrite.

user is correct

but i'm not. at least you aren't passing down your genes.

try not to spread hiv too much ok

Sporting a beard, he has an uncanny resemblance to a British method actor. I can't quite place the name.

He looks better now than he did as a young man.

...

I'm quite intrigued by this guy. I've listened to both of his three hour Joe Rogan podcasts, both of His Sam Harris Podcasts (The first one being a two hour argument on an axiom for 'truth'), a substantial amount of his Youtube videos, and have skimmed a pdf of Maps of Meaning and have slotted it in to my to read pile.

I can understand why Veeky Forums and other corners of the intent are heralding him as the new Messiah for his stance against SJW's, gender pronouns and the c-16 legislation, and his dislike of new-atheism.

My only criticism of him is the way he deliberately misrepresents postmodernism. I have no bias or desire to defend postmodernism, I was just curious as to why he is doing this. The more exposure to him I had, the more evident it became. For instance, throughout both Rogan podcasts, he belittles postmodernism at least fifty times, yet the only substantial criticism in those six hours was:

"Postmodernism doesn't care about the constraints of reality at all, all they do is say you can interpret the world however you want," and:

"They have an infinite number of ways to look at a finite set of objects; an infinite number of ways to interpret the world, and their next conclusion is that there is no right way so you can do it any old way. This is a vision problem the postmodernists have."

He then grouped Derrida, Foucault, Marx, Otherkin, feminists, leftists, and SJW's together as one handy strawman to attack and began a tangent about leftists playing identity politics.

I agree with Peterson on a tremendous amount, but it became clear that what he disliked, in addition to the various groups and people mentioned, was basic relativism. Of course, the postmodernists don't believe that all subjective notions about reality, no matter how ludicrous, are equal. Their lean towards materialism gives them a Bayesian model from which to rank the truth probability of a claim. It's a similar method to the workings of empiricism. But Peterson needs to claim that they are basking in a swamp of absolute relativism so he can very carefully sweep under the carpet the idea that he does not have objectivity. He then uses his counterfeit triumph against postmodernism as a pedestal to dismiss subjectivity, and after doing those two things, he is free to pluck the logos from thin air and pretend the cunning ideology he is about to create, and dismissal of every group he dislikes, has axiomatic grounding.

What he is doing is very clever, and I agree with him on most individual issues or remain neutral. I just find it unfortunate that he can't just say he hates relativism of all stripes. He hates cultural relativism, and, for lack of a better term, 'leftist identity politics' so much that he pretends that Foucault and Derrida, even Korzybski, held the belief that every subjective opinion is operating on equal footing because he needs them as an enemy for his anti-left stance and for the various manifestations he wants to create from Hebrew mythology.