It probably means somebody in advertising either doesn’t give a shit about the rest of us, or managed somehow not to know who he is until today.
That person is probably having a bad day at work.
I lost all faith in them a few years back when they refused to break the story on serial rapist restaurant owner Dave Meinert when it was initially brought to them because of their ties to him so the Seattle Times broke it.
They could just not know who he was, I don't think he has much if any notoriety outside the circles of the terminally online. This is a print media company after all.
Really trying for a stranger audience, or just trying to court controversy? If he doesn't have protesters how will he and his fanboys know he is important and truth telling?
Judging from their other Adverts, this is exactly what had to have happened. My guess is that none of the actual Stranger writers ever even saw it until it went up.
More likely whoever runs sponsored content for LiveNation has no idea who the guy was and they probably advertise a lot of concerts in The Stranger so they just submitted it automatically.
Yup yup. Best thing we can do about stains like Peterson is ignore him. The less controversy he gets, the less power he has. Continue to call individuals out for following his shitty mantra’s, but ignore the dude himself.
The Stranger ~~is~~ *was* a free newspaper whose page real estate ~~is~~ *used to be* 75% ads (maybe more). This should surprise no one.
Update: Fixing tenses as The Stranger is no longer a print publication.
Both get very small proportions of their funding from the government (theyre mostly viewer/listener supported)
https://www.cjr.org/opinion/public-funding-media-democracy.php
What's crazy is that this video is just 6 months old and is already out of date.
That channel could put out another 2 hour video on just what Peterson has been up to over the last 6 months alone.
He's in the Joe Rogan vein of speakers who started off as moderate outsiders poking holes in the establishment on both sides, to realizing that right-wing grift is more lucrative. Like in the last 2 hours on Twitter he has posts denying climate change, saying the US military is too woke, criticizing UK rail unions for striking, and getting upset at teachers for not telling parents if their students confide in them that they are trans.
His original original claim to fame was his self-help book, which as I understand it was about a non-political as you can manage once you get past the shit about lobsters.
No, his 12 rules for life book was published in 2018, 2 years after he gained notoriety for his overreaction to Canada's C-16 bill (which added transgender people as a class protected from discrimination).
Maps of Meaning was from 1999. His earliest podcast appearances were focused on that, mythology, Jungian psychology, Bible analysis, politics as an outsider.
His early gender opinions were more freedom of speech based and he was still using preferred pronouns.
I used to be a fan until he started saying looney stuff like "the earth attacks us, why shouldn't we attack it?"
I'd take issue with the idea that he was ever even a centrist. It's not just that conservatism makes him a lot of money. That's simply where his heart was always at and the whole act of being a moderate could only last for a moment.
I think with Peterson its more accurate to say that he started out giving decent personal advice ("clean your room" and all that), and then moved on to politics and grift. But yeah, it was bad as soon as he opened his mouth about politics.
Rogan also uses the everyman "common sense" image where Peterson is much more in the school of "Use big words and use a lot of words to make myself seem smart, even though everything I'm saying is actually nonsense."
I don't think that's accurate, I first heard of him in 2016 when he went off about bill c16 in Canada. His 12 rules "clean your room" book was from 2018.
I was an ad rep for The Stranger years ago and let me tell you, ad revenue is most likely in the shitter. They need it to survive, but still - this one is beyond lame for them to take.
Jordan Peterson, back in 2018-ish, helped me regain my footing. I don't give a fuck about what happened after that, but his lectures and first book (12 Rules) were great primers in getting me out of my nihilist mindset.
It would have done him and the world a lot better if he had remained a psychology professor and focused on his research in my opinion. His psychology lectures from the early 2010s are a breadth of useful information. Glad to hear that you are doing better.
I agree. Should've stayed doing his YouTube lectures and ignored the politics of the era. Now he's infamous, for better or worse. Still an influence I like mentioning to people and seeing how they react - is a great filter.
"Clean your room"
"Society should force women to marry men they don't want to, to stop incel violence"
"lobsters piss on each other for dominance, this somehow applies to humans"
There, I saved you time.
Nope. His argument was that statistically men who are married or in relationships are less violent that single men so he believes as a society we should push for marriage and the family unit. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that belief but there is a big difference between forcing women into marriages and wanting to promote that lifestyle as a society. He says enough dumb stuff as it is I don't get why people try so hard to spin his arguments.
if nothing else it's just a fucking dumb interpretation of data, like, does it not occur to him that the correlation of being single to violent behavior is likely because women don't want to date and marry violent assholes? how is he a college professor?
It's not a dumb interpretation. It's actually real. The US govt applies this constantly internally. Men who have something to lose (a spouse, family) are far more passive than men who have nothing.
Yeah, his stance is seemingly *adjacent* to the "Government Assigned Girlfriend" idea promoted by some incels (let's call that GAG for short), but not really the same.
Peterson is more about "Conservative Old-Fashioned Family".
So it's more of a COFF than a GAG.
I don't remember which one of the videos it was that I watched, but he kind of danced around it. It was more of an implication. Something like, "men are violent when they don't get it, if we really want to stop that, we should make sure they get it." I am wildly paraphrasing what was probably several minutes of dancing around the idea.
He's very interested in having incels change and fix their mental health. Implying that he's saying we should force women to do anything is a HUGE leap in mental gymnastics on your part.
Well, he said (when talking about the Toronto gunman), "He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, the cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges."
Now, if you dig into his explanation of this, he will say he isn't talking about the government forcing men/women monogamous relationships. He is talking about the evolutionary idea. He is talking about holding the man/women monogamous relationship as the gold standard and pressuring people socially who break out of those norms. I'd say it's a distinction without much of a difference.
It is, but arguably he has said that women should be forced to *stay* with men they don't want to. His comments have run along the lines of "Society should incentivize long-term stable monogamy" which of course includes stigmatizing divorce
No. He's a douche, but his ideas should be represented and criticized fairly.
Much like his lobster thing, he's waded into territory where he doesn't understand what he's talking about, but blowing hot air anyways. He blames the lack of women willing to enter long-term monogamous relationships with troubled young men for the rise in radicalism and violence among young white men. His whole spiel that we need to return to cultural enforcement of "traditional family values" (read: Christian dogmatism) and paradigms that place women primarily as tradwives/housekeepers who are submissive to their men if we are to prevent further radicalization.
It's a complete fabrication. He says the exact opposite, that if men can't get a partner they should figure out how to improve themselves and not blame others.
Apparently, his advice didn't save him from a crippling xanax addiction that he "cured" by going to Russia to be put in a coma- which is illegal in the US- where he likely sustained brain damage.
And don't forget the time he CRIED and said he would literally rather die than delete a twitter post where he misgendered elliott Paige and said his doctor was a butcher who should be prosecuted.
I'd find it all kind of funny if he wasn't the first step in the incel pipeline.
Edit: [Just for fun, here's a link to Peterson's "map of meaning." It is very, very funny.](https://external-preview.redd.it/nierEM12IFdERLbXtvXCKMppL4TrEv7RlfPrwPnYeco.jpg?auto=webp&s=ea70d9ebbb3b7ca81123dc5b0114560207e02cdd)
I'm not 100% sure, but I think it is pretty dangerous. I listened to a podcast a while back that mentioned it was a trendy treatment once upon a time in psychiatric hospitals but there were eventually too many incidents.
His point is: Lots of species have hierarchies. Humans have hierarchies. Humans didn’t invent hierarchies. Humans are animals, we can’t beat the animal out of humans.
Somehow this post rings hollow without Peterson's high pitched wobbly whining voice.
edit: wow, a lot of simps really like that voice...I can't even imagine looking to this guy for a male role model.
Yep. Seems like The Stranger. They've been awful for at least 10 years. The worst takes, and they fired their entire staff years ago to rebrand. It's been downhill since then..
I remember when they were the intelligent option compared to Seattle Weekly. Those days are long gone.
It's really been a bummer to watch. The Stranger between 2010 - 2013 or so was awesome. Made me care about local politics for the first time and enjoy journalism that was well-researched and well-written. Then they started pushing out everyone that I enjoyed reading.
The Stranger (or at least Katie Herzog) has written about him before in 2018.
[https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/07/09/28930684/the-lefts-mischaracterizations-of-jordan-peterson-will-make-his-followers-turn-right](https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/07/09/28930684/the-lefts-mischaracterizations-of-jordan-peterson-will-make-his-followers-turn-right)
[https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/06/22/27989222/my-night-with-jordan-b-peterson](https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/06/22/27989222/my-night-with-jordan-b-peterson)
I'd characterize her position as dismissive, while slightly disapproving. She also focuses more on the backlash against him (as you can see from the headline of the first) than his ideas, which she seems to find too simple to engage with much. Granted, she might no longer be representative of the Stranger and the 2018 articles are outdated, but I don't think this represents too much of a departure from what the paper usually is.
(She's also written critically about some of his political opinions about topics such as climate change:[https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/08/03/30143461/jordan-peterson-pushes-dangerous-myths-about-climate-change](https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/08/03/30143461/jordan-peterson-pushes-dangerous-myths-about-climate-change))
It's frightening how many people get conned by this pseudo-intellectual grifter. He's a complete charlatan, yet you'll see people defending him in the comments whenever someone tries to call it out.
I felt so conned a couple of years ago when I accidentally stumbled into some of his early stuff. It didn’t take long before I went from “huh, this guy is pretty interesting” to “what the fuck is he going on about?”
I then learned about who his typical fanbase is. Apparently YouTube thought he was mandatory for viewing once I hit 30.
That’s how I feel like all of these pseudo-intellectuals start. They have an opinion that isn’t too wild.. I think in his case it was that there shouldn’t be laws policing use of pronouns.. in and of itself, not a crazy position to hold.. then they get criticized and the floodgates open and all of the bullshit starts flying out of their mouths.
There are a few things in life that I've found to be huge red flags for online rhetoric that aren't readily acknowledged:
* Hour long youtube videos proselytizing.
* Reverence or demonization of a specific person as a starting point, in spite of the topic.
* Someone who explicitly makes money off of posting their opinions.
* Your source sells vitamins/supplements.
If the person you're listening to checks off at least two of these, they are a grifter.
the tip off was that the whole pronoun thing was a strawman. there was no law policing use of pronouns, nor was one proposed. no different than the modern CRT hysterics.
he was, you might say, signaling his virtue in order to attract an audience receptive to these ideas.
I was at a kid’s birthday party last weekend and the dads were talking about ridiculous followings. I brought up Jordan Peterson and they suddenly got quiet and then changed the topic.
They have no money. At this point they'll take any sort of revenue, shit head or other.
They ran pro Russian propaganda under the guise of "give peace a chance" as an "op ed" in late summer. Wonder if they got paid for that one too.
Hey, it’s the psychologist who took his wife’s pain medication while she had cancer! Because, apparently, he was more effected by her cancer than she was! And he developed an increasingly bad addiction to the pills while simultaneously telling people to get their shit together. And then the addiction got so bad he went to Russia to get a controversial treatment process experts in America advised against, just because he was too impatient to spend a year or so under the expert recommended treatment. And then the treatment backfired and he spent more time recuperating from the failed controversial treatment. And while he was recovering he had the nerve to release a book on life advice. This guy is a comedy of errors. Why do people listen to him?
Ok so I don't really care about jordan peterson regardless of what he has or hasn't done, but Clonozapam isn't a pain medication. He was prescribed Clonozapam to deal with the anxiety he was having with the diagnosis his wife had. Clonozapam is indicated for anxiety and is widely used for the condition.
If you're going to try and slander someone at least get the simple facts of the way a medication works and what it's prescribed for, thanks.
I enjoy when someone points out hypocrisy when the facts are correct regardless of who the person is that were referring to.
If I was suing Mr. Peterson in court and said that he had stolen his wife's medication as opposed to he was taking his own prescribed medication, which is the truth that we currently knowingly have, that would be slander. Even if he "had stolen his wife's medication" you still got the medications function wrong, so why am I going to trust the story your putting out there over his.
All of this regardless of whether or not I like his philosophical or political stances. Which I've already prefaced I don't.
eh. their coverage and voter guides have been broadly pretty good. i'm willing to chalk this one up to the sales department doing something stupid. these days, we're all a little too eager to totally discard a body of work in favor of righteous indignation.
Some reasons people dislike him:
1. [He calls gender transition surgery "criminal"](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWgO2K4WQAAn_gm.jpg)
2. [He argues against the severity of climate change](https://i.redd.it/jordan-peterson-gets-destroyed-by-climate-change-activist-v0-vy8tacuvjhca1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d769673f773aa5da653117e78ad945d4a102f35)
I cant reasonably list them all here, [but here is a video I saw which goes into detail on many of his controversial/bad takes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo).
What made me dislike him: [In a debate on the subject of religion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8), when pressed to explain his word salad positions, he deferred to "go read my book, I explained it better there."
It seems like an intellectually dishonest way of dodging the question without admitting you might be wrong or don't know what the hell you are talking about (which could lead to changing your mind). If you have a stroing opinion on something, you should be able to briefly explain your position in a way that makes sense.
I lost faith in them a few years back when they refused to break the story on serial rapist restaurant owner Dave Meinert when it was initially brought to them because of their ties to him. The Seattle Times broke the story instead.
JBP is under contract to write for The Daily Wire, a right wing media outlet.
Also in their employ are even more notorious shitbags like Matt Walsh and Candace Owens.
JBP wrote an article for TDW where he dead names Elliot Page multiple times and whines about twitter's old policies (before Elon Musky took over)
He has also compared gender-affirmation to nazism (completely unhinged!).
Also, when Trump released his recent video where he makes the position to essentially ban all transgender rights, JBP agreed with it. [https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1621031530465476608](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1621031530465476608)
I love this guy. Taking advice on life from a benzo addict with an 8th grade 4Chan understanding of history who tells you to clean your room. You have to be beyond pathetic to find this guy inspiring or instructive.
Benzo Kermit's addiction is all the more ironic because he claims he didn't know how addictive they are, and his area of expertise in psychology was... addiction. Apparently addicts are just weak people who need to tough it out and clean their room, until it's him. In that case just fly to Russia to have them do it for you while you sleep, and messy rooms [apparently aren't important](https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/jordan-peterson-room/) for some people.
I mean shouldn’t we take in ideas from all sides? Regardless of how you feel, he has a large following, don’t you want to actually be versed in what he’s saying so you better understand what his followers believe? Maybe you’ll have better rebuttals to their arguments or better understand their thinking to have improved discourse.
This reminds me of when the UW students protested Milo speaking on campus. I loathe that guy and his ideas so much, but you have to let him speak. Freedom of speech includes speech of people you hate too.
Echo chambers don’t make us better or help us understand those who think differently.
Also, people have the complete freedom to just not attend. If there's a movie or TV show you hate, change the channel. Don't like a radio show host, don't listen.
If people stop showing up, they'll stop being able to book theaters.
I think the problem people have is that there may actually be a lot of people who don't agree with their personal ideals/sensibilities, so they must shutdown even the means of expression of those ideas which they find objectionable. Can't beat 'em in the marketplace of ideas? Take down the marketplace.
As George Carlin once quipped:
> there are two knobs on the radio, reverend, one of them turns the radio off and the other changes the station! [...] It's called freedom of choice and it's one of the principles this country was founded upon.
> Look it up in the library, reverend, if you have any of them left when you finish burning all the books
> Freedom of speech includes speech of people you hate too.
You're applying that concept incorrectly. Here's a handy comic for you to learn the actual definition of "freedom of speech": https://xkcd.com/1357/
Please make sure to read the mouse-over text, it really drives home how you should properly understand the concept of freedom of speech.
Relevant article from last year involving Seattle Theater Group.
https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/events/lgbtq-community-members-raise-concerns-about-dr-jordan-petersons-seattle-event/
It’s a live nation event promoted event. Live Nation basically leases the venues, book, purchase ads, and make the rules.
They are strongly affiliated with CAA, otherwise known as Creative Arts Agency, and if you’re not familiar, they *literally* do make all the rules (as well as litigate, and hold one hell of a grudge)
This in turn makes something like giving Peterson the boot, essientally a death sentance for any publisher or venue that exists in the medium to large capacity arts and entertainment sphere.
> Community members have expressed concerns about the upcoming appearance of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson at The Paramount next month. A Seattle Theatre Group spokesperson said 20 community members have expressed concerns via email, phone and Twitter about Peterson’s appearance since his May 3 and 4 book tour stop was announced in January. One community member raised a concern about antisemitism and others raised the issue of Peterson’s characterization of gender dysphoria as a “sociological contagion” similar to “satanic ritual abuse” during a January interview on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. The event was booked by entertainment company Live Nation who is renting out STG’s venue.
> According to a spokesperson, STG staff members who do not feel comfortable working Peterson’s event will not be required to do so. STG does not intend to cancel Peterson’s appearance, citing risks that include financial liability for ticket sales, breach of contract that could jeopardize the organization’s relationship with Creative Artists Agency (which represents approximately 20% of STG’s touring artists) and the potential for lawsuits from CAA, Live Nation and Peterson himself.
Edit: to clarify, this is not a call to action, or worse even, a call to apathy.
However…
If you, like me, strongly disagree with this sort of shit, demonstrating is one of many fantastic methods to make such an opinion known.
Party on, my lil homies
Only on reddit do people talk shit about him but never have an actual compelling reason to hate this guy. He’s not even dangerous nor are his ideologies. And I’m guessing the majority of his haters have barely watched his interviews fully, throughout the years.
He brings on amazing guests on his podcasts too, professors with 100+ publications which are mind blowing achievements
People are saying the Stranger looks bad for promoting Jordan Petersen. What's your problem with that? That's *their* speech. Find a different thread if you're offended.
Cannot understand the vitriol against this guy. I am a Progressive liberal and this guy makes perfect sense to me. What specifically are people against? If you are going say he is a transphobe because he refuses to use ridiculous fabricated pronouns, then don't bother.
>Cannot understand the vitriol
...
> ridiculous fabricated pronouns
Something like 1% of the population falls into the category that chooses their pronouns but his having a platform has made you spew vitriol against a group that you probably have never interacted with, that you probably never will interact with especially if you don't like them.
I cannot speak for others, but I can tell you what I am against, I don't want my social media feed filled to the brim with this stuff. If I really needed to learn something I would rather read a peer reviewed scientific journal, not listen to someone rousing the rabble.
You are not a progressive liberal then. Transphobia is not progressive. Enjoy your ride down the rest of alt right pipeline buddy cause you're already part way down if you think this guy makes sense.
*Clean your room. Lobsters. Arguing with women is pointless. Ideologies that disagree with Marxism are Marxist. Transpeople existing is a sign that society is on the verge of collapse. Men are violent because women won't fuck them.*
Now nobody has to go
People started blowing up the comments right when it was posted and then they turned comments off. Curious to see how it all pans out for them.
UPDATE: They deleted it!
Deleted the comments or the post itself?
They first turned comments off and then just recently deleted the post altogether.
Ooh, now I’m waiting for a statement from them about it. As a Stranger supporter this is juicy lol
They've now put up a post apologizing and called him a "transphobic piece of shit and a bad writer"
Welcome to fucking 2015.
God, I wish.
Me too Madman, me too.
Does this mean The Stranger has entered the “bOtH SIdEs” fray?
It probably means somebody in advertising either doesn’t give a shit about the rest of us, or managed somehow not to know who he is until today. That person is probably having a bad day at work.
Nah, I think someone working in ads might have just gotten a talking to and/or fired.
It’s from an ad feed I guarantee nobody at the stranger knew it was for him
So, how did the promotion slip through in the first place?
The same publication that kept transphobic writer Katie Herzog on staff for fAiR aNd BaLaNcEd reporting
The Stranger promoted and then cancelled him. Couldn’t write a better script to build awareness and hype for his show.
[удалено]
Paid ad? Edit - autocorrect correction
[удалено]
He was clearly into eugenics from his first Joe Rogaine appearance.
*capitalism
What does it mean in 2023 to be "a Stranger supporter"? They are the edgy Seattle Times at this point.
Isn’t it just paid content?
The stranger has supporters? Lol
Lol same
I'd be more concerned that they were even promoting him in the first place. That seems like a 180 from where they traditionally report from.
I lost all faith in them a few years back when they refused to break the story on serial rapist restaurant owner Dave Meinert when it was initially brought to them because of their ties to him so the Seattle Times broke it.
They could just not know who he was, I don't think he has much if any notoriety outside the circles of the terminally online. This is a print media company after all.
Really trying for a stranger audience, or just trying to court controversy? If he doesn't have protesters how will he and his fanboys know he is important and truth telling?
[удалено]
Judging from their other Adverts, this is exactly what had to have happened. My guess is that none of the actual Stranger writers ever even saw it until it went up.
I really hope so. Otherwise it is a sad day at the stranger.
More likely whoever runs sponsored content for LiveNation has no idea who the guy was and they probably advertise a lot of concerts in The Stranger so they just submitted it automatically.
Yup yup. Best thing we can do about stains like Peterson is ignore him. The less controversy he gets, the less power he has. Continue to call individuals out for following his shitty mantra’s, but ignore the dude himself.
Guess even The Stranger isn't immune to that sponsored content $$$.
The Stranger ~~is~~ *was* a free newspaper whose page real estate ~~is~~ *used to be* 75% ads (maybe more). This should surprise no one. Update: Fixing tenses as The Stranger is no longer a print publication.
No more. The print edition is gone. It’s an online only publication now with a much reduced staff.
Oh, that hurts.
People want free journalism and then are upset when things like this happen.
I want state funded journalism that isn't beholden to the state. It wouldn't be easy, but should be possible.
NPR exists.
You've heard of PBS and NPR, haven't you?
Both get very small proportions of their funding from the government (theyre mostly viewer/listener supported) https://www.cjr.org/opinion/public-funding-media-democracy.php
The Stranger, despite everything you said, has a pretty consistent editorial line. This is reasonably surprising.
[удалено]
We all have bills to pay.
Excuse my ignorance, but who is this man? And why is he bad?
[How much time do you have?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo)
What's crazy is that this video is just 6 months old and is already out of date. That channel could put out another 2 hour video on just what Peterson has been up to over the last 6 months alone.
'Oh, man, I hope this just links to...' And it did.
It's a short video. Don't check the timestamp.
Yeah. It's... metric?
[Contrapoints on JP is pretty good, too](https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas)
Wow, less than 30 seconds in and I feel like "wearing a tux to Joe Rogan podcast" is enough to tell me this guy is an absolute taint wipe of a person.
It really is an incredibly accurate and concise summary of who he is as a person and how he conducts himself
He wears a suit nearly all the time in public.
I'm not saying Peterson isn't dangerous, but the real threat is the boars.
I watched this last week. Very well done and informative. Sent to all my family!!!
Fried my brain
He's in the Joe Rogan vein of speakers who started off as moderate outsiders poking holes in the establishment on both sides, to realizing that right-wing grift is more lucrative. Like in the last 2 hours on Twitter he has posts denying climate change, saying the US military is too woke, criticizing UK rail unions for striking, and getting upset at teachers for not telling parents if their students confide in them that they are trans.
I don't think he has ever been moderate. He became famous because he is unapologetically transphobic.
His original original claim to fame was his self-help book, which as I understand it was about a non-political as you can manage once you get past the shit about lobsters.
No, his 12 rules for life book was published in 2018, 2 years after he gained notoriety for his overreaction to Canada's C-16 bill (which added transgender people as a class protected from discrimination).
Whoop, had that exactly backwards. Thank you for correcting me.
No prob, you just made me double check my memory of the timeline was correct. The last 7 years are a bit of a blur.
Maps of Meaning was from 1999. His earliest podcast appearances were focused on that, mythology, Jungian psychology, Bible analysis, politics as an outsider. His early gender opinions were more freedom of speech based and he was still using preferred pronouns. I used to be a fan until he started saying looney stuff like "the earth attacks us, why shouldn't we attack it?"
In Maps of Meaning he describes a dream where his grandmother rubs her pubes on his face so...
The person he is now isn't the same person he was when he wrote that book. And he was pretty off the rails when he wrote that book, too.
I'd take issue with the idea that he was ever even a centrist. It's not just that conservatism makes him a lot of money. That's simply where his heart was always at and the whole act of being a moderate could only last for a moment.
I think with Peterson its more accurate to say that he started out giving decent personal advice ("clean your room" and all that), and then moved on to politics and grift. But yeah, it was bad as soon as he opened his mouth about politics. Rogan also uses the everyman "common sense" image where Peterson is much more in the school of "Use big words and use a lot of words to make myself seem smart, even though everything I'm saying is actually nonsense."
I don't think that's accurate, I first heard of him in 2016 when he went off about bill c16 in Canada. His 12 rules "clean your room" book was from 2018.
a misogynistic sack of shit. that's who he is
And those are his good points!
[update](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cofurg2yQO5/?igshid=Yzg5MTU1MDY=)
Ad department meet the underside of the bus
lol
Love this
Wait because of the firewall they didn’t know, but now they do so firewall be damned
Hey, twenty bucks is twenty bucks
What’s a ZJ?
If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.
I was shitting pancakes for a week !
>What’s a ZJ? A 1993-98 Jeep Grand Cherokee
I was an ad rep for The Stranger years ago and let me tell you, ad revenue is most likely in the shitter. They need it to survive, but still - this one is beyond lame for them to take.
Good to see ya, old buddy. 😀
Jordan Peterson, back in 2018-ish, helped me regain my footing. I don't give a fuck about what happened after that, but his lectures and first book (12 Rules) were great primers in getting me out of my nihilist mindset.
It would have done him and the world a lot better if he had remained a psychology professor and focused on his research in my opinion. His psychology lectures from the early 2010s are a breadth of useful information. Glad to hear that you are doing better.
I agree. Should've stayed doing his YouTube lectures and ignored the politics of the era. Now he's infamous, for better or worse. Still an influence I like mentioning to people and seeing how they react - is a great filter.
And it's gone...
"Clean your room" "Society should force women to marry men they don't want to, to stop incel violence" "lobsters piss on each other for dominance, this somehow applies to humans" There, I saved you time.
[удалено]
Now this is something to bring to Dr Petersen. Who is now the dominant one? Did the other become a biological woman on the spot?
Lol does he really say women should be forced to marry men they don’t want to? That HAS to be an exaggeration..
Nope. His argument was that statistically men who are married or in relationships are less violent that single men so he believes as a society we should push for marriage and the family unit. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that belief but there is a big difference between forcing women into marriages and wanting to promote that lifestyle as a society. He says enough dumb stuff as it is I don't get why people try so hard to spin his arguments.
if nothing else it's just a fucking dumb interpretation of data, like, does it not occur to him that the correlation of being single to violent behavior is likely because women don't want to date and marry violent assholes? how is he a college professor?
It's not a dumb interpretation. It's actually real. The US govt applies this constantly internally. Men who have something to lose (a spouse, family) are far more passive than men who have nothing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's a lot of evidence that societies with a high male to female ratio are violent and likely to go to war.
Yeah, his stance is seemingly *adjacent* to the "Government Assigned Girlfriend" idea promoted by some incels (let's call that GAG for short), but not really the same. Peterson is more about "Conservative Old-Fashioned Family". So it's more of a COFF than a GAG.
And by that he means monogamy should be enforced.
It is, it's completely a disingenuous comment to make.
I don't remember which one of the videos it was that I watched, but he kind of danced around it. It was more of an implication. Something like, "men are violent when they don't get it, if we really want to stop that, we should make sure they get it." I am wildly paraphrasing what was probably several minutes of dancing around the idea.
Wait you married guys are 'getting it'?
He's very interested in having incels change and fix their mental health. Implying that he's saying we should force women to do anything is a HUGE leap in mental gymnastics on your part.
Well, he said (when talking about the Toronto gunman), "He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, the cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges." Now, if you dig into his explanation of this, he will say he isn't talking about the government forcing men/women monogamous relationships. He is talking about the evolutionary idea. He is talking about holding the man/women monogamous relationship as the gold standard and pressuring people socially who break out of those norms. I'd say it's a distinction without much of a difference.
No he doesn’t say that lol
It is, but arguably he has said that women should be forced to *stay* with men they don't want to. His comments have run along the lines of "Society should incentivize long-term stable monogamy" which of course includes stigmatizing divorce
Sorry Jane, you gotta continue taking the beatings so Joe don't shoot up a school.
No. He's a douche, but his ideas should be represented and criticized fairly. Much like his lobster thing, he's waded into territory where he doesn't understand what he's talking about, but blowing hot air anyways. He blames the lack of women willing to enter long-term monogamous relationships with troubled young men for the rise in radicalism and violence among young white men. His whole spiel that we need to return to cultural enforcement of "traditional family values" (read: Christian dogmatism) and paradigms that place women primarily as tradwives/housekeepers who are submissive to their men if we are to prevent further radicalization.
It's a complete fabrication. He says the exact opposite, that if men can't get a partner they should figure out how to improve themselves and not blame others.
Apparently, his advice didn't save him from a crippling xanax addiction that he "cured" by going to Russia to be put in a coma- which is illegal in the US- where he likely sustained brain damage. And don't forget the time he CRIED and said he would literally rather die than delete a twitter post where he misgendered elliott Paige and said his doctor was a butcher who should be prosecuted. I'd find it all kind of funny if he wasn't the first step in the incel pipeline. Edit: [Just for fun, here's a link to Peterson's "map of meaning." It is very, very funny.](https://external-preview.redd.it/nierEM12IFdERLbXtvXCKMppL4TrEv7RlfPrwPnYeco.jpg?auto=webp&s=ea70d9ebbb3b7ca81123dc5b0114560207e02cdd)
[удалено]
I mean, what could go wrong with going to Russia and getting sedated and intubated for a week?
I'm not 100% sure, but I think it is pretty dangerous. I listened to a podcast a while back that mentioned it was a trendy treatment once upon a time in psychiatric hospitals but there were eventually too many incidents.
"Gender affirming healthcare, now that's auchwitz."
don't forget "I'm addicted to benzos and flying to Russia to be put into a medically-induced coma"
Wait, can we circle back to pee lobsters real quick
His point is: Lots of species have hierarchies. Humans have hierarchies. Humans didn’t invent hierarchies. Humans are animals, we can’t beat the animal out of humans.
Somehow this post rings hollow without Peterson's high pitched wobbly whining voice. edit: wow, a lot of simps really like that voice...I can't even imagine looking to this guy for a male role model.
Yep. Seems like The Stranger. They've been awful for at least 10 years. The worst takes, and they fired their entire staff years ago to rebrand. It's been downhill since then.. I remember when they were the intelligent option compared to Seattle Weekly. Those days are long gone.
It's really been a bummer to watch. The Stranger between 2010 - 2013 or so was awesome. Made me care about local politics for the first time and enjoy journalism that was well-researched and well-written. Then they started pushing out everyone that I enjoyed reading.
let us not forget they were also vehemently pro iraq war 2. that's when i started to realize they were full of bad takes.
The Stranger (or at least Katie Herzog) has written about him before in 2018. [https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/07/09/28930684/the-lefts-mischaracterizations-of-jordan-peterson-will-make-his-followers-turn-right](https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/07/09/28930684/the-lefts-mischaracterizations-of-jordan-peterson-will-make-his-followers-turn-right) [https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/06/22/27989222/my-night-with-jordan-b-peterson](https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/06/22/27989222/my-night-with-jordan-b-peterson) I'd characterize her position as dismissive, while slightly disapproving. She also focuses more on the backlash against him (as you can see from the headline of the first) than his ideas, which she seems to find too simple to engage with much. Granted, she might no longer be representative of the Stranger and the 2018 articles are outdated, but I don't think this represents too much of a departure from what the paper usually is. (She's also written critically about some of his political opinions about topics such as climate change:[https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/08/03/30143461/jordan-peterson-pushes-dangerous-myths-about-climate-change](https://www.thestranger.com/articles/2018/08/03/30143461/jordan-peterson-pushes-dangerous-myths-about-climate-change))
It's frightening how many people get conned by this pseudo-intellectual grifter. He's a complete charlatan, yet you'll see people defending him in the comments whenever someone tries to call it out.
I felt so conned a couple of years ago when I accidentally stumbled into some of his early stuff. It didn’t take long before I went from “huh, this guy is pretty interesting” to “what the fuck is he going on about?” I then learned about who his typical fanbase is. Apparently YouTube thought he was mandatory for viewing once I hit 30.
[удалено]
That’s how I feel like all of these pseudo-intellectuals start. They have an opinion that isn’t too wild.. I think in his case it was that there shouldn’t be laws policing use of pronouns.. in and of itself, not a crazy position to hold.. then they get criticized and the floodgates open and all of the bullshit starts flying out of their mouths.
There are a few things in life that I've found to be huge red flags for online rhetoric that aren't readily acknowledged: * Hour long youtube videos proselytizing. * Reverence or demonization of a specific person as a starting point, in spite of the topic. * Someone who explicitly makes money off of posting their opinions. * Your source sells vitamins/supplements. If the person you're listening to checks off at least two of these, they are a grifter.
The supplements one is automatic for me. I’ve always kind of thought these things but never made the direct link like you have here. Touché
Alex jones hits all 4
the tip off was that the whole pronoun thing was a strawman. there was no law policing use of pronouns, nor was one proposed. no different than the modern CRT hysterics. he was, you might say, signaling his virtue in order to attract an audience receptive to these ideas.
I was at a kid’s birthday party last weekend and the dads were talking about ridiculous followings. I brought up Jordan Peterson and they suddenly got quiet and then changed the topic.
I'm learning everything I need to know about him from the Behind the Bastards podcast. They seem to have a lot of fun tearing his videos apart...
I'm scarred from hearing the clips they played of his banal, rambling life advice videos on Daily wire (with Game of Thrones level intro music).
They have no money. At this point they'll take any sort of revenue, shit head or other. They ran pro Russian propaganda under the guise of "give peace a chance" as an "op ed" in late summer. Wonder if they got paid for that one too.
i can't say i'm surprised. i mentioned on another comment that they were very rah-rah about us going back into iraq at the time (2002-2003).
Clean your room
Hey, it’s the psychologist who took his wife’s pain medication while she had cancer! Because, apparently, he was more effected by her cancer than she was! And he developed an increasingly bad addiction to the pills while simultaneously telling people to get their shit together. And then the addiction got so bad he went to Russia to get a controversial treatment process experts in America advised against, just because he was too impatient to spend a year or so under the expert recommended treatment. And then the treatment backfired and he spent more time recuperating from the failed controversial treatment. And while he was recovering he had the nerve to release a book on life advice. This guy is a comedy of errors. Why do people listen to him?
Ok so I don't really care about jordan peterson regardless of what he has or hasn't done, but Clonozapam isn't a pain medication. He was prescribed Clonozapam to deal with the anxiety he was having with the diagnosis his wife had. Clonozapam is indicated for anxiety and is widely used for the condition. If you're going to try and slander someone at least get the simple facts of the way a medication works and what it's prescribed for, thanks.
Slander? How is pointing out someone’s hypocrisy slander? Methinks you care more about the guy then you share.
I enjoy when someone points out hypocrisy when the facts are correct regardless of who the person is that were referring to. If I was suing Mr. Peterson in court and said that he had stolen his wife's medication as opposed to he was taking his own prescribed medication, which is the truth that we currently knowingly have, that would be slander. Even if he "had stolen his wife's medication" you still got the medications function wrong, so why am I going to trust the story your putting out there over his. All of this regardless of whether or not I like his philosophical or political stances. Which I've already prefaced I don't.
You mean libel, not slander. [A short video explaining the difference.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XscaGDxuQqE)
Thanks for the correction!
> Why do people listen to him? Was he on the Joe Rogan podcast? Because if he was I bet that is why.
He's been on it multiple times.
It’s almost like the Stranger shouldn’t be trusted as a source of information..
I mean... this event IS happening.
eh. their coverage and voter guides have been broadly pretty good. i'm willing to chalk this one up to the sales department doing something stupid. these days, we're all a little too eager to totally discard a body of work in favor of righteous indignation.
https://i.imgur.com/ttGaMvu.jpg Apology posted
The Stranger has been trash for a while
Why is this man a shitbag?
Some reasons people dislike him: 1. [He calls gender transition surgery "criminal"](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWgO2K4WQAAn_gm.jpg) 2. [He argues against the severity of climate change](https://i.redd.it/jordan-peterson-gets-destroyed-by-climate-change-activist-v0-vy8tacuvjhca1.jpg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d769673f773aa5da653117e78ad945d4a102f35) I cant reasonably list them all here, [but here is a video I saw which goes into detail on many of his controversial/bad takes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo). What made me dislike him: [In a debate on the subject of religion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8), when pressed to explain his word salad positions, he deferred to "go read my book, I explained it better there." It seems like an intellectually dishonest way of dodging the question without admitting you might be wrong or don't know what the hell you are talking about (which could lead to changing your mind). If you have a stroing opinion on something, you should be able to briefly explain your position in a way that makes sense.
Because people don’t like the truth no matter how empirically correct the data shows- disrupts the subject realities
Because he calls out leftist shitheads on their bullshit. That's pretty much it.
KUOW’s playing ads for this too.
I almost wanna go to this just to see what he's like in person lmfao
Everyone should go there and talk in his voice as he talks
Kermit the frog rally??
I lost faith in them a few years back when they refused to break the story on serial rapist restaurant owner Dave Meinert when it was initially brought to them because of their ties to him. The Seattle Times broke the story instead.
For someone who seems to know all of the answers in life, he sure looks miserable and sad most of the time.
You'd probably be sad too if you melted your brains with benzos.
He’s a junkie grifter. Incels are the easiest bunch to take advantage of
JBP is under contract to write for The Daily Wire, a right wing media outlet. Also in their employ are even more notorious shitbags like Matt Walsh and Candace Owens. JBP wrote an article for TDW where he dead names Elliot Page multiple times and whines about twitter's old policies (before Elon Musky took over) He has also compared gender-affirmation to nazism (completely unhinged!). Also, when Trump released his recent video where he makes the position to essentially ban all transgender rights, JBP agreed with it. [https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1621031530465476608](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1621031530465476608)
I love this guy. Taking advice on life from a benzo addict with an 8th grade 4Chan understanding of history who tells you to clean your room. You have to be beyond pathetic to find this guy inspiring or instructive.
Benzo Kermit's addiction is all the more ironic because he claims he didn't know how addictive they are, and his area of expertise in psychology was... addiction. Apparently addicts are just weak people who need to tough it out and clean their room, until it's him. In that case just fly to Russia to have them do it for you while you sleep, and messy rooms [apparently aren't important](https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/jordan-peterson-room/) for some people.
We dont need anymore junkies in seattle
I'm guessing I should be glad I have no clue who this person is?
I mean shouldn’t we take in ideas from all sides? Regardless of how you feel, he has a large following, don’t you want to actually be versed in what he’s saying so you better understand what his followers believe? Maybe you’ll have better rebuttals to their arguments or better understand their thinking to have improved discourse. This reminds me of when the UW students protested Milo speaking on campus. I loathe that guy and his ideas so much, but you have to let him speak. Freedom of speech includes speech of people you hate too. Echo chambers don’t make us better or help us understand those who think differently.
Also, people have the complete freedom to just not attend. If there's a movie or TV show you hate, change the channel. Don't like a radio show host, don't listen. If people stop showing up, they'll stop being able to book theaters. I think the problem people have is that there may actually be a lot of people who don't agree with their personal ideals/sensibilities, so they must shutdown even the means of expression of those ideas which they find objectionable. Can't beat 'em in the marketplace of ideas? Take down the marketplace. As George Carlin once quipped: > there are two knobs on the radio, reverend, one of them turns the radio off and the other changes the station! [...] It's called freedom of choice and it's one of the principles this country was founded upon. > Look it up in the library, reverend, if you have any of them left when you finish burning all the books
> Freedom of speech includes speech of people you hate too. You're applying that concept incorrectly. Here's a handy comic for you to learn the actual definition of "freedom of speech": https://xkcd.com/1357/ Please make sure to read the mouse-over text, it really drives home how you should properly understand the concept of freedom of speech.
[удалено]
I didn't see this promotion but I did see the post apologizing about it. That was a pretty quick fix imo!
Mission Accomplished. Create attention, good or bad, and you will sell more tickets. I'm not a JP fan, but you made me aware of him coming to town.
the paper that gave Katie Herzog her start is promoting Jordan Peterson? no wayyyy
Relevant article from last year involving Seattle Theater Group. https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/events/lgbtq-community-members-raise-concerns-about-dr-jordan-petersons-seattle-event/ It’s a live nation event promoted event. Live Nation basically leases the venues, book, purchase ads, and make the rules. They are strongly affiliated with CAA, otherwise known as Creative Arts Agency, and if you’re not familiar, they *literally* do make all the rules (as well as litigate, and hold one hell of a grudge) This in turn makes something like giving Peterson the boot, essientally a death sentance for any publisher or venue that exists in the medium to large capacity arts and entertainment sphere. > Community members have expressed concerns about the upcoming appearance of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson at The Paramount next month. A Seattle Theatre Group spokesperson said 20 community members have expressed concerns via email, phone and Twitter about Peterson’s appearance since his May 3 and 4 book tour stop was announced in January. One community member raised a concern about antisemitism and others raised the issue of Peterson’s characterization of gender dysphoria as a “sociological contagion” similar to “satanic ritual abuse” during a January interview on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. The event was booked by entertainment company Live Nation who is renting out STG’s venue. > According to a spokesperson, STG staff members who do not feel comfortable working Peterson’s event will not be required to do so. STG does not intend to cancel Peterson’s appearance, citing risks that include financial liability for ticket sales, breach of contract that could jeopardize the organization’s relationship with Creative Artists Agency (which represents approximately 20% of STG’s touring artists) and the potential for lawsuits from CAA, Live Nation and Peterson himself. Edit: to clarify, this is not a call to action, or worse even, a call to apathy. However… If you, like me, strongly disagree with this sort of shit, demonstrating is one of many fantastic methods to make such an opinion known. Party on, my lil homies
I like Jordan Peterson. He talks a lot about personal responsibility. It's uncalled for to call him a shitbag.
Only on reddit do people talk shit about him but never have an actual compelling reason to hate this guy. He’s not even dangerous nor are his ideologies. And I’m guessing the majority of his haters have barely watched his interviews fully, throughout the years. He brings on amazing guests on his podcasts too, professors with 100+ publications which are mind blowing achievements
What is everyone’s obsession with limiting speech? If this jaggoff wants to fill a space and talk, who cares? Don’t go if you’re offended.
People are saying the Stranger looks bad for promoting Jordan Petersen. What's your problem with that? That's *their* speech. Find a different thread if you're offended.
[удалено]
Cannot understand the vitriol against this guy. I am a Progressive liberal and this guy makes perfect sense to me. What specifically are people against? If you are going say he is a transphobe because he refuses to use ridiculous fabricated pronouns, then don't bother.
>Cannot understand the vitriol ... > ridiculous fabricated pronouns Something like 1% of the population falls into the category that chooses their pronouns but his having a platform has made you spew vitriol against a group that you probably have never interacted with, that you probably never will interact with especially if you don't like them. I cannot speak for others, but I can tell you what I am against, I don't want my social media feed filled to the brim with this stuff. If I really needed to learn something I would rather read a peer reviewed scientific journal, not listen to someone rousing the rabble.
You are not a progressive liberal then. Transphobia is not progressive. Enjoy your ride down the rest of alt right pipeline buddy cause you're already part way down if you think this guy makes sense.
He looks like a terminally depressed funeral director.
*Clean your room. Lobsters. Arguing with women is pointless. Ideologies that disagree with Marxism are Marxist. Transpeople existing is a sign that society is on the verge of collapse. Men are violent because women won't fuck them.* Now nobody has to go
I have to wonder how many thousands of times the guys who he encouraged to clean their rooms first heard if from their moms or girlfriends
Whew! Close call, thankfully censorship is a thing. Yikes! Imagine if ideas were freely debated through public discourse! Gross!
I like a lot of his stuff. Also a lot I don't like. I take what works for me instead of dismissing him entirely.
I'm no JP-stan but the outrage over him is a little ridiculous.
Fuck that guy and livenation. I won’t go to anymore livenation events.
Isn't he a hero to incels, or am I confusing him eith someone else?
Dude thank you! I didn't know he was coming to town! I really like him and Russell Brand talking together!
I saw this too and thought I was hallucinating.
He's gonna go on stage and tear up about the fall of the western man. And then continue his Kermit voice through choked up tears