Top British Female Journalist Mentally Destroyed by Cyberbullying, Forced to Call in Security

[Hastur]

I read his major income stream now is patreon. Before he recently stopped displaying how much he made it was up above $60.000/month. The Self-Authoring Suite he and some colleagues put together sells for $30. Not exactly the kind of money you would expect demanded from some cult leader.
https://www.selfauthoring.com/

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

@JohnDonne
Competent at what? Power over, or to do what?
The point is, for a person who has, apparently, made choosing words carefully part of his self help seminar, Peterson seems comfortable playing fast and loose with definitions when it suits him. Another trick of the confidence huckster is to make vague statements like 'competence is power,' then let the intelligent listener do all the work of making the statement true, swooping in a the end to take credit for the wisdom of your pronouncements. Aleister Crowley is much more fun if you want to spend your time making sense of senseless babble.

Attack all the low hanging fruit you like, I am unimpressed and bored by it. If we need a hero to stand up against mentally unstable people 'for the good of society,' then I guess we have the hero we deserve. There is an interesting discussion to have about language and subjective identity. There can also be an interesting conversation about how mental illness, like gender dysphoria, should relate to rights. I don't see Peterson coming close to saying anything interesting about either of those things. One would expect somebody who is respected for being a clinical psychologist, and interpreter of the deep symbolic language of the bible, might have something a little more enlightening to say on the subject, but he never gets around to it.

I doubt Peterson uses the term 'Cultural Marxism' wrong. I think he uses the term 'postmodern' in a tricky way that conflates different uses of the term. What people really mean (and the way it is used most of, if not all, the times I have heard Peterson use it) when they say 'postmodern' is 'contemporary, and in a way that I don't like and disagree with,' but the term carries a sort of academic baggage that makes one's critique sound more interesting than it is. I have more respect for someone who just says 'I don't trust this newfangled business,' and explains why. Saying it is 'postmodern' or 'deconstructed' to prove you read a synopsis of McLuhan or Derrida once, and didn't much like it, is preening and pretentious at best, and flat out manipulative at worst. I think the term 'Cultural Marxism' has become useless. Like 'racism,' or 'privilege,' it gets drug out so frequently that it loses any useful descriptive value.

I did not like his bible lectures, but that is more a matter of taste. Again, it struck me as no more than adequate at best.

His self-authoring suite gives all the same advice every self help course has ever given. I expect it works as well as every self help course ever created, I mean, people still swear by The Secret. He gets no credit for offering lectures for free from me. Free to play, pay to win, same shit, different economy.

However, I am willing to admit that I just might not get Peterson's appeal. He seems to be thought of favorably by a lot of people whose opinion I respect.

[Martin Hash]

That's quite a critique. Do me now.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

That's quite a critique. Do me now.

You're okay, but you like Jordan Peterson too damn much.

Also, I don't understand why you would rather level a heavy tax on the earnings of the rich to redistribute, than support laws that keep the lower, less-skilled workers engaged and part of the economy by protecting their wages.

I mean, you have explained it a bunch of times, but I just don't get it.

[Martin Hash]

I have a constituency of 1, me, which also makes me the only one in the world on something else besides wysdym. I wonder if they’re connected?

[Martin Hash]

Humans definitely like their Royalty. My computer science background logically dictates that the children of lucky people are not your masters.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Humans definitely like their Royalty. My computer science background logically dictates that the children of lucky people are not your masters.

I agree, but it strikes me that a sort of mandatory noblesse oblige reinforces the idea that they are the masters, where as securing the lowliest laborers' access to the fruits of his labor does not.

[Martin Hash]

??? Your sophistry went right by me.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

??? Your sophistry went right by me.

No it didn't.

[Martin Hash]

I don’t contemplate in my head issues of fairness, morals, and what-would-Jesus-do; I deduce the logic I’d have to write into the simulation to insure it didn’t become pathological.

p.s. In Hash World, aristocracies are bad.