“Jordan Peterson DESTROYS British GQ Magazine Feminist” is the name the video’s curator has given this segment. It can be found here.
I’m posting this conversation on my website, because the curator of this page has apparently been deleting most of my comments and hacking the others into pieces, leaving only a fragment of my responses, usually cut off mid-sentence. This is how Jordan Peterson’s followers respond when someone criticizes their dipshit messiah.
James O’Donnell 1 day ago — Every time I hear Jordan Peterson talk, I get an even greater window into that tiny, defensive little, ugly mind. The man is well on his way toward redefining what it means to be a complete nitwit. And he’s pretty damn rude, too. (I’d be prepared to cut him some slack if he weren’t such an ass.)
James O’Donnell 1 day ago — @Jame Jameson — You represent him so well. What I like is to have an open mind and give many voices a chance to represent themselves, so I can consider their perspectives… especially when those people have been recommended to me by a young, impressionable friend. I did. I gave Peterson that chance. What I found was an empty well with bile running down its walls. Pure poison.
James O’Donnell 16 hours ago — Thanks for the question, @Aaron accardo (much more respectful than the personal attacks of the previous clod). What’s so ugly about Peterson’s mind? To begin with, he seems to be always on the attack, even though he’s excellent at playing the victim. As he admitted to Joe Rogan, he has no patience with detractors and he handles criticism in a way that only discredits him. And his attacks are dishonest, mere tactics, not grounded in principle. His debate method is all about peppering the other person with nonsense, in order to keep them on the defensive and throw them off balance.
Furthermore, he’s a reactionary, defending the patriarchal, white-supremacist system — a neo-fascist order responsible for the deaths of millions of innocents and the ongoing destruction of the planet’s life-sustaining systems — against those bad old “feminists” (women who don’t fawn over him) and secular humanists pushing for tolerance and social justice, which his ilk views as a joke (TOLERANCE and JUSTICE, only the highest aspirations of the human heart!). And ultimately, he’s a pseudo-intellectual, tossing out phrases like “Jungian animus” in order to bamboozle his followers, when the only good advice he has — and he does have some — is as old as the mountains and simple as pie: Be good to yourself, surround yourself with people who build you up, rather than tear you down, etc.
Sorry, Mr. Peterson, oh great defender of all things schlongy, but MEN are empowered to say and do just about anything, in this world of ours… still. And the world that MEN have built — on the backs of women and slaves — is a DYING world of permanent war, environmental degradation, Nazi-like treatment of minorities, unprecedented global slavery, and rape culture (with hundreds of thousands of Harvey Weinsteins, Matt Lauers, Bill Cosbys, Bill Clintons, Bill O’Reillys and their like, who up until very recently felt they could get away with it forever… because their kind always has. Like the Wall Street lords of the universe who eviscerated our middle class (plundering especially the wealth of African-Americans, whom they targeted for the worst subprime loans, even when they qualified for prime); these men felt that they could prey on women and minorities forever… because that’s what our society has long tolerated. In this day and age, when social consciousness has been rising, Peterson represents a push-back by the filthy-corrupt old guard, in the name of masculinity… when that’s the very last thing we need. He’s not promoting strong, tolerant, courageous masculinity, but toxic, predatory, bigoted masculinity… which the world has had more than enough of.
On a personal note: I am not ashamed to be a man. My strong feminist wife is perfectly compatible with her principled, feminist, secular humanist husband… and the vast majority of people would kill to have a romance like ours. No shit. I am PROUD to be a man… like my father, a man who doesn’t serve other, morally corrupt men or the life-slaughtering systems they’ve built. I am a free-thinking activist, well aware of the fact that the 2016 electoral contest between Clinton and Trump was a contest between two reprehensible, racist demagogues, each corrupt to the core, in their own way… and that the differences between the two were ridiculously exaggerated by the corporate, “liberal” (far-right, neoconservative, neoliberal) media.
If you still feel that you’re not sure where I’m coming from, feel free to visit my website: Invitation2Artivism.com
And again, I thank you for your courteously phrased question. Not calling me “a dog” is a much better way to start a conversation.
James O’Donnell 12 hours ago (edited) — @An Ro — May I ask what you found inappropriate about my response?
J Rae 5 hours ago – @James O’Donnell Allow me to answer. It’s not exactly that your answer is “inappropriate” so much as full of vitriol. “Pure poison?” “An empty well with bile running down its walls?” It doesn’t sound as though Peterson disappoints you so much as he infuriates you – and anything that raises your ire that much deserves looking at.
You use a real name – I’ll grant you that – but otherwise, your contribution to the discussion is disappointing. Calling someone “a nitwit” or saying they’re “possessed of a defensive, ugly little mind,” is a fallacious argumentative strategy (a logical fallacy) known as an “ad hominem” attack. Where, instead of engaging in genuine discussion and making a legitimate point, someone (you, in this case), resorts to character assassination, or name-calling. It’s the equivalent of someone arguing with you making a valid point, to which you fire back, “Yeah? Well you’re fat!” In other words – disappointing.
Also? I doubt Peterson cares one whit whether you “cut him some slack.” He has a giant intellect – one which no doubt towers over both of ours – and while he isn’t warm & fuzzy with the interviewers (this one, in GQ’s own words is sent to “interrogate” Peterson), it’s interesting that you cut veritable swaths of slack to his opponents, who are the very definition of rude. So. If you have something actual to say from on-high, by all means, dismount your high horse and enlighten us – truly.
James O’Donnell 1 second ago — @J Rae — If you’ll reread my response to Aaron accardo, you’ll see that while I do reserve some well-deserved vitriol for Mr. Peterson (the petty little fraud and egomaniac), my case against him does not remotely rely on ad hominem attacks; I’ve actually offered a substantive critique of Peterson and the system he’s defending. That you do not acknowledge that fact shows that you’re no more honest than Peterson, and just as defensive and prone to go on the attack. That’s how easily threatened he and his sycophants are, completely unable to offer a principled, substantive defense of your positions. (You don’t even acknowledge that I conceded that some of his advice has validity, even if it is rather basic.) That you worship this pathetic, spiritually corrupt man and his “giant intellect” is only an indication that you are a blind follower. Go on feeling that he towers over you. You clearly enjoy that.
J Rae 3 hours ago – @James O’Donnell Given that I obviously haven’t read the other reply you refer to, how could I possibly “acknowledge” anything credible you may have said? I’m supposed to be psychic now too? Your response I replied to – the only one I saw – is full of ad hominem attacks, by anyone’s definition. Go back and re-read it with a more objective eye. Aside from being petty, calling someone a “nitwit” does nothing to move your argument ahead; that’s why it’s referred to as an ERROR in critical reasoning. What is your evidence that I worship Peterson? Because I say he has a giant intellect? Am I not allowed to respect someone without being accused of dumb, blind devotion? Surely there are people you respect highly (other than yourself, I mean) – how would you feel to be accused of worshipping them? In any case, ill have to look for your other comment because as with your first one, your reply to me still says basically nothing about why you actually dislike Peterson. Once again, no sign of intelligent life here folks!
J Rae 2 hours ago – @James O’Donnell well, I’ve looked and i can’t find the explanation you refer to. There’s 8 comments below your original one (9 counting this one) and only 2 are from you, and neither says much beyond this: gee, I really hate Peterson. Feel free to direct me to it, or to repost it’s contents. Until then, I have no recourse but to crown you the noble Lord of the Kingdom of Ad Hominem!
James O’Donnell 2 seconds ago — @J Rae — Actually, you’ve confirmed what I suspected about the curator of this page. He’s been hacking my comments to pieces or deleting them entirely. Sometimes, they’re there when I look for them, more often they are not, or 80% of my original comment has been hacked off… mid-sentence. (This marks my fifth comment, following my original statement — not my third.) Apparently, that’s how Peterson’s followers comport themselves when debating his worth: they censor and attack anyone who threatens their cardboard messiah, so incapable are they of defending the man on substance.
@J Rae — And now I have a question for you. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the comments here are so Nazi-like? Full of hate and misogyny, enamored of Van Damme-idolizing power and “curb stomping” triumphalism — romanticism of violence, especially directed at women, by this “black belt” cult leader. Here are just a few choice examples, besides referring to this perspicacious, strong journalist as a “toddler” and other ad hominem attacks on her person: “This chick looks like what a feminist looks like” and “Supercunt cuntface magoo“ and “This woman really needs to get laid” and “Jordan Peterson is guilty of 10 counts of gang-rape here.”
(What a guy!)
Does the type of person he attracts have nothing to do with Peterson, himself, or the vicious bile he spews? Why does he inspire such trashy followers, if his message is so positive and uplifting?
James O’Donnell 1 second ago — Since the curator of this page has apparently been deleting most of my comments and mangling the rest, I would direct any of Mr. Peterson’s followers — intellectually honest and morally courageous enough to hear the arguments of a critic of Mr. Peterson — to my website, where I have reproduced the conversation in its entirety: http://invitation2artivism.com/?p=3021
James O’Donnell 1 minute ago (edited) — @J Rae — I truly appreciate your attempts to engage me in conversation, and I now understand the disadvantage you were at, only able to see a Straw Man version of my argument — only the ad hominem attacks — thanks to the censoring actions of the cowardly curator of this page. I invite you to view, at my website, the full conversation I’ve been trying to have with you: http://invitation2artivism.com/?p=3021
Responding to this blog post, a very good friend asked me, “What makes this guy so appealing to some folks?” As it happens, I have a theory about the secret of Mr. Peterson’s “success” (if you can call it that — I mean, was Hitler a “successful” human being? I think most people would say he was not).
I think that Peterson’s appeal can be attributed, at least in part, to the reactionary conservative industry that’s been built around vilifying anything that smacks of “Political Correctness.”
With the corruption of the Politically Correct, yet totally regressive, corporate media, which represents the modern-day “liberal” class all too well (warmongering, right-wing, hypocritical, largely unmoored from traditional liberal values), the “liberal” media is perceived as an integral part of the tyranny that’s replaced our once semi-democratic republic.
That perception is largely accurate, and that’s what Peterson fans (and other so-called “deplorables”) are rationally rebelling against… which is a shame, because traditional liberal values — tolerance, compassion, reason — have been smeared and dragged down by their association, however bogus, with the faux-liberal despotism of the corporate establishment.
Even as the corporate establishment ignores our planet’s climate catastrophe and demonizes Muslims, blacks, genuine feminists, pacifists, activists, water protectors, etc., it projects a facade of liberalism.
That’s very dangerous, as liberal values have been conflated with neo-fascism. It’s an act on the establishment’s part, but an effective one… and liberalism is the scapegoat/target.
So, when the corporate media blatantly favored a radical neocon, Sec. Clinton, in 2016, it was favoring institutional racism (and ignoring Clinton’s ugly, Trump-like demagoguery and outright racism), neoconservatism, modern slavery, Wall Street predation, and other evils representing corporate conservatism at its most pure.
Such conduct degrades liberalism itself (which apparently no one recognizes or remembers anymore).
And the “deplorable” class, not being wholly stupid (however unsavvy and crude they are), knows that this establishment — which it confuses with TRUE LIBERALISM — is the enemy of us all, wiping out our middle class, tearing down the rule of law, normalizing slavery and perpetual, pointless wars…
So, these social/economic castaways, discarded and mocked as their livelihoods and families go down the drain, feel empowered when they rally around a pseudo-enemy of the establishment — charlatans like Peterson and Trump, who actually, ironically, represent the values of the establishment perfectly. They defend patriarchy, white supremacy, rape culture, and the anti-Muslim holocaust that’s ongoing.
Same deal with “Tommy Robinson,” about whom I blogged in March.
The cultish followers of Peterson, Trump, “Robinson,” and their ilk, think these opportunistic frauds are “rebels,” when they’re the exact opposite: venal, self-serving toadies to power.
ADDENDUM II: The conversation continues…
abandoned failer 1 hour ago — @James O’Donnell how are you to make such an assumption though? All i gathered from the above exchange is that neither of you agree that you are coming across to one another. Peterson is cool, he says whats right. I admit that i wasted a couple mins reading yr conversation, but i was at least expecting closure, like a typical moron. Dont even bother replying. Idc what you think
James O’Donnell 1 second ago — @abandoned failer — What assumption is that, Mr. Abandoned? If it’s about someone disappearing my posts, I’ve simply never had this problem commenting on YouTube before. Never. So SOMETHING messed up has been happening, as I’ve been debating with people who can’t even see 90% of the case I’ve been making — a case that keeps mysteriously getting 86′d or mangled. (I’d still like to know by whom, as it doesn’t seem random or accidental: i.e., how come the comments coming from those attacking me are unaffected?)
If you didn’t gather much from my exchange with the other Peterson minions, I have to assume you haven’t seen the full conversation. They haven’t. That’s why none of them has engaged me on the substance of my critique of Peterson and his followers; it doesn’t always exist on this page.
Here’s the actual conversation, in full, with no deletions or censorship: http://invitation2artivism.com/?p=3021
STILL, good job working in a baseless, “he’s cool” plug for Peterson in your comment, without backing it up in any way. Just a bare assertion that “he says whats right,” with no support — as if it’s a revelation that you’re just another reflexive follower of this worthless, bile-spewing Pied Piper.
And if you’re not aware that “Don’t even bother replying. Idc what you think” is a cheap dodge, the coward’s way out, then you’re as dishonest as the woman-hating bozo you idolize.