Probably a small plastic Tupperware container…
Largely yes, but the point being he had some public profile as an academic intellectual before then, which was used to prop up the validity of the arguments he then started making in this area.
Just wanted to comment on lobsters.
A few years ago I was at Atlantis in the Bahamas, for a holiday/conference with my wife. They have a massive aquarium there, and lots of interesting sea life to look at.
Sod the Hammerhead Sharks. I was watching the lobsters. Mrs Red Over the Water was horrified by what unfolded in front of us. Basically, a big lobster kicked the shit out of a smaller lobster, killed it, and was eating it. He was rolling it around, like it was corn on the cob in his claws, just enjoying his dinner.
Make of that what you will.
2 Likes
That lobster was a real man.
1 Like
Peterson would use this as further evidence that it’s natural for all men to violent assholes.
2 Likes
And the feminists lobsters got wet in their lobster loins because deep down they know that’s how they want a man to act
3 Likes
That lobsters are arseholes
1 Like
Peterson and his publisher, deliberately made his subject matter accesible to non-academics which certainly paid off for them. (Over 5 million copies of 12 rules sold) I dont really see anything wrong with being commercially successful. Hawkins for instance wrote a couple of books translating the cosmos, especially black holes, for the layman - there is no crime in doing that.
I cant help wondering if his main detractors are the ones that need his rules the most - whats wrong with self responsibility, or having good posture? Or tidying up your shit? Or wanting equality of opportunity and freedom of speech? If those ideas offend you then maybe individuals should take a good look at themselves.
Men, especially young men, are bombarded daily with messages about how they should look, behave and feel. The definition of masculinity for them is an unstable and ill defined social media inspired fog. I am not saying that Peterson defines what masculinity should be or become, but the message of personal responsibility is an important one that had been somewhat obscured and derided over the past few decades.
I disagree with a lot of things he says - especially about climate change - but he certainly has some valid points to make which further the conversation.
He know finds himself in the position of “counter revolutionary” so to many, the enemy. Unlike many historical counter revolutionaries Peterson has realised that you actually have to stand for something rather than just oppose. The more people try to silence him, the louder his voice becomes.
2 Likes
Most American lobsters are produced in Democrat states therefore I conclude Lobsters are democratic.
1 Like
If you think the rules themselves are what people have a problem with, then you aren’t paying attention to what his critics are saying.
2 Likes
This is a key problem with Peterson. His desire to stray way out of his areas of expertise, and make wild claims that are reckless and dangerous, while claiming his academic background in complete different areas demands he be taken seriously.
He has absolutely nothing valid to add to any conversation about climate change.
2 Likes
Pretty much agree 100% with that.
Dis they still have a huge Manta ray in the great hall of waters? That’s one mother of an animal. Learned to play casino games there, still a little hungover 
Maybe the travel thread though.
1 Like
Difference is Hawkins actually stuck to academic principles (I’m guessing) and explaining the subject. Peterson is a charlatan masquerading as an academic.
1 Like
First, apologies for off-topic discussion in this Peterson thread.
After years of reading and talking about gender, I realized I don’t feel the need to be associated with or to identify to a specific gender. This also means I have no problem with people gendering me a way or another, as I don’t relate to it.
If I look at what people can come out as defining masculinity/femininity, then I find myself have characteristics from both.
In some way, I have the same relation to countries. I have a nationality (french) and I have lived in multiple places in the world, but I don’t feel French or any nationality from countries I’ve been living in.
This obviously doesn’t mean I’m free from any influence and culture, all my experiences define who I am today. But I don’t feel the need to identify to them.
7 Likes
Interesting perspective, thanks.
1 Like
Immediately had that Trainspotting quote about no guys and no girls in my head. I guess Peterson would be Begbie.
He’ll have read extensively about it, deeply. You can hear him saying that. His get out of jail free card on every subject.
1 Like
And yet failed to recognise, understand or interpret the difference between weather and climate.
That’s really kind of basic and fundamental to the whole thing.
This is what bugs me about things like this. Too many people with large public profiles giving very well spoken arguments and opinions on things they know nothing about. They very often are way off the mark but the there is no immediate counter argument correction to it.
Sorry, kind of off topic.
I do not subscribe to being a lobster.
3 Likes
This is how my post summed up the value of his cross-over work.
The value of making your bed in the morning is actually really dubious, but if it is part of a shift in mind set that focuses on being responsible and productive then it’s the sort of the useful first step than can lead to really positive outcomes in certain groups of people.
If you think that requires a defense of an academic being commercially successful then that casts serious doubts of the value of reading what the man says and evaluating for oneself. A succession of people have raised a long list of criticisms about him and his work. The list of things your raise as the things people are supposedly offended about have nothing at all to do with the things people have actually said. This is engagement without actually engaging.
This probably explains how you can characterize the accusations that he has been transphobic as appallingly wrong when he is trying to die on the hill of purposefully misgendering people and argues that recognizing trans people for being who they say they are is a danger to society. One might try to forward an argument that he is right, but it is by definition arguing for validity of transphobia. One cannot advocate for the argument without owning the label.
My final world on him is that at his best he is in the same category of advise givers as a Dave Ramsay, Gary V, Tony Robbins type - someone whose insight is not particularly novel but was able to package a message that resonated with some people in ways that produced positive outcomes. This was not what made him famous though. That was wading in the culture wars. Those are areas where his previously stated expertise and value was completely unrelated, and the deeper he got the more he was affected by the feedback loop of money and attention. If you want to measure just how far he has moved, just look at his views on the issue that brought him to more mainstream attention. That was his objection to the revision of the Canadian Hate Speech laws. He spoke out about the idea of adding misgendering to it, and warned of the negative consequences og people getting locked up for innocently misspeaking (incidentally, none of which has happened), but he was very clear in his opinion that purposefully misgendering people was a dickish thing to do that people with decency should not do. The person who made that argument is unrecognizable from the person he presents himself as today. Defenses based on the things he argued for 10 years ago dont stand up against the things he has since come to argue for.
3 Likes