Rolling Descent into Fascism Thread [chat away]


Again I think is about different types of people and our thresholds. I am without doubt that Peterson later explained what he meant, and did so eloquently. I wonder quite how many times a person would need to spout inflammatory, dangerous rhetoric only to then explain it away as everyone else misunderstanding them before you started to question whether you were being hoodwinked.

This isn’t rhetorical btw – do you have an infinite tolerance if someone can suggest they meant something differently and were misinterpreted after they’ve said something?



I mean if you want to talk about why people find it so hard to pin anything on his points, it’s because they’re deliberately set up in a stream of consciousness where he’ll repeatedly use buzz phrases like “i’m not necessarily saying that but there’s a lot of data out there that says etc”.

There’s one specific video here where he’s talking about birth control, and spinning out of a question about women’s liberation being a weakening factor within society that his points flow out like this:

• Birth control: is it stopping women being happy because they’re fighting becoming mothers? I can’t say for sure but a study about men’s jaws suggested this was the case and when women are hormonal they prefer pictures of alpha males.
He moves on from this quickly. There is no conclusion, he just leaves it hanging, because you can much more easily disprove conclusions.

• Now he’s on to ‘I mean look at the 60s. Women were able to start behaving like men for the first time in that they could withdraw from reproduction if they wanted to. And the 60s had a boom in pornography.’
Doesn’t like the two directly but implies it extremely heavily. Gives him an out later however to refute what he did or didn’t say and can write it off as a misunderstanding of his tone.

• Now he’s talking about masturbation being a pale comparison to the actual ‘achievement’ of having sex, and porn being duplicitous in that.
He doesn’t have any sort of link to women’s equality here he just sort soft of waffles.

• Then he’s onto the idea that women in the workplace – not the inherent foibles of capitalism, say – is the reason, ‘perhaps, i don’t know maybe’ for a devaluing of the workforce.
Nothing but maybes and probablys. What can be argued with?

He drones on and on about a subject implying negative associations with women while alluding to non-backed-up ideas that he only half suggests are his opinion. That’s why he can walk away from any of this while reinforcing misogyny extremely heavily.

I’ve bothered typing all this out because it surprises me that you can’t see the trick.


Tour de force mate x


I don’t but it’s clearly easier for you to dismiss me as having some sort of anti-you hard-on than engage with the point I was making, which was that changing people’s minds is a lot more than just having evidence about what’s wrong.


a neat summary of JP himself


And yes there is a difference but it tends to be applied to personal relationships or scalar items such as foods or bands.

One doesn’t generally say “I don’t love the Conservatives but I like them” because it’s a fairly meaningless distinction: either way they presumably have your vote.

So when you said “I don’t love” Peterson up there I (and I imagine others) took you to be using a slight hyperbole to imply you were sceptical of him - particularly coming off the back of the discussion of him being dreadful - but were feeling he said stuff you thought required better to dismiss than “the guy is a fucknugget”.

I don’t get how you could like him without feeling he is right and thus what is this weird place between like and love meant to represent in any significant sense? Hence me decrying it as pure semantics.


Just realised that Peterson is kind of a walking ‘playing devil’s advocate here’ isn’t he? Makes toxic points but frames it as ‘working through an idea’ so that he’s always just very slightly outside of the debate as he needs to be. And anyone responding to the toxicity but rightly getting angry he can sidestep with a good old ‘why are you angry? i’m just trying to think this through with you and your anger suggests that you don’t have a rebuttal!’

It’s his one trick. And it works, ironically, by tricking a lot of people who finally believe they have an ‘intellectual’ champion who can articulate the troubling thoughts in their mind without considering that he’s skewing those thoughts down the easiest road to swallow: one where other people are to blame.


Take it to the cycling thread, pal.


I like how he proves that people weren’t sick of experts they were just sick of being wrong. As soon as an ‘expert’ turns up spouting their toxicity he’s lauded to high heaven.


Yep. Literally a professional troll - say something outrageous essentially designed to rile people up , and throw out a “well actually, what I really meant was…”, as if they’re the ones being irrational. Like the entire alt-right set, really.

In the bin with them all.


forgot about jordan peterson for a few days there. what a beautiful few days they were


there are so many hooting, oinking fucking slobs in this country who are into this sort of thing



here are some economically disadvantaged white working class people expressing reasonable concerns about tommy robinson’s imprisonment. ignore the £5 pints of beer they’re holding. and the river island clothing. and the handful of soldiers in dress uniform protesting with them. and the well fed middle aged white women filming it on the latest iphone.


kinda have to lol at the idea that someone like the guy in the red puffer on a 20 degree day is in any way amenable to a reasoned left wing argument for a better society. they’re hooting swine, entirely uninterested in anything but expressing an insular, hateful outlook which is incompatible with democracy. they need relentlessly mocking and marginalizing from society.


Are you arguing that they’re middle class, or that working class people shouldn’t drink beer, wear clothes, eat or have a phone?


I thought he was being ironic and basically saying these guys aren’t anything to do with the white working classes who supposedly love Tommy Robinson and fully back him and his views.

(Edit: to be clearer, he isn’t saying ‘people shouldn’t drink beer’ he’s saying those are expensive pints of beer and if these were actually disadvantaged working class people rising up about TR they wouldn’t be spending that much on beer because they don’t have that sort of disposable income to spend on it.)


This shit, btw? Because I didn’t think I saw it mentioned here


The rapid deterioration of democracy in Turkey is still quite astonishing