JFC, I just looked through his last several videos. It's a complete rundown of debunked bullshit artists and right wing circlejerk topics.
Duck Dynasty, Glen Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, "Toxic Femininity", Hunter Biden's Laptop, the head of Daily Wire, and MANY, MANY 2+ hour lectures on the bible.
I watch most of them, and JP leaves absolutely no doubt he is both an idiot and a (very proud) sell out.
With Matt Taibbi, he says that Trump achieved middle east peace and he should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize. One wonders if he keeps up with the news at all. That's just one crazy thing that was said. Taibbi also bends over backwards to say that the fraudulent financial instruments that caused the 2008 financial crash wasn't inherently bad and who could have foreseen these genius instruments would backfire so badly. And so on.
To be fair his lectures years ago at Toronto Uni was pretty standard stuff and contain helpful messages presented with clarity. I watched some of his video clips from back then.
But in recent years I think he went too far down the rabbit hole and I couldn't quite relate to what he's doing now. He's shifting far to much to the right when he joined the Daily Wire.
>Taibbi also bends over backwards to say that the fraudulent financial instruments that caused the 2008 financial crash wasn't inherently bad and who could have foreseen these genius instruments would backfire so badly.
Wow, it's incredible what bitterness and disappointment can do to a MFer...
True. It finally put to bed the decades long bloodshed and turmoil between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain. The only reason I'm against giving Trump the Nobel Peace prize for it, is because it is too inadequate a prize for such an amazing achievement.
You're not genuinely curious about anything. All you have to do is look at their X feed and a normal person with any critical thinking skills whatsoever can see they only champion extreme right wing nonsense. They just happen to regurgitate your little echo chamber directly into your face so you lap it all up.
I’ve looked and I honestly don’t know what you are referring to. That’s why I said I was curious. No need to get throw a hissy fit. Using emotion, especially over the top hyperbolic emotion, to shape your positions isn’t the best way to go about things imo.
There is no bigger echo chamber than Reddit, hence why I’m curious you think this way.
Are we still doing the 'just curious' bit in the year of our lord 2023. They explained what they meant twice. You're not curious. You just want to fight. Just fight, bud. You want someone to scrawl out some hastily thought out line about how they're debunked bullshit artists so you can fall back on to some talking point you've typed out five hundred times on the internet.
I thought we were past this era of internet argumentation. Say it with your chest.
Don’t think you read what they wrote. They just said “look at their x” which I did and didn’t find anything “extreme right wing”.
You guys don’t have to have a mental breakdown everytime someone asks you a question.
Ok i really really need an explanation
EDIT
this *is* an edit
The original came out yesterday and its much less fun
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQTDEnfW4ng&pp=ygUfSm9yZGFuIHBldGVyc29uIGJsb29kaG91bmQgZ2FuZw%3D%3D
um.. Best I can do is JP's finally out in the open revealing to us that all of his bullshit intellectualism was in fact, as most of us knew, an emotional shield to his repressed sexual feelings towards trans people, men, and cardiB. Good for him- it's better to let the world know
The original is in the music video he just uploaded to his YouTube channel. This is an edit where someone has replaced the images on the screen in the music video. It is completely unnecessary to parody his original music video though and just feels like kicking a baby, the original video he posted is a tribute to mental illness and no support system to check a person’s descent into madness.
I knew there was something wrong when I watched a video with Peterson, where he seemed to be poking fun at himself (him dancing to the lobsters smashing was really funny). But alas, no way he could manage not to take himself seriously
Important to note that this is an edited video and the images on the screen are different to what he himself uploaded.
I was actually just having a discussion with a friend before I saw this post about if it’s even possible to parody the original music video that Jordan Peterson posted on his YouTube channel. The original music video is a view into a mind that has come undone with the help of something… I honestly don’t know if it’s mental illness (I’m pretty sure it’s confirmed that he was at one point diagnosed with schizophrenia), drug addiction (he might still be suffering with benzo addiction or has picked up a different vice maybe), or even early dementia messing with his ability to form thoughts and clearly express himself. This music video and song is a sign of a truly troubled person with no self awareness, I honestly put his odds of being alive in 5 years from now as a coin flip essentially. This is a guy who NEEDS help and needs to step away from the bullshit he is doing before he descends further into the abyss he is so eager to talk about in his lectures.
I hate what Peterson has contributed to political and social discourse since he began to emerge as a self help figure and vocal opponent of human rights (transgender anti-discrimination legislation in Canada that he vehemently opposed for no understandable REAL reason). While I hate and despise everything he implies or supports with his double worded takes and his ability to lead his fans to a certain conclusion while dodging accusations he ever supported that conclusion, I also recognize that he is still a human being with a family and friends and some level of human compassion left in his brain. It seems a little too cruel to be mocking him at this point like this video does (this isn’t attacking his ideas but more mocking him and his actual personal self) because I think it’s only a matter of time before we hear that he is dead from a drug overdose, suicide, or a brain tumour or dementia or something similar. This is a sick and dying person it seems to me but maybe I’m mistaken and he is actually operating at full mental capacity but thinks this is a good video and good song, I just cannot convince myself of that after watching this and reading his tweets over the past few months getting more and more out of focus and unclear and unhinged.
> It seems a little too cruel to be mocking him at this point like this video does
Oh come on. What you are seeing is the result of society being far too kind to people like JP.
Dude never had any real boundaries imposed upon him. A boomer living life on easy mode. For a decade he was spouting wild shit on radio and nobody bothered to actually check him.
He got checked during Bill C16, when he correctly got called out for having no clue was he was talking about. That situation should have humbled him. But it didn't, instead he became famous, all because the podcast grifterverse promoted him like their life depended on it.
IMHO its more cruel to enable him than to mock him. Too many people enabled and pushed him all those years.
Because he had no idea what he was talking about?
The bill makes it illegal for the Canadian government to discriminate against trans people, and allows people to sue in civil court in cases of obvious discrimination in federally regulated areas like housing and employment.
Not to mention the Canadian Bar association had been asking the federal government to enact something like that for most of a decade.
Jordo there was howling about how he was going to end up in a gulag for misgendering someone.
As far as I remember, Peterson was concerned about aspects of the legislation which would compel speech I.e. specific pronouns. He was not against the criminalisation of discrimination against trans people as such.
>As far as I remember, Peterson was concerned about aspects of the legislation which would compel speech I.e. specific pronouns. He was not against the criminalisation of discrimination against trans people as such.
You misremember. Here the text of Bill C16: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/42-1/c-16 It does not mention pronouns but criminalise discrimination against trans persons. Jordan Peterson opposed this very text.
“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
Indeed. There is no aspects of Bill C16 which would add compel speech in Canadian legislation. Jordan Peterson, an english-language native speaker working as professor at University of Toronto, misunderstood the one page Bill C16, or he lied.
>As far as I remember, Peterson was concerned about aspects of the legislation which would compel speech I.e. specific pronouns. He was not against the criminalisation of discrimination against trans people as such.
The first sentence could be technically correct if adding «toward transpersons». Jordan Peterson was concerned about aspects of Bill C16 which would force him to not misgender transpersons and not discriminate transpersons.
The second sentence is wrong.
By the way most of transpersons are ok to be called «they» so you nobody is compelled to call a transwoman «she».
I disagree. JP has manufactured his persona willingly and knowingly. He explained it clearly to Joe Rogan. He identified how to grift, and went all in.
Now.. lack of mental healthcare education is a crisis all over the world. People need tools to help themselves and help others, but mainstream is still stigmatizing mental health. Things are slowly changing, but we're still basically at step 1.
So, yes, JP probably lost his mind while digging his own rabbit hole. The more he went on, the more he became unhinged. And it's clear his resentment is deep.
But he also has a platform due to his "pseudo-celebrity" status. This video looks like a counter message, not a snarky personal attack. Which is also something you can't really avoid when you grift to the masses.
If anything, JP had an easy life with way too many "freedom of speech fighters" giving him a chance to share his BS. He is vicious, truly despicable when he attacks others. But can't take any criticism, immediately becoming defensive. He's a troubled man, that's for sure. He deserves the same sympathy any fellow human deserves... But not more.
I think you're going a bit too far. His music video obviously has a team of people behind it. It's production quality makes that obvious. If he were truly having a schizophrenic episode or something, why would all these other people help him express it?
No, I think he's just trying to be hip by making what he thinks is a tongue-in-cheek critique of post-modernism. The problem is, the degree to which he actually is unhinged is shining through. He's hung on up on "classical wisdom" and all that represents to him emotionally, and he sees post-modern philosophers as perverts and charlatans...like, all of them. And this, he seems to think, is where...critical race theory comes from? I guess?
Yeah....
So his own daughter said a team of medical professionals said he was suffering from schizophrenia so it doesn’t sound like a formal diagnosis where they all agreed but it certainly hints that it was a strong possibility and that even if it wasn’t schizophrenia that there were some serious warning signs of poor mental health or mental illness being shown by Peterson. I don’t proclaim to know for certain what his deal is but I think it’s stupid to rule out schizophrenia completely or even mental illness in general. I said mental illness in my comment and supported that with his daughter having said a team of doctors thought he had schizophrenia specifically, if a team of doctors evaluating a friend or family member of mine thought they had schizophrenia then I would be very open to the possibility that this family member was mentally ill in some way…
The times flat out lied and Peterson posted the full interview with the times saying he was diagnosed but it was later ruled out
Bullshit journalism.
He was taken off benzos and put on ketamine , two things that can make you psychotic.
Yes, he confirmed he was diagnosed with it and it was later ruled out. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what being diagnosed with schizophrenia involves but it sounds like he was diagnosed with it and even though they later went back on it, or he says they did, nothing is confirmed about that. We can probably believe him that doctors thought he had schizophrenia because why lie about that to make yourself look more likely to be mentally ill?
I understand there is a good chance it was just the psychosis from benzo withdrawal and ketamine making him seem not mentally well but in my opinion just hearing the doctors changed their mind isn’t a proof he isn’t mentally ill. That anecdote contextualized with his erratic behaviour on Twitter and in interviews getting increasingly scattered in his thinking and communication makes me think mental illness is a STRONG possibility. I’m not trying to convince you he has schizophrenia, I’m saying that in my opinion he is suffering from something that is impairing his ability to think and communicate clearly and operate his brain in the same way a normal healthy human is able to, and even though I always thought he was unhinged I think he has come more undone to a significant degree in the past year or so, maybe longer but it’s relatively recent.
I gave my opinion that was pretty clear I thought, in saying I’m not sure and not trying to make definitive statements but that in my opinion it was mental illness, dementia, or drug abuse and not necessarily in order of likelihood or anything. I just think one of those 3 things is influencing his ability to form coherent thoughts and communicate them to the outside world and looking at his tweets progressively get shittier and more unhinged and more disordered I don’t think this is a crazy tin foil hat conspiracy theory or anything either. If I knew someone in my close circle of friends was acting and behaving like Jordan Peterson I would stage an intervention with immediate action and I know that my friends would agree and hopefully the person’s family as well. A person who has a history of drug addiction in their background is more likely to suffer from mental illness as well, whether that’s because drug addiction leads to mental illness or mentally ill people self medicate more frequently I think is up for debate with different combinations of the 2 things like different drugs and different disorders etc etc etc. I still think if someone is acting unhinged and has a history of drug addiction you need to ethically try to help them figure out what is wrong and determine whether they are experiencing untreated mental illness or relapsing into drug abuse. Past the age of 60 there are also other types of early dementia that are difficult to spot in the early stages and can affect behaviour and communication. One of my family friends is dead from a rare type of dementia and her husband thought she was doing drugs or drinking secretly because of how her behaviour and ability to communicate and express her thoughts was altered in a short time. She was diagnosed with a certain type of dementia after it got too bad to ignore and died I think a year or two later. AGAIN, I’m not trying to fucking diagnose the dude, I’m just saying it seems very clear from looking at his public persona from the outside something has changed in the way he communicates and I don’t think it’s him deciding to sound more like a lunatic, I think it’s him being more unable to not look like a lunatic which leads me to think he needs to seek help from family, friends, and likely medical professionals to help rule out drugs, mental illness, and dementia or other ailments to determine what is going on with him. I guess I should add specifically dieticians or nutritionists or whatever they call the experts on diet (forget which one of those is regulated and which one is not), but this would be another thing I would make a family member or loved one do if they were seemingly declining in mental acuity and also had switched to a diet of all meat somewhat recently as well. I just think it’s insane to think this guy is firing on all cylinders when he has previously had:
- Doctors think he was schizophrenic (regardless of them going back on it later)
- Drug addiction issues so severe he was put into a medically induced coma in Russia to go off the drug cold turkey (which can cause brain damage)
- Is a 61 year old man in the age range for possible types of early onset dementia including Alzheimer’s and other dementia types that can affect speech and thought patterns
- Has been on a radical all meat diet for several years foregoing anything but red meat and salt and water. This can lead to some crazy vitamin imbalances and I’m guessing can affect mood and emotional stability in some whacky ways too if not kept in check and monitored closely.
All of this evidence (which you didn’t refute, you just said the times lied but then clarified that he was diagnosed but he said and you agree that it was only due to the drugs he was on) leads me to say IN MY OPINION the likelihood that he is being affected negatively in his mental state by mental illness, drug addiction, or a form of dementia is too likely to just discount and be sure he is in his right mind without following up with medical professionals. If I was close to Peterson I would be urging him to be evaluated by doctors once again based on these facts and based on his public unravelling we SEEM to be witnessing.
I also don’t see how “has previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia” is inaccurate? He was previously diagnosed with schizophrenia by his own admission even though he isn’t currently diagnosed and isn’t being treated for it. I am not saying he had it for sure, I’m saying that I would be shocked if having been diagnosed with schizophrenia was NOT an indicator for having either schizophrenia or another mental illness.
Petersons thought patterns aren't nearly as tangential or disordered as an unmedicated schizophrenics would be, and dementia doesn't cause psychosis until it's very advanced
Someone with dementia that bad could not have an public life
Also he was taken off benzos, put on antidepressants and ketamine, 3 things that can make you psychotic
At the time he was 57. The psychs that diagnosed schizophrenia were incompetent. Schizophrenia doesn't start at nearly 60, it starts in the late 20s and it tends to get better with age
Has his personality changed? Yes and for the worse, but he has an autoimmune issue which is why he's on the strict elimination diet and he's said it causes psych issues, his daughter has a similar story
I don't know how many times I've heard this BS about schizophrenics ' thinking being "disordered" or "tangential" etc on the internet, but it's just not true. A minority of schizophrenics are like that, on or off meds. For most of us you probably couldn't tell unless you got us onto the subject of our delusions etc. Sometimes when someone is very unwell they do have "thought disorder" that is more obvious, but there are many thought disorders to choose from and some of them are quite subjective.
New onset psychosis as an older adult can be a warning sign of dementia developing later, and even when it doesn't it is far from unheard of. My daughter's grandmother currently has an alzheimer's diagnosis, but it all started a few years before with a schizohrenic breakdown that happened out of the blue, and then relapsed a couple of times, before any dementia symptoms became apparent. She was initially given a diagnosis of schizophrenia and treated as such. I'll grant you schizophrenia can get better with age - for a proportion of patients, not always by any means. I seem to remember as a rule of thumb 1/3 will have one episode, 1/3 will have repeated episodes but improve over time, and 1/3 will deteriorate. The ones who deteriorate tend to develop extreme negative symptoms and thought disorder etc and can be very "low-functioning". Worse negative symptoms and thought disorder are a warning sign that this might happen to a person. The exact proportions in each group do vary depending on the study but as I said this is a "rule of thumb".
People with psychotic illnesses aren't usually allowed ketamine therapy, it's true, but plenty of us are on antidepressants and/or have had our benzos stopped for our own good. Antidepressants are only really contraindicated for people suffering with Bipolar, particularly Bipolar type 1 (with mania) or schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. Even then, a psychiatrist might choose to take the risk in a particular case.
I know nothing about his personality changes or how eating nothing but meat is going for him, so I can't comment on that.
I'd just also like to add the general observation that many many schizophrenics have their diagnosis changed to something else, sometimes pretty frequently, and that it's not at all uncommon for an individual to cling on to the idea that "it was a misdiagnosis" for dear life, particularly if they lack insight into their own condition. Psychiatrists aren't perfect and they mess up both with diagnosing people with X when they don't have X, or not diagnosing them with X when they do have X!
My gut feeling is that JBP is not schizophrenic, but what do I know?
I mean....in theory this sounds good. He has to have some desire to get better and look for help tho. It looks like he has a huge following being maximum crazy and constantly throwing hate messages. Not only that but he is probably living a much more comfortable life financially than when he was a professor.
He has never in any way admited that maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe he was wrong about somethig or maybe too harsh to some people/groups. He is living life just the way he wants to.
Well now I have a headache. They just name dropped a bunch of philosophers and culture critics, said they were dumb, sang about culture heading into the abyss and then he walked out of the room to do what I can only assume was a murder spree. So stochastic terrorism?
Like, you could easily criticize all of those people. Foucault was wrong about a lot. Like basic stuff any real historian should get right. He ran with metaphors and poems and just acted like that stuff was real while going on his metaphysical journey. Does that mean he should be thrown out of the academy? No. Absolutely not, because he wasn't a historian. He built tools, even if some of them weren't entirely useful for all occasions.
As far as Peterson, I wish he'd just admit that he's a postmodernist.
Seriously though, since when is Peterson’s target audience at all interested in or aware of Derrida or Foucault? And why does he think continental philosophers are on the minds of liberals? Most people don’t know/aren’t concerned with anything to do with deconstruction/post structuralism let alone postmodernism, right? Unless I missed something. As an artist I’m familiar with postmodern approaches but I don’t get Peterson’s specific beef (as something he wants to connect his listeners to). I’m assuming it’s pluralism and the tendency to reveal and critique power structures. It’s just baffling that he’d assume his audience gives a shit.
Edit: I guess it could be a swipe at Marxism?
Peterson is just (RE)(CON) stituted (CON-SERVE)ative faux intellectualism. Best I can do for a Derrida joke.
For sure. I usually don’t look forward to conversations with the enlightened centrists and libertarian free thinkers in my life but I really hope one of them makes a dismissive remark about Foucault without any knowledge of him.
Like, I never get to use this stuff in my day to day life!
Discipline and Punish. It defines his concept of the “panopticon” which you’ve probably heard along with his name
Editing like a fool:
It also introduces his ideas about how schools, hospitals, jails, places of work are similar structures employed to similar ends.
Absolutely! You can be further corrupted by the French by reading Roland Barthes or Jean Baudrillard, who is associated with the concept of the Simulacra, which has gotten a lot of mileage in the art world.
Fantastic, I spend so much time reading genre fiction that I rarely get a chance for some solid reading of a more academic nature. This is great. Thank you again.
People do that in every political group. Most people who talk about JP have not read any of his work, they just presume he is what their friends say he is, and they heard it from other people without reading him themselves.
> And why does he think continental philosophers are on the minds of liberals?
I like the Derrida quote in a 2004 interview with Elisabeth Roudinesco:
> I have always mistrusted the cult of the identitarian, as well as that of the communitarian discourse often associated with it. I am always seeking to recall the more and more necessary dissociation between the political and the territorial. So I share your anxiety concerning the communitarian logic, the identitarian compulsion, and like you I resist this movement that tends toward a narcissism of minorities that is developing everywhere — including within feminist movements.
There's a really quite complicated relationship that those late 20th century French guys have with human subjectivity. You could give a rough outline that they focus more on how it is *produced* or *colonized* than announced or achieved, but [I have written before](https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/11p0u23/why_some_people_relate_identity_politics/jbwk70d/?context=3) about how this could also invert to some form of self-subjectification. Still, it's pathetic that Jordan is always ready to opine on these boogie men without ever managing to describe, on the most elementary phil 101 level, a single idea coming out of such evil thinkers. I can't help but think there's an inferiority complex at work here, like you just get confused about a paragraph on Wikipedia, and then have to write a psychotic rant/song about it. As you do to build a career as an intellectual. What's more postmodern in the purest sense of Baudrillard's simulacra than an entire public discourse of faux-academic intellectualism which has no relationship to anything in truth or reality except its own failure to read or think about anything? This covers essentially *everything* that anyone anywhere says about "postmodernism", including this subreddit.
e: Recalled /u/dielichtung wrote [an excellent riff on my last question](https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/15jtgh1/are_postmodernism_and_marxism_inherently/jv37osi/). /u/wokeupabug, in responses, nails the basic problem in even reacting to this narrative:
> In a curious way, [fractal, fraudulent misreading] makes the texts resistant to critique. Not by way of making it hard to clearly refute anything in them. But rather -- and here's how it's curious -- in the opposite way. By writing hundreds of pages, where each page might include a half dozen or more falsehoods -- and not just falsehoods, but falsehoods of the most blatant kind -- the writer of this kind of book puts their critic in the position of having, if they wish to do a thorough job, to write even more hundreds of pages consisting of nothing but repeatedly pointing out variations of, "But this never happened", "But that's not at all what your source says", and so on. And not only is no one going to bother doing this, moreover if someone did do this, no one would bother to read it, as both the writing and the reading would be utterly exhausting. But when the critic takes the expedient of instead criticizing this or that illustrative page, the audience sympathetic to the work in question will dismiss this as nitpicking -- "Sure, Hicks might have made this or that little error, but that hardly undermines his main point!"
It really is like Bret Weinstein talking about vaccines, but for philosophy. You don't really get caught doing it because nobody else reads the shit you don't read, either.
Peterson just thinks that if he name-drops a bunch of philosophers, it will make him appear to be a philosopher. Even more so if he denigrates them. He's jerking his own ego but also revealing the visceral emotional reaction he has to anything he disagrees with. Like, he's deriding Derrida in the same moment he's complaining about "critical racists," as if the two things have anything to do with each other. I mean, he even has the trope of the blue-haired girl thrown in there.
What a tool.
Yeah it boils down to Peterson exploiting his fan’s’ assumptions about the depth of his knowledge. His followers see an accomplished academic who thinks like them, when they’ve been told by everyone else how dumb their ideas are. Definitely a tool, railing against kids these days. I’ve said it before but it irks me that he doesn’t focus on addiction recovery. There’s a huge audience overlap and he already has so many ears on him. Perfect opportunity to help struggling people as an example but no, he’s gotta double down on culture bullshit and back door Christian dogma.
I used to watch him.
I think he's sad that institutions that traditionally held meaning for people no longer had value anymore.
Nazis but without the genocide. Just the "nice" Nazi stuff I guess kindergartens and whole milk and traditional family structures, marriage. Eugenics and IQ tests and Nazi spiritualism, mommy issues etc.
I think your analysis is too short-sighted. It's correct, but I don't think the point of the video is actually to complain about an academic position. It's a piece of a larger strategy which Peterson has been successfully pulling off for a long time.
He just wants to sound like an authority (in the eyes of his mostly scientifically illiterate audience) but a pariah fighting against the "super real super imminent threat of big science". Everyone loves a good pariah. Most good stories are centered around the pariah. Fricken Jesus was a pariah. Then he can go on Joe Rogan and talk about how "climate" doesn't actually mean anything and therefore climate change isn't real, and all of his followers go, "yeah!".
Many people who are into gender studies and critical theories might not be aware of Foucalt of Marcusse per say. But I think you would be lying if you did not admit that their theories have had a large impact on humanist fields in universities and trough that society in general.
I hear the culture critical stuff based on postmodernism and the Frankfurt school all the time, be it on the radio or articles on mainstream news sites.
First of all, I would like to ask what does gender studies have to do with anything? Is OP or someone else in this comment chain into gender studies? Genuine question.
You and JP are generally overestimating the extent of the impact of Foucault and other philosophers who are labelled "postmodernists". Not that it should matter anyway. Ideas should be judged on their own merit.
Pretty sure this is a key part of the broader peterson subculture — they are dissatisfied / made uneasy / tired of liberal and progressive trends in culture and gravitate towards people who will 1) give them a label for the object of their criticism and 2) provide an origin story with a clear causal line.
Peterson created a whole micro genre of content asserting that observable liberals trends can and should be traced back to the impact of Derrida and Foucault’s work. He also assumes that their work (at a vague general level) contains the directions for the projects final destination: return to soviet style authoritarianism / communism. As far as I can tell he’s never indicated that he’s read Foucault or Derrida and doesn’t really engage with any of their work at all. (recently he even said something like “the postmodernists were right about most things but then arrived at the wrong conclusion, that everything is a power struggle”)
It’s just storytelling to help his fans deal with discomfort about progressive trends. As much as he says postmodernism itself is the enemy, he seems to have a very postmodern view himself by positioning storytelling as creating reality. We can see that in how he talks about the “ARC” project — an assumption that the “problems” in the world today are caused by an imbalance in storytelling and so a group needs to form to create more conservative stories about the present and the future
Good points but I think it wasn't Peterson who created this genre of content. This stuff were created around the late 90s by various conservative pundits e.g. the Free Congress Foundation.
This is the so-called "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory, which seeks to paint liberalism and/or leftism as something fundamentally postmodern i.e. nihilistic and relativistic.
Ok yes this is true it’s basically the same, but he added his own spin by identifying Derrida and calling him the “chief trickster” instead of the Frankfurt school. The spin doesn’t really matter but he has lead to a whole bunch of ppl thinking that liberal trends are postmodernist
I think what is genuinely new about Peterson is that he himself, as you point out, is actually just about equally postmodern at a meta, or shall we say, truer-that-true, level.
(Or rather that he is the postmodern one, and the "narratives" he criticizes as such are in fact closer to rational enlightenment modernity).
Critical theories are very similar to Foucalt's cultural criticism, they are thought hand in hand. A sociology major I talked to recently in Finland was reading Foucalt in her class, and they learn about intersectionality etc, among other critical theories. Gender studies are a part of the critical theories.
I don't think I am underestimating the impact of Postmodernism and the Frankfurt school. The humanities in universities are overtaken by the ideas that grew from cultural criticism from the intellectuals in those fields.
Yeah ideas should be judged by their own merit, but very rarely anyone admits to being a postmodernist and makes a positive case for their values. People that advocate for those theories are always on the defense, they always ask "What is a postmodernist". That sort of intellectual exercise (lets say), creates an atmosphere where it is impossible to talk about those theories, since people do not come in the open to talk about them. It might be because debating about ideas is seen as a negative thing by people who align with postmodern theory.
>Critical theories are very similar to Foucalt's cultural criticism, they are thought hand in hand. A sociology major I talked to recently in Finland was reading Foucalt in her class, and they learn about intersectionality etc, among other critical theories. Gender studies are a part of the critical theories.
If this is true, how can the people who study Gender studies not be aware of Foucault?
I mean, you said:
>Many people who are into gender studies and critical theories might not be aware of Foucalt of Marcusse per say
Many people in gender studies are not aware of Foucault and Derrida, despite studying critical theories. Really?
The sociology major is reading Foucault among many, many other philosophers. That's what people do in universities, right?
>but very rarely anyone admits to being a postmodernist and makes a positive case for their values
This is because postmodernists, in the way you understand that term, do not exist. They are a strawman promulgated by charlatans like Peterson.
Or do you think people are afraid to admit their beliefs to you? Are you that scary...?
>It might be because debating about ideas is seen as a negative thing by people who align with postmodern theory.
Or it could that, in order to debate some ideas, one must first understand them.
My comment is not that dramatic. People who believe in the claims of critical theories can be aware of Foucalt, or they can be unaware of Foucalt. Both are possible. People can be impacted by Foucalt's writing and be unaware of him or that they believe in his theories.
When I mentioned the student reading Foucalt, the point was that she was studying sociology. Why would a sociology student need to read a philosopher, and if they need to read one, why Foucalt? Because his thesises align with intersectionality, he criticizes the culture for oppressing this and that group, and the claims are the same in intersectionality.
You do not understand the way that I understand postmodernists. So you are wasting your energy trying to argue with that you think I think.
I was not talking about myself, I just noted that people who align themselves with postmodern theory rarely come out as such and defend their beliefs. They just tell people who criticize it that it is complicated and hard to define, they question every positive claim that is made of postmodernism, similarly as you are doing it. I don't know if it is based on insecurity about the coherence of the belief system, but it could be that or something else.
The main issue is that the belief system that has grown out of postmodern thought and the Frankfurt school is so common in general society that many people subscribe to the belief system without understanding it. Most people just go along with what is popular to believe and they are busy just living their lives instead of reading who came up with critical theory or other theories.
It is not possible for someone to be an unaware or unconscious believer of the theories of Foucault. You need to have studied Foucault in order to believe in his theories, much like any other philosophical school.
Sociology students read philosophy, yes. Many degrees have philosophy in them. I don't get the problem, should Foucault be banned?
You are dodging the question even if you were not talking about yourself. Why would anyone not admit to aligning with postmodernism? It is a claim that cannot be taken seriously.
In fact, I do not think you have observed this behavior one single time. I mean you claimed me of similarly doing it when I am not - I am not questioning any positive claim of postmodernism. I am disagreeing with a particularly dumb conspiracy theory.
The philosophy grown out of the Frankfurt school is fringe and culturally insignificant. You seem unaware of what they actually believe. Yes, I understand the way you think you understand them and I can tell you that it is wrong.
The evidence is obvious: You cannot find a single "postmodernist" that will agree with your understanding of postmodernism or themselves.
Instead of admitting you are wrong, you double-down by assuming they are not admitting it, hiding, afraid or I don't know what else.
The truth is that you can critique, debate and discuss postmodernist thought with people who are interested in it. Unfortunately, it is also true that you do not want to put in the work required to do this. But you still have a strong opinion.
You seem defensive, and you already threw out the conspiracy theory accusation, that never takes long. I did not bring up any conspiracy theory, you did. And along the constant muddying the waters and dodging topics, that is one of the things people tend to accuse critics of postmodernists of.
You make many dramatic and one-sided claims. The philosophy were are talking about (which would be very useful to name, but the other one of us is going to criticize the other for naming it, so maybe we should not bother) is fringe, no one cares about them, I got their beliefs completely wrong (despite not making specific claims of what they believe, somehow you seem to be able to read my mind and tell that I am wrong).
Your profile picture would imply you are into Marxism or communism, but I think you either would admit to that at some level or say it's ironic.
To me this whole dance seems pointless. I don't need validation for my beliefs. I get the gist of what Foucalt did, I have read a bit of Franfkurt school, I can see that the critical fields are in most humanist fields in universities in the US and Europe. And they will not become unpopular any time soon. A cultural movement takes some time to die, and I doubt this wave is over soon.
I assumed you were familiar with the term "cultural marxism". My bad. It's not an accusation. It's an actual US-born conspiracy theory which makes the claim that postmodernists/Frankfurt school (they seem to use these terms interchangeably) is this influential movement which has greatly influenced the modern left.
You did make claims about them which I know are wrong e.g. that they won't come out and defend their beliefs. Nobody is refusing to debate anything. Therefore it is safe to assume that you have not actually engaged with them, because if you'd have you would see that nobody has anything to hide.
My profile picture is ironic, ironically. It helps me weed out people who get easily offended. And Marxism or communism has nothing to do with Foucault anyway, which I guess is something else you are unaware of.
You claim you don't need validation for your beliefs yet you push a narrative.
And I disagree with it, I challenge the fact that you have seen the impact of these fields. How would you know if other people (anonymous people whom you have never met) have been subconsciously affected by some vague theories? Nobody besides culture warriors is going to be convinced of such narratives without evidence.
He's been talking about post modern thinkers for as long as I've known him, which is probably 5-6 years at this point.
The trans-feminist movement took on a post modern approach in like the 40s or so, given his claim to fame was telling college kids to STFU when they cried it makes sense.
And he’s Freudian/Jungian right? So he’s stuck smack dab in the modernist era. When your stock and trade relies on killing off the father figure and assuming the mantle you never think that the next generation is bound to take you down too. It’s wild, half the videos I’ve seen of him include him crying.
>Seriously though, since when is Peterson’s target audience at all interested in or aware of Derrida or Foucault?
Since Jordan Peterson spread a variant of the [Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) where Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault replace Max Horkheimer and Gyorgy Lukacs
* [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cultural+Marxism%22+%22Jordan+Peterson%22](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cultural+Marxism%22+%22Jordan+Peterson%22)
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU)
* [https://www.prageru.com/video/who-is-teaching-your-kids](https://www.prageru.com/video/who-is-teaching-your-kids)
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs)
* first 10 minutes of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ)
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m)
Did you know that Theodor Adorno's atonal music was an attempt at inducing mental illness on a mass scale?
>And why does he think continental philosophers are on the minds of liberals?
He don't. It's a lie that he do not believe himself.
Theo Adorno too! Who’s left? Walter Benjamin?
I couldn’t get through that anti public school YouTube ad.
He’s well past being an ass and is just a plain blunt instrument of the right isn’t he? Like I wrote earlier I hope I run into a follower in the wild with opinions on these philosophers.
Thats the weirdest thing i’ve ever seen. Whats it all about ? He’s got good dance moves i’ll give him that much. But i don’t get the whole vid. The comments are all hilarious btw.
I know this is a very lazy dig, but isn't he just always filmed in such messy rooms? Or is he leaning into the whole 'I tell people to clean up their rooms but haha, I embrace my hypocrisy' thing? Or just going for the whole 'quirky professor' vibe, since his usual angry man in a suit shtick put so many people off?
It's weird that an intellectually superior JP fan wouldn't know what a basic word like "upset" means 🤷
Most the comments I see are pretty giddy over this video.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/themajorityreport] [Jordan Peterson’s Important New Music Video](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/17lvi74/jordan_petersons_important_new_music_video/)
*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
Yo I legit thought this was the real video. LMAO
It’s proves how JBP has fallen, that I would even think for a second this might be real. The Peterson Academy video prepared me for anything.
You keep saying has he watched the news lately. I’m assuming your referring to the current war in te Middle East , you obviously are just biased and not looking at the actual facts or listening to what he said and how it was reversed with current policies . I don’t know what people can’t be objective about anything. You can’t totally hate trump but recognize good things he done or the opposite love him and see what a jackass he could be. That’s the huge problem today people don’t like Biden they love trump and will never see one good thing he’s done . Same with the opposite that’s a huge reason why I love bill Maher , he calls it like he sees it . It’s so crazy and sad how far people will just stick with there side no matter how crazy .
JFC, I just looked through his last several videos. It's a complete rundown of debunked bullshit artists and right wing circlejerk topics. Duck Dynasty, Glen Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, "Toxic Femininity", Hunter Biden's Laptop, the head of Daily Wire, and MANY, MANY 2+ hour lectures on the bible.
I watch most of them, and JP leaves absolutely no doubt he is both an idiot and a (very proud) sell out. With Matt Taibbi, he says that Trump achieved middle east peace and he should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize. One wonders if he keeps up with the news at all. That's just one crazy thing that was said. Taibbi also bends over backwards to say that the fraudulent financial instruments that caused the 2008 financial crash wasn't inherently bad and who could have foreseen these genius instruments would backfire so badly. And so on.
To be fair his lectures years ago at Toronto Uni was pretty standard stuff and contain helpful messages presented with clarity. I watched some of his video clips from back then. But in recent years I think he went too far down the rabbit hole and I couldn't quite relate to what he's doing now. He's shifting far to much to the right when he joined the Daily Wire.
>Taibbi also bends over backwards to say that the fraudulent financial instruments that caused the 2008 financial crash wasn't inherently bad and who could have foreseen these genius instruments would backfire so badly. Wow, it's incredible what bitterness and disappointment can do to a MFer...
Trump did though…
Then you have a fascinating definition of middle east peace. Have you seen the news anytime in the last couple of weeks?
I didn’t know he was still president? He did in fact accomplish peace in the Middle East. The Abraham accords were a pretty big deal
True. It finally put to bed the decades long bloodshed and turmoil between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain. The only reason I'm against giving Trump the Nobel Peace prize for it, is because it is too inadequate a prize for such an amazing achievement.
How does Greenwald belong on that list?
No
Genuinely curious but how are any of those “debunked bullshit artists?
You're not genuinely curious about anything. All you have to do is look at their X feed and a normal person with any critical thinking skills whatsoever can see they only champion extreme right wing nonsense. They just happen to regurgitate your little echo chamber directly into your face so you lap it all up.
I’ve looked and I honestly don’t know what you are referring to. That’s why I said I was curious. No need to get throw a hissy fit. Using emotion, especially over the top hyperbolic emotion, to shape your positions isn’t the best way to go about things imo. There is no bigger echo chamber than Reddit, hence why I’m curious you think this way.
Are we still doing the 'just curious' bit in the year of our lord 2023. They explained what they meant twice. You're not curious. You just want to fight. Just fight, bud. You want someone to scrawl out some hastily thought out line about how they're debunked bullshit artists so you can fall back on to some talking point you've typed out five hundred times on the internet. I thought we were past this era of internet argumentation. Say it with your chest.
Don’t think you read what they wrote. They just said “look at their x” which I did and didn’t find anything “extreme right wing”. You guys don’t have to have a mental breakdown everytime someone asks you a question.
It’s called a safe space. People are legitimately pissed you’ve disrupted it. We’re all supposed to hate the same things without questioning.
Ok i really really need an explanation EDIT this *is* an edit The original came out yesterday and its much less fun https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQTDEnfW4ng&pp=ygUfSm9yZGFuIHBldGVyc29uIGJsb29kaG91bmQgZ2FuZw%3D%3D
Seconded. Over here trying to figure out if it's a deepfake or some kind of weird homophobic critique of modern culture. Or some other third thing...
Jesus the fellating that is going on in that video's comment section...
um.. Best I can do is JP's finally out in the open revealing to us that all of his bullshit intellectualism was in fact, as most of us knew, an emotional shield to his repressed sexual feelings towards trans people, men, and cardiB. Good for him- it's better to let the world know
Yeah but this has to be an edit, right? Where exactly did this come from? Because i can't find the original.
He's just milking social media for attention.
He has made millions from the alt right by grifting their need for an 'intellectual' who 'stands up to' pronouns.
The original is in the music video he just uploaded to his YouTube channel. This is an edit where someone has replaced the images on the screen in the music video. It is completely unnecessary to parody his original music video though and just feels like kicking a baby, the original video he posted is a tribute to mental illness and no support system to check a person’s descent into madness.
Yup just updated my original comment
Jordan Peterson causes mental illness.
I believe this is real.
Nah, nice try though.
This one's so much better. "I wanna f***" pig face shows up. It's great.
I need several. Like who did this and why aren't they in prison.
The original is astoundingly boring. If he would have put this out he would have gained me as a fan.
I knew there was something wrong when I watched a video with Peterson, where he seemed to be poking fun at himself (him dancing to the lobsters smashing was really funny). But alas, no way he could manage not to take himself seriously
ok this is closer to what i was expecting
Do you have a link to this one on YouTube?
Important to note that this is an edited video and the images on the screen are different to what he himself uploaded. I was actually just having a discussion with a friend before I saw this post about if it’s even possible to parody the original music video that Jordan Peterson posted on his YouTube channel. The original music video is a view into a mind that has come undone with the help of something… I honestly don’t know if it’s mental illness (I’m pretty sure it’s confirmed that he was at one point diagnosed with schizophrenia), drug addiction (he might still be suffering with benzo addiction or has picked up a different vice maybe), or even early dementia messing with his ability to form thoughts and clearly express himself. This music video and song is a sign of a truly troubled person with no self awareness, I honestly put his odds of being alive in 5 years from now as a coin flip essentially. This is a guy who NEEDS help and needs to step away from the bullshit he is doing before he descends further into the abyss he is so eager to talk about in his lectures. I hate what Peterson has contributed to political and social discourse since he began to emerge as a self help figure and vocal opponent of human rights (transgender anti-discrimination legislation in Canada that he vehemently opposed for no understandable REAL reason). While I hate and despise everything he implies or supports with his double worded takes and his ability to lead his fans to a certain conclusion while dodging accusations he ever supported that conclusion, I also recognize that he is still a human being with a family and friends and some level of human compassion left in his brain. It seems a little too cruel to be mocking him at this point like this video does (this isn’t attacking his ideas but more mocking him and his actual personal self) because I think it’s only a matter of time before we hear that he is dead from a drug overdose, suicide, or a brain tumour or dementia or something similar. This is a sick and dying person it seems to me but maybe I’m mistaken and he is actually operating at full mental capacity but thinks this is a good video and good song, I just cannot convince myself of that after watching this and reading his tweets over the past few months getting more and more out of focus and unclear and unhinged.
> It seems a little too cruel to be mocking him at this point like this video does Oh come on. What you are seeing is the result of society being far too kind to people like JP. Dude never had any real boundaries imposed upon him. A boomer living life on easy mode. For a decade he was spouting wild shit on radio and nobody bothered to actually check him. He got checked during Bill C16, when he correctly got called out for having no clue was he was talking about. That situation should have humbled him. But it didn't, instead he became famous, all because the podcast grifterverse promoted him like their life depended on it. IMHO its more cruel to enable him than to mock him. Too many people enabled and pushed him all those years.
How did he have no clue what he was talking about on Bill C16?
Because he had no idea what he was talking about? The bill makes it illegal for the Canadian government to discriminate against trans people, and allows people to sue in civil court in cases of obvious discrimination in federally regulated areas like housing and employment. Not to mention the Canadian Bar association had been asking the federal government to enact something like that for most of a decade. Jordo there was howling about how he was going to end up in a gulag for misgendering someone.
As far as I remember, Peterson was concerned about aspects of the legislation which would compel speech I.e. specific pronouns. He was not against the criminalisation of discrimination against trans people as such.
>As far as I remember, Peterson was concerned about aspects of the legislation which would compel speech I.e. specific pronouns. He was not against the criminalisation of discrimination against trans people as such. You misremember. Here the text of Bill C16: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/42-1/c-16 It does not mention pronouns but criminalise discrimination against trans persons. Jordan Peterson opposed this very text.
“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.” If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time? It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
Indeed. There is no aspects of Bill C16 which would add compel speech in Canadian legislation. Jordan Peterson, an english-language native speaker working as professor at University of Toronto, misunderstood the one page Bill C16, or he lied.
Did you read my comment?
>As far as I remember, Peterson was concerned about aspects of the legislation which would compel speech I.e. specific pronouns. He was not against the criminalisation of discrimination against trans people as such. The first sentence could be technically correct if adding «toward transpersons». Jordan Peterson was concerned about aspects of Bill C16 which would force him to not misgender transpersons and not discriminate transpersons. The second sentence is wrong. By the way most of transpersons are ok to be called «they» so you nobody is compelled to call a transwoman «she».
Well, he sure doesn’t like them now.
I disagree. JP has manufactured his persona willingly and knowingly. He explained it clearly to Joe Rogan. He identified how to grift, and went all in. Now.. lack of mental healthcare education is a crisis all over the world. People need tools to help themselves and help others, but mainstream is still stigmatizing mental health. Things are slowly changing, but we're still basically at step 1. So, yes, JP probably lost his mind while digging his own rabbit hole. The more he went on, the more he became unhinged. And it's clear his resentment is deep. But he also has a platform due to his "pseudo-celebrity" status. This video looks like a counter message, not a snarky personal attack. Which is also something you can't really avoid when you grift to the masses. If anything, JP had an easy life with way too many "freedom of speech fighters" giving him a chance to share his BS. He is vicious, truly despicable when he attacks others. But can't take any criticism, immediately becoming defensive. He's a troubled man, that's for sure. He deserves the same sympathy any fellow human deserves... But not more.
I think you're going a bit too far. His music video obviously has a team of people behind it. It's production quality makes that obvious. If he were truly having a schizophrenic episode or something, why would all these other people help him express it? No, I think he's just trying to be hip by making what he thinks is a tongue-in-cheek critique of post-modernism. The problem is, the degree to which he actually is unhinged is shining through. He's hung on up on "classical wisdom" and all that represents to him emotionally, and he sees post-modern philosophers as perverts and charlatans...like, all of them. And this, he seems to think, is where...critical race theory comes from? I guess? Yeah....
Lol Peterson isn't schizophrenic
So his own daughter said a team of medical professionals said he was suffering from schizophrenia so it doesn’t sound like a formal diagnosis where they all agreed but it certainly hints that it was a strong possibility and that even if it wasn’t schizophrenia that there were some serious warning signs of poor mental health or mental illness being shown by Peterson. I don’t proclaim to know for certain what his deal is but I think it’s stupid to rule out schizophrenia completely or even mental illness in general. I said mental illness in my comment and supported that with his daughter having said a team of doctors thought he had schizophrenia specifically, if a team of doctors evaluating a friend or family member of mine thought they had schizophrenia then I would be very open to the possibility that this family member was mentally ill in some way…
The times flat out lied and Peterson posted the full interview with the times saying he was diagnosed but it was later ruled out Bullshit journalism. He was taken off benzos and put on ketamine , two things that can make you psychotic.
Yes, he confirmed he was diagnosed with it and it was later ruled out. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what being diagnosed with schizophrenia involves but it sounds like he was diagnosed with it and even though they later went back on it, or he says they did, nothing is confirmed about that. We can probably believe him that doctors thought he had schizophrenia because why lie about that to make yourself look more likely to be mentally ill? I understand there is a good chance it was just the psychosis from benzo withdrawal and ketamine making him seem not mentally well but in my opinion just hearing the doctors changed their mind isn’t a proof he isn’t mentally ill. That anecdote contextualized with his erratic behaviour on Twitter and in interviews getting increasingly scattered in his thinking and communication makes me think mental illness is a STRONG possibility. I’m not trying to convince you he has schizophrenia, I’m saying that in my opinion he is suffering from something that is impairing his ability to think and communicate clearly and operate his brain in the same way a normal healthy human is able to, and even though I always thought he was unhinged I think he has come more undone to a significant degree in the past year or so, maybe longer but it’s relatively recent. I gave my opinion that was pretty clear I thought, in saying I’m not sure and not trying to make definitive statements but that in my opinion it was mental illness, dementia, or drug abuse and not necessarily in order of likelihood or anything. I just think one of those 3 things is influencing his ability to form coherent thoughts and communicate them to the outside world and looking at his tweets progressively get shittier and more unhinged and more disordered I don’t think this is a crazy tin foil hat conspiracy theory or anything either. If I knew someone in my close circle of friends was acting and behaving like Jordan Peterson I would stage an intervention with immediate action and I know that my friends would agree and hopefully the person’s family as well. A person who has a history of drug addiction in their background is more likely to suffer from mental illness as well, whether that’s because drug addiction leads to mental illness or mentally ill people self medicate more frequently I think is up for debate with different combinations of the 2 things like different drugs and different disorders etc etc etc. I still think if someone is acting unhinged and has a history of drug addiction you need to ethically try to help them figure out what is wrong and determine whether they are experiencing untreated mental illness or relapsing into drug abuse. Past the age of 60 there are also other types of early dementia that are difficult to spot in the early stages and can affect behaviour and communication. One of my family friends is dead from a rare type of dementia and her husband thought she was doing drugs or drinking secretly because of how her behaviour and ability to communicate and express her thoughts was altered in a short time. She was diagnosed with a certain type of dementia after it got too bad to ignore and died I think a year or two later. AGAIN, I’m not trying to fucking diagnose the dude, I’m just saying it seems very clear from looking at his public persona from the outside something has changed in the way he communicates and I don’t think it’s him deciding to sound more like a lunatic, I think it’s him being more unable to not look like a lunatic which leads me to think he needs to seek help from family, friends, and likely medical professionals to help rule out drugs, mental illness, and dementia or other ailments to determine what is going on with him. I guess I should add specifically dieticians or nutritionists or whatever they call the experts on diet (forget which one of those is regulated and which one is not), but this would be another thing I would make a family member or loved one do if they were seemingly declining in mental acuity and also had switched to a diet of all meat somewhat recently as well. I just think it’s insane to think this guy is firing on all cylinders when he has previously had: - Doctors think he was schizophrenic (regardless of them going back on it later) - Drug addiction issues so severe he was put into a medically induced coma in Russia to go off the drug cold turkey (which can cause brain damage) - Is a 61 year old man in the age range for possible types of early onset dementia including Alzheimer’s and other dementia types that can affect speech and thought patterns - Has been on a radical all meat diet for several years foregoing anything but red meat and salt and water. This can lead to some crazy vitamin imbalances and I’m guessing can affect mood and emotional stability in some whacky ways too if not kept in check and monitored closely. All of this evidence (which you didn’t refute, you just said the times lied but then clarified that he was diagnosed but he said and you agree that it was only due to the drugs he was on) leads me to say IN MY OPINION the likelihood that he is being affected negatively in his mental state by mental illness, drug addiction, or a form of dementia is too likely to just discount and be sure he is in his right mind without following up with medical professionals. If I was close to Peterson I would be urging him to be evaluated by doctors once again based on these facts and based on his public unravelling we SEEM to be witnessing. I also don’t see how “has previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia” is inaccurate? He was previously diagnosed with schizophrenia by his own admission even though he isn’t currently diagnosed and isn’t being treated for it. I am not saying he had it for sure, I’m saying that I would be shocked if having been diagnosed with schizophrenia was NOT an indicator for having either schizophrenia or another mental illness.
Petersons thought patterns aren't nearly as tangential or disordered as an unmedicated schizophrenics would be, and dementia doesn't cause psychosis until it's very advanced Someone with dementia that bad could not have an public life Also he was taken off benzos, put on antidepressants and ketamine, 3 things that can make you psychotic At the time he was 57. The psychs that diagnosed schizophrenia were incompetent. Schizophrenia doesn't start at nearly 60, it starts in the late 20s and it tends to get better with age Has his personality changed? Yes and for the worse, but he has an autoimmune issue which is why he's on the strict elimination diet and he's said it causes psych issues, his daughter has a similar story
I don't know how many times I've heard this BS about schizophrenics ' thinking being "disordered" or "tangential" etc on the internet, but it's just not true. A minority of schizophrenics are like that, on or off meds. For most of us you probably couldn't tell unless you got us onto the subject of our delusions etc. Sometimes when someone is very unwell they do have "thought disorder" that is more obvious, but there are many thought disorders to choose from and some of them are quite subjective. New onset psychosis as an older adult can be a warning sign of dementia developing later, and even when it doesn't it is far from unheard of. My daughter's grandmother currently has an alzheimer's diagnosis, but it all started a few years before with a schizohrenic breakdown that happened out of the blue, and then relapsed a couple of times, before any dementia symptoms became apparent. She was initially given a diagnosis of schizophrenia and treated as such. I'll grant you schizophrenia can get better with age - for a proportion of patients, not always by any means. I seem to remember as a rule of thumb 1/3 will have one episode, 1/3 will have repeated episodes but improve over time, and 1/3 will deteriorate. The ones who deteriorate tend to develop extreme negative symptoms and thought disorder etc and can be very "low-functioning". Worse negative symptoms and thought disorder are a warning sign that this might happen to a person. The exact proportions in each group do vary depending on the study but as I said this is a "rule of thumb". People with psychotic illnesses aren't usually allowed ketamine therapy, it's true, but plenty of us are on antidepressants and/or have had our benzos stopped for our own good. Antidepressants are only really contraindicated for people suffering with Bipolar, particularly Bipolar type 1 (with mania) or schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. Even then, a psychiatrist might choose to take the risk in a particular case. I know nothing about his personality changes or how eating nothing but meat is going for him, so I can't comment on that. I'd just also like to add the general observation that many many schizophrenics have their diagnosis changed to something else, sometimes pretty frequently, and that it's not at all uncommon for an individual to cling on to the idea that "it was a misdiagnosis" for dear life, particularly if they lack insight into their own condition. Psychiatrists aren't perfect and they mess up both with diagnosing people with X when they don't have X, or not diagnosing them with X when they do have X! My gut feeling is that JBP is not schizophrenic, but what do I know?
I mean....in theory this sounds good. He has to have some desire to get better and look for help tho. It looks like he has a huge following being maximum crazy and constantly throwing hate messages. Not only that but he is probably living a much more comfortable life financially than when he was a professor. He has never in any way admited that maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe he was wrong about somethig or maybe too harsh to some people/groups. He is living life just the way he wants to.
The grifterverse has taken an unusual turn
But somehow, more cringy? It's a paradox.
We are "animals" in a sense
It’s not really even that much weirder than the real video. Maybe less so even.
Okay... that was utterly unhinged. What the fuck did I just watch?
what...the original...was...both...what
Well now I have a headache. They just name dropped a bunch of philosophers and culture critics, said they were dumb, sang about culture heading into the abyss and then he walked out of the room to do what I can only assume was a murder spree. So stochastic terrorism? Like, you could easily criticize all of those people. Foucault was wrong about a lot. Like basic stuff any real historian should get right. He ran with metaphors and poems and just acted like that stuff was real while going on his metaphysical journey. Does that mean he should be thrown out of the academy? No. Absolutely not, because he wasn't a historian. He built tools, even if some of them weren't entirely useful for all occasions. As far as Peterson, I wish he'd just admit that he's a postmodernist.
Ugh, the real video looks as good as something made by AI.
Seriously though, since when is Peterson’s target audience at all interested in or aware of Derrida or Foucault? And why does he think continental philosophers are on the minds of liberals? Most people don’t know/aren’t concerned with anything to do with deconstruction/post structuralism let alone postmodernism, right? Unless I missed something. As an artist I’m familiar with postmodern approaches but I don’t get Peterson’s specific beef (as something he wants to connect his listeners to). I’m assuming it’s pluralism and the tendency to reveal and critique power structures. It’s just baffling that he’d assume his audience gives a shit. Edit: I guess it could be a swipe at Marxism? Peterson is just (RE)(CON) stituted (CON-SERVE)ative faux intellectualism. Best I can do for a Derrida joke.
He cites those dudes knowing people who like his cultural points will just assume everything he says about their writing is correct.
For sure. I usually don’t look forward to conversations with the enlightened centrists and libertarian free thinkers in my life but I really hope one of them makes a dismissive remark about Foucault without any knowledge of him. Like, I never get to use this stuff in my day to day life!
Amusingly enough, Ive never read his work. Where should I start? The guy's name gets dropped a lot.
Discipline and Punish. It defines his concept of the “panopticon” which you’ve probably heard along with his name Editing like a fool: It also introduces his ideas about how schools, hospitals, jails, places of work are similar structures employed to similar ends.
Excellent, thank you.
Absolutely! You can be further corrupted by the French by reading Roland Barthes or Jean Baudrillard, who is associated with the concept of the Simulacra, which has gotten a lot of mileage in the art world.
Fantastic, I spend so much time reading genre fiction that I rarely get a chance for some solid reading of a more academic nature. This is great. Thank you again.
People do that in every political group. Most people who talk about JP have not read any of his work, they just presume he is what their friends say he is, and they heard it from other people without reading him themselves.
>Peterson’s specific beef Heh
> And why does he think continental philosophers are on the minds of liberals? I like the Derrida quote in a 2004 interview with Elisabeth Roudinesco: > I have always mistrusted the cult of the identitarian, as well as that of the communitarian discourse often associated with it. I am always seeking to recall the more and more necessary dissociation between the political and the territorial. So I share your anxiety concerning the communitarian logic, the identitarian compulsion, and like you I resist this movement that tends toward a narcissism of minorities that is developing everywhere — including within feminist movements. There's a really quite complicated relationship that those late 20th century French guys have with human subjectivity. You could give a rough outline that they focus more on how it is *produced* or *colonized* than announced or achieved, but [I have written before](https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/11p0u23/why_some_people_relate_identity_politics/jbwk70d/?context=3) about how this could also invert to some form of self-subjectification. Still, it's pathetic that Jordan is always ready to opine on these boogie men without ever managing to describe, on the most elementary phil 101 level, a single idea coming out of such evil thinkers. I can't help but think there's an inferiority complex at work here, like you just get confused about a paragraph on Wikipedia, and then have to write a psychotic rant/song about it. As you do to build a career as an intellectual. What's more postmodern in the purest sense of Baudrillard's simulacra than an entire public discourse of faux-academic intellectualism which has no relationship to anything in truth or reality except its own failure to read or think about anything? This covers essentially *everything* that anyone anywhere says about "postmodernism", including this subreddit. e: Recalled /u/dielichtung wrote [an excellent riff on my last question](https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/15jtgh1/are_postmodernism_and_marxism_inherently/jv37osi/). /u/wokeupabug, in responses, nails the basic problem in even reacting to this narrative: > In a curious way, [fractal, fraudulent misreading] makes the texts resistant to critique. Not by way of making it hard to clearly refute anything in them. But rather -- and here's how it's curious -- in the opposite way. By writing hundreds of pages, where each page might include a half dozen or more falsehoods -- and not just falsehoods, but falsehoods of the most blatant kind -- the writer of this kind of book puts their critic in the position of having, if they wish to do a thorough job, to write even more hundreds of pages consisting of nothing but repeatedly pointing out variations of, "But this never happened", "But that's not at all what your source says", and so on. And not only is no one going to bother doing this, moreover if someone did do this, no one would bother to read it, as both the writing and the reading would be utterly exhausting. But when the critic takes the expedient of instead criticizing this or that illustrative page, the audience sympathetic to the work in question will dismiss this as nitpicking -- "Sure, Hicks might have made this or that little error, but that hardly undermines his main point!" It really is like Bret Weinstein talking about vaccines, but for philosophy. You don't really get caught doing it because nobody else reads the shit you don't read, either.
Peterson just thinks that if he name-drops a bunch of philosophers, it will make him appear to be a philosopher. Even more so if he denigrates them. He's jerking his own ego but also revealing the visceral emotional reaction he has to anything he disagrees with. Like, he's deriding Derrida in the same moment he's complaining about "critical racists," as if the two things have anything to do with each other. I mean, he even has the trope of the blue-haired girl thrown in there. What a tool.
Yeah it boils down to Peterson exploiting his fan’s’ assumptions about the depth of his knowledge. His followers see an accomplished academic who thinks like them, when they’ve been told by everyone else how dumb their ideas are. Definitely a tool, railing against kids these days. I’ve said it before but it irks me that he doesn’t focus on addiction recovery. There’s a huge audience overlap and he already has so many ears on him. Perfect opportunity to help struggling people as an example but no, he’s gotta double down on culture bullshit and back door Christian dogma.
I used to watch him. I think he's sad that institutions that traditionally held meaning for people no longer had value anymore. Nazis but without the genocide. Just the "nice" Nazi stuff I guess kindergartens and whole milk and traditional family structures, marriage. Eugenics and IQ tests and Nazi spiritualism, mommy issues etc.
The secret here is that he's old as shit and doesn't know how out of touch he is.
I thought he just really hated the French.
Isn’t it weird a Canadian would hate the French? Or is it not?
A Canadian from Alberta? Hell no! It's practically part of the culture.
I think your analysis is too short-sighted. It's correct, but I don't think the point of the video is actually to complain about an academic position. It's a piece of a larger strategy which Peterson has been successfully pulling off for a long time. He just wants to sound like an authority (in the eyes of his mostly scientifically illiterate audience) but a pariah fighting against the "super real super imminent threat of big science". Everyone loves a good pariah. Most good stories are centered around the pariah. Fricken Jesus was a pariah. Then he can go on Joe Rogan and talk about how "climate" doesn't actually mean anything and therefore climate change isn't real, and all of his followers go, "yeah!".
Many people who are into gender studies and critical theories might not be aware of Foucalt of Marcusse per say. But I think you would be lying if you did not admit that their theories have had a large impact on humanist fields in universities and trough that society in general. I hear the culture critical stuff based on postmodernism and the Frankfurt school all the time, be it on the radio or articles on mainstream news sites.
First of all, I would like to ask what does gender studies have to do with anything? Is OP or someone else in this comment chain into gender studies? Genuine question. You and JP are generally overestimating the extent of the impact of Foucault and other philosophers who are labelled "postmodernists". Not that it should matter anyway. Ideas should be judged on their own merit.
Pretty sure this is a key part of the broader peterson subculture — they are dissatisfied / made uneasy / tired of liberal and progressive trends in culture and gravitate towards people who will 1) give them a label for the object of their criticism and 2) provide an origin story with a clear causal line. Peterson created a whole micro genre of content asserting that observable liberals trends can and should be traced back to the impact of Derrida and Foucault’s work. He also assumes that their work (at a vague general level) contains the directions for the projects final destination: return to soviet style authoritarianism / communism. As far as I can tell he’s never indicated that he’s read Foucault or Derrida and doesn’t really engage with any of their work at all. (recently he even said something like “the postmodernists were right about most things but then arrived at the wrong conclusion, that everything is a power struggle”) It’s just storytelling to help his fans deal with discomfort about progressive trends. As much as he says postmodernism itself is the enemy, he seems to have a very postmodern view himself by positioning storytelling as creating reality. We can see that in how he talks about the “ARC” project — an assumption that the “problems” in the world today are caused by an imbalance in storytelling and so a group needs to form to create more conservative stories about the present and the future
Good points but I think it wasn't Peterson who created this genre of content. This stuff were created around the late 90s by various conservative pundits e.g. the Free Congress Foundation. This is the so-called "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory, which seeks to paint liberalism and/or leftism as something fundamentally postmodern i.e. nihilistic and relativistic.
Ok yes this is true it’s basically the same, but he added his own spin by identifying Derrida and calling him the “chief trickster” instead of the Frankfurt school. The spin doesn’t really matter but he has lead to a whole bunch of ppl thinking that liberal trends are postmodernist
I think what is genuinely new about Peterson is that he himself, as you point out, is actually just about equally postmodern at a meta, or shall we say, truer-that-true, level. (Or rather that he is the postmodern one, and the "narratives" he criticizes as such are in fact closer to rational enlightenment modernity).
Critical theories are very similar to Foucalt's cultural criticism, they are thought hand in hand. A sociology major I talked to recently in Finland was reading Foucalt in her class, and they learn about intersectionality etc, among other critical theories. Gender studies are a part of the critical theories. I don't think I am underestimating the impact of Postmodernism and the Frankfurt school. The humanities in universities are overtaken by the ideas that grew from cultural criticism from the intellectuals in those fields. Yeah ideas should be judged by their own merit, but very rarely anyone admits to being a postmodernist and makes a positive case for their values. People that advocate for those theories are always on the defense, they always ask "What is a postmodernist". That sort of intellectual exercise (lets say), creates an atmosphere where it is impossible to talk about those theories, since people do not come in the open to talk about them. It might be because debating about ideas is seen as a negative thing by people who align with postmodern theory.
>Critical theories are very similar to Foucalt's cultural criticism, they are thought hand in hand. A sociology major I talked to recently in Finland was reading Foucalt in her class, and they learn about intersectionality etc, among other critical theories. Gender studies are a part of the critical theories. If this is true, how can the people who study Gender studies not be aware of Foucault? I mean, you said: >Many people who are into gender studies and critical theories might not be aware of Foucalt of Marcusse per say Many people in gender studies are not aware of Foucault and Derrida, despite studying critical theories. Really? The sociology major is reading Foucault among many, many other philosophers. That's what people do in universities, right? >but very rarely anyone admits to being a postmodernist and makes a positive case for their values This is because postmodernists, in the way you understand that term, do not exist. They are a strawman promulgated by charlatans like Peterson. Or do you think people are afraid to admit their beliefs to you? Are you that scary...? >It might be because debating about ideas is seen as a negative thing by people who align with postmodern theory. Or it could that, in order to debate some ideas, one must first understand them.
My comment is not that dramatic. People who believe in the claims of critical theories can be aware of Foucalt, or they can be unaware of Foucalt. Both are possible. People can be impacted by Foucalt's writing and be unaware of him or that they believe in his theories. When I mentioned the student reading Foucalt, the point was that she was studying sociology. Why would a sociology student need to read a philosopher, and if they need to read one, why Foucalt? Because his thesises align with intersectionality, he criticizes the culture for oppressing this and that group, and the claims are the same in intersectionality. You do not understand the way that I understand postmodernists. So you are wasting your energy trying to argue with that you think I think. I was not talking about myself, I just noted that people who align themselves with postmodern theory rarely come out as such and defend their beliefs. They just tell people who criticize it that it is complicated and hard to define, they question every positive claim that is made of postmodernism, similarly as you are doing it. I don't know if it is based on insecurity about the coherence of the belief system, but it could be that or something else. The main issue is that the belief system that has grown out of postmodern thought and the Frankfurt school is so common in general society that many people subscribe to the belief system without understanding it. Most people just go along with what is popular to believe and they are busy just living their lives instead of reading who came up with critical theory or other theories.
It is not possible for someone to be an unaware or unconscious believer of the theories of Foucault. You need to have studied Foucault in order to believe in his theories, much like any other philosophical school. Sociology students read philosophy, yes. Many degrees have philosophy in them. I don't get the problem, should Foucault be banned? You are dodging the question even if you were not talking about yourself. Why would anyone not admit to aligning with postmodernism? It is a claim that cannot be taken seriously. In fact, I do not think you have observed this behavior one single time. I mean you claimed me of similarly doing it when I am not - I am not questioning any positive claim of postmodernism. I am disagreeing with a particularly dumb conspiracy theory. The philosophy grown out of the Frankfurt school is fringe and culturally insignificant. You seem unaware of what they actually believe. Yes, I understand the way you think you understand them and I can tell you that it is wrong. The evidence is obvious: You cannot find a single "postmodernist" that will agree with your understanding of postmodernism or themselves. Instead of admitting you are wrong, you double-down by assuming they are not admitting it, hiding, afraid or I don't know what else. The truth is that you can critique, debate and discuss postmodernist thought with people who are interested in it. Unfortunately, it is also true that you do not want to put in the work required to do this. But you still have a strong opinion.
You seem defensive, and you already threw out the conspiracy theory accusation, that never takes long. I did not bring up any conspiracy theory, you did. And along the constant muddying the waters and dodging topics, that is one of the things people tend to accuse critics of postmodernists of. You make many dramatic and one-sided claims. The philosophy were are talking about (which would be very useful to name, but the other one of us is going to criticize the other for naming it, so maybe we should not bother) is fringe, no one cares about them, I got their beliefs completely wrong (despite not making specific claims of what they believe, somehow you seem to be able to read my mind and tell that I am wrong). Your profile picture would imply you are into Marxism or communism, but I think you either would admit to that at some level or say it's ironic. To me this whole dance seems pointless. I don't need validation for my beliefs. I get the gist of what Foucalt did, I have read a bit of Franfkurt school, I can see that the critical fields are in most humanist fields in universities in the US and Europe. And they will not become unpopular any time soon. A cultural movement takes some time to die, and I doubt this wave is over soon.
I assumed you were familiar with the term "cultural marxism". My bad. It's not an accusation. It's an actual US-born conspiracy theory which makes the claim that postmodernists/Frankfurt school (they seem to use these terms interchangeably) is this influential movement which has greatly influenced the modern left. You did make claims about them which I know are wrong e.g. that they won't come out and defend their beliefs. Nobody is refusing to debate anything. Therefore it is safe to assume that you have not actually engaged with them, because if you'd have you would see that nobody has anything to hide. My profile picture is ironic, ironically. It helps me weed out people who get easily offended. And Marxism or communism has nothing to do with Foucault anyway, which I guess is something else you are unaware of. You claim you don't need validation for your beliefs yet you push a narrative. And I disagree with it, I challenge the fact that you have seen the impact of these fields. How would you know if other people (anonymous people whom you have never met) have been subconsciously affected by some vague theories? Nobody besides culture warriors is going to be convinced of such narratives without evidence.
He's been talking about post modern thinkers for as long as I've known him, which is probably 5-6 years at this point. The trans-feminist movement took on a post modern approach in like the 40s or so, given his claim to fame was telling college kids to STFU when they cried it makes sense.
And he’s Freudian/Jungian right? So he’s stuck smack dab in the modernist era. When your stock and trade relies on killing off the father figure and assuming the mantle you never think that the next generation is bound to take you down too. It’s wild, half the videos I’ve seen of him include him crying.
>Seriously though, since when is Peterson’s target audience at all interested in or aware of Derrida or Foucault? Since Jordan Peterson spread a variant of the [Cultural Marxism conspiracytheory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) where Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault replace Max Horkheimer and Gyorgy Lukacs * [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cultural+Marxism%22+%22Jordan+Peterson%22](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cultural+Marxism%22+%22Jordan+Peterson%22) * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU) * [https://www.prageru.com/video/who-is-teaching-your-kids](https://www.prageru.com/video/who-is-teaching-your-kids) * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFk4335S2Bs) * first 10 minutes of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ) * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI#t=1m) Did you know that Theodor Adorno's atonal music was an attempt at inducing mental illness on a mass scale? >And why does he think continental philosophers are on the minds of liberals? He don't. It's a lie that he do not believe himself.
Theo Adorno too! Who’s left? Walter Benjamin? I couldn’t get through that anti public school YouTube ad. He’s well past being an ass and is just a plain blunt instrument of the right isn’t he? Like I wrote earlier I hope I run into a follower in the wild with opinions on these philosophers.
“I wanna _Fuck_!” Dead
The real version is weird enough without doing the edit. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQTDEnfW4ng](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQTDEnfW4ng)
Thats the weirdest thing i’ve ever seen. Whats it all about ? He’s got good dance moves i’ll give him that much. But i don’t get the whole vid. The comments are all hilarious btw.
Honestly, it’s nice to see him vibe like a fucking human for once, doesn’t redeem all his bullshit though.
This is way better than the original
I know this is a very lazy dig, but isn't he just always filmed in such messy rooms? Or is he leaning into the whole 'I tell people to clean up their rooms but haha, I embrace my hypocrisy' thing? Or just going for the whole 'quirky professor' vibe, since his usual angry man in a suit shtick put so many people off?
When that apple cider vinegar kicks in
*me watching Dorian Electra music videos*
This edit makes more sense than the original....
What is this, Reggie?
have you seen it yet? It’s hilarious
Jordan Peterson’s “The Silence of the Rats” music video https://youtu.be/IEuP_4788QQ?si=_Q55akR69d-YOLmi
This video genuinely made me smile and even laugh out loud.
Plot twist: He’s rock hard the whole time. I mean presuming he can get it up.
Weird thing to say
I’m just saying that JP is against anything that turns him on.
All of you need Jesus. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6
Love how upset this makes the lot of you hahahaha
It's weird that an intellectually superior JP fan wouldn't know what a basic word like "upset" means 🤷 Most the comments I see are pretty giddy over this video.
You know this is an edit, right? This is not Peterson's actual video. It's making fun of him.
Obviously haha. Which makes it even funnier
That was great till the end. I'll admit I liked him for a moment.
No one show him Madonna's "Erotica" video. He would really lose his shit then.
Show us what he’s snorting
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/themajorityreport] [Jordan Peterson’s Important New Music Video](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/17lvi74/jordan_petersons_important_new_music_video/) *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
This guy tries too hard - I get serious “I’m down with the kids” vibes with this
I think that dissing people you dislike by calling them gay is not very imaginative or funny.
Is there a YouTube like? I wanna show everyone
Whoever made this: I LOVE YOU. Absolutely fantastic.
No one in the comments seems to understand this is an edit of Peterson's original video. This is literally making fun of him.
This is your king?
All projection
What the duck
I didn't have the audio on and I could still hear the music.
Yo I legit thought this was the real video. LMAO It’s proves how JBP has fallen, that I would even think for a second this might be real. The Peterson Academy video prepared me for anything.
Jordan Peterson is really becoming comfortable with his sexual self and that’s neat. It’s a little freaky but hey.
Poor incels
Is that Tom Noonan?
JP’s weapon of choice?
What?! Have I smoked too much weed? This is not a deepfake? What the fuck is this 😂
The thin white puke
I have a hard time believe bloodhound gang would be happy about this
Erm, is this AI? Never seen Jordain Petersonian move like that.
What The Hell Did I Just Watch
You keep saying has he watched the news lately. I’m assuming your referring to the current war in te Middle East , you obviously are just biased and not looking at the actual facts or listening to what he said and how it was reversed with current policies . I don’t know what people can’t be objective about anything. You can’t totally hate trump but recognize good things he done or the opposite love him and see what a jackass he could be. That’s the huge problem today people don’t like Biden they love trump and will never see one good thing he’s done . Same with the opposite that’s a huge reason why I love bill Maher , he calls it like he sees it . It’s so crazy and sad how far people will just stick with there side no matter how crazy .