Wednesday, October 31, 2018

IDW Halloween Cards

Happy Halloween Folks! 
(I'll add the rest below the blogpost)
I thought I’d have some fun with IDW/Classical Liberal Halloween cards. There's so many more I could have done, but alas...I didn't have that much time. If you want to join in the fun...make one and tweet it to me @nicemangos :) 


Anyway - a clarification for the pedants: I use the terms IDW/Classical Lib to describe them, their dogmatic fans and the figures who hover around them....the Quillette, 'But what about anti-white racism' types...

...So it's not limited to the amazing bigbrained peeps mentioned in Bari Weiss' LOL-worthy article (featuring pictures of them jerking off trees or hiding in bushes)....you know the one i'm talking about. 




Why is it important to mock this pretentious circle-jerk as often as possible, you ask? I'll give you a quick rundown, even though I could write a bit on each central figure here, I just don't have the time to delve in that deep at the moment. 

Simply put though, its because they're pushing some dangerous ideas and providing cover for dangerous people. In a new, repackaged & polished format this isn't immediately recognizable to some.

They're driven by a strongly anti-left agenda, while often simultaneously claiming they are on the left ...or at least ‘not right wing’ (though they do have their more open RW types like Ben Shapiro/JBP, but I believe even Peterson has denied being a conservative), 



It's this dishonesty and attempt to mask what they're really pushing for that concerns me. 

I find it's almost better to deal with an open right wing, anti-immigrant type than to deal with a sophist covering their tracks every step of the way, leaving room for plausible deniability, while being an apologist for similar issues. 

In this era of a resurgent far-right and rising hate crimes.... this 'totally-not-right-wing' crew still focus their energies on the left while downplaying the dangers of the far right. 




Anything random campus SJWs do will be an outrage and indicative of the 'rot on the left'... but when it comes down to calling out Milo Yiannopolous, even after he's exposed for being a pedophilia apologist...there will be excuses.... deflections - even if it means pointing the finger at fictional plays and then realizing that your example is ridiculous. 


There will be reminders that Milo was smart and charismatic (they'll say they are no fans, of course!)...but even in the face of him defending sex with minors there will be 'he doesn't deserve this... let's wish him well and hope he can leverage his charm into a new life' type apologetics.   





Or at best, they'll say Milo can't be far right because he's gay and flamboyant, Jewish and has a black boyfriend . They'll dismiss him as a mere troll...justify his outrage at the 'liberal media bias'...and complain about his Twitter Ban. Or defend him using Breitbart articles. 


They'll be happy to threaten to quit Patreon over banning White identitarian Lauren Southern...meanwhile portraying her to their massive audiences as a mere 'conservative journalist'. 

 When it comes time to call her out, or state a solid opinion on an obvious extremist like Robert Spencer or... Tommy Robinson - if it's not blatant apologetics (like Rubin's where he literally positions Tommy as *Extremely Moderate*,




...the best you'll get is a shrug and a claim that they 'just don't know enough' to make a judgement on him (while they retweet flawed defences of him).

Even in the wake of serious incidents like more than a dozen pipe bombs being mailed to Trump’s critics their priorities do not shift from the dangers of sjws and The Left. 

 They will minimize RW terror threats even, referring to them as "minor events"/a few malicious jerks...


But compare that with the wording you often see about The Left, 'Devouring it's Children' .. oh nooo: 

If not that, there's a general AllLivesMatter-ification, that really endears them and makes them very useful to the far right

I did a more detailed thread on Pinker here

Another Amazing take in response to the Pipe bombs was telling people we shouldn't make it 'costly to consider conspiracy' FFS


Only the most Rational takes from the IDW, I tell ya. And while we're on the topic of conspiracies...who can forget the classic Rubin moment, when he claimed there's a necessary space for Infowars:


------

Those that follow this cheerful group closely, know full well how often they whitewash troubling views/figures ...or delete criticism of them if it happens to come up. 



It’s about joining hands with those radicalizing young men, with those who fear monger about immigrants, and the whiteness levels of London being too low (aka the far right conspiracy of 'white genocide') - its about giving these things more credibility in the mainstream, and helping to justify and rationalize people’s bigotries while making big bucks. 

It’s about amplifying the "#metoo has gone too far" message, about how women have it better and if they don't have power it's because they don't want to have more power,

 



Support for publications like Quillette who publish garbage that’s indistinguishable from salafist mullahs at times, is not hard to come by in these 'Dark 'intellectual' parts of the web'.




What these IDW-type RationalSkeptic movements are about is pushing back against those who want equality, and those who want to minimize racism and sexism. 

It's about the maintenance of social hierarchies and the status quo. 





They often find a token minority person to champion 'controversial' views, so they can serve as a shield from criticism and accusations of bigotry. 



It’s also about proclaiming ....loudly... how identity politics is bad, but using identity politics at the drop of a hat when it suits you. 


Its about criticizing people who use the word racist, but using it happily yourself whenever it suits you. 


Casually accusing groups of people of having the intellectual and moral integrity of the KKK even, 


It’s about discrediting the media as Rubin does with his Infowars support and CNN/MSM hate, and about discrediting entire educational fields too (Peterson has declared entire fields of study 'corrupt' because of postmodern neo marxism)... all the while, these heroes pat themselves on the back for being the Rational ones ...having 'tough conversations' and tolerating differing views (while tossing out lawsuit threats like halloween candy, of course).

It's about downplaying actual sieg heiling white supremacists while claiming that the term Nazi has lost meaning. 



I mean it's exhausting just pointing out the endless contradictions, holes and dangers of such self-important groups. 

These are the threats we recognized in islamist sanitizers posing as progressive...*immediately* in ‘skeptic circles’ but unfortunately...this crew has managed to convince many 'Rational', atheist-skeptic types that re-energizing conversations around ‘race science’, traditional gender roles, and anti trans sentiment from a ‘respectable, 'this is just science/rationality' angle is indeed ‘real liberalism’. 

So....this, dear readers, is a very quick rundown of why I think it’s incredibly important to mock and expose this group pushing alt lite/right adjacent talking points into the mainstream. Especially in today's political climate. 

This is where the real threat of literal regressiveness lies, currently - and I think we should do our part to push back.


Now that that's out of the way....here are some lighthearted Halloween cards, meant to be viewed with that perspective in mind (all that for 4 illustrations, I know! I've just had a lot I needed to get off my chest about this subject for a while):






 ----

A huge thanks to all my patrons who support my work. Without you, this isn't possible. These kinds of blogposts take forever to compile. If you enjoy this or my podcast, please consider supporting via Patreon

A shoutout to new-ish Patrons who are owed a mention on the blog: Mish, Karl N, Shakhthi, Ernst & Margeaux. You guys r the best!
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels:

Friday, May 18, 2018

Waking Up to Issues in the Atheist Scene

Not long ago, similar emails to the one I'll share below were only sent to me by Muslims questioning their faith, scripture and double standards, etc. 

I still get those, and power to the people breaking away from religion. 

Such emails still fill my heart with joy because despite the accusations of 'taqqiya' that I get, I am no fan of religion. I just happen to be of muslim background and vocally against anti-muslim sentiment, so you know how it goes. 

 I remember how freeing it was to realize you're no longer tied down by an obligation to please a god that never seems satisfied, and one that doesn't seem consistent either. 

Now, in addition to the 'questioning religion' emails, I get quite a lot from people questioning the double standards, the rightward shifting priorities, leaders, shady associations with the alt right/lite, etc. within movement atheism (a movement many deny exists at all, to avoid criticism). 

 Of course it's not at all the same as questioning ancient ideology forced upon you since childhood - you can unclench your buttocks, haters...I'm not drawing an equivalence.

BUT...there's still something about it that feels a little regressive and cult-like. The blind faith, dogmatism, tribalism, homophobia, sexism, sexual abuse and harassment, transphobia - and often, what boils down to a refusal to question leaders. All these things, that make so many movement atheists smug because they regularly assume and *loudly* declare that they're above it all, are present within their own circles too. 
Read full transcript here 

These same blindspots and/or bigotries are mocked when describing 'those backwards regressive theists', but they still exist in the post-religion communities and online spaces I find myself increasingly reluctantly a part of. 

 I mean, there are several atheist accounts dedicated to sharing empty platitudes about how amazing and Rational/Logical being an Atheist is. Here's a sample:



You'll often see people in the atheist scene who are obviously biased to the right declare how 'non-tribal' they are. Or how they are the 'Last Liberal' ...*cringe* I know, I know....




***

For me personally...after leaving Islam and finding others like myself online, I thought I had finally found a place to belong, a place where people shared my values. 

I could't have been more wrong. 

"Atheism", as many twitter pedants point out when faced with any criticism of the community or leaders, means nothing more than a lack of belief in god. 

So naturally, one would find that people from all over the political spectrum can be atheists. 

What one would not expect however, is that the online movement that has developed ...would be biased strongly against the left, progressives, feminism - with many of it's prominent leaders signal boosting right leaning talking points or rightwing talking heads much of the time. 
Brain grenade because logic - get it? It's genius...and so so subtle. 



Before moving on, let's just quickly revisit who Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson are... 

 Doug is the sweet guy you see in the clip below, who thinks even if the nicest asylum seekers are taken in...their currently unborn children ...in the future... mayyyyy...some day...you know, become terrorists. 



He's also the lovely fellow who worries about declining whiteness levels of London. 


And who's Jordan Peterson? Well he's the noted intellectual who complained in a chat with Camille Paglia about how men can't control 'crazy' women because they aren't allowed to physically fight them. 

 He's the guy who isn't sure if men and women can work together, and who thinks women who wear makeup/high heels to work but expect not to be harassed are hypocrites. 



(clip via @classiclb3ral)

More recently, Peterson is also the guy who thinks that 'enforced monogamy' is a reasonable and not totally unhinged thing to suggest. 

But above isn't the only time he's suggested something as fucking horrendous as that. 



So...all around, lovely gentlemen. Who wouldn't want to have multiple events with them and signal boost and promote them...right? 

 ***

 The Atheist movement (that does not exist) has a distinct culture, distinct talking points, has centred and rallied around the same causes, socialized at the same conferences and supported the same atheist/humanist groups....it has clearly appointed top-tier authorities and leaders, who's words are often treated as infallible by the most devoted...no matter how contradictory. 

 Hmm...it all sounds so familiar.

 Its amusing to see people tie themselves into knots trying to defend some of the stuff out there. 

 The latest embarrassment was a rather hilarious piece on these self dubbed members of the "Intellectual Dark Web" (IDW) featuring a bunch of anti-left figures with at least two prominent atheists in the group (Rubin/Harris). 

 How they agreed to pose for a photoshoot where they were told to stand creepily in the bushes I do not know. But it was incredibly entertaining. 

 The term IDW was thoroughly mocked (as any self congratulatory bullshit should be), as were the members. 
(click to enlarge)


Mockery aside though, It's quite depressing that movement Atheism has turned into such a joke. I valued it so much once. 

This unraveling of the movement and it's leaders has been tough to come to terms with. Especially for those of us who have already done this bit before...wrestled our beliefs, questioned respected leaders, lost community for it, and so on.

I had noticed a troubling turn 2-3 years ago. The questions in my mind became harder and harder to ignore when Rubin arrived on scene. He really brought the hypocrisies to the surface. 

My personal, recent last straw was the treatment of the Krauss thing generally among movement leaders....and the Ezra Klein/Harris convo, the utterly obvious flaws in thinking. That was really it for me. No looking back and hoping former heroes come to their senses. 

 But anyway, the point of this blog post was to share one of several emails i've received in the past couple of weeks with the same theme.

 If you have a story like this to tell, email away! (nicemangosDOTblogATgmailDOTcom)

I'm so glad more and more people are Waking Up and recognizing that something's not right here.

 It's starting to feel a bit less lonely on the left side of movement atheism. 

 *** 

Here's the brief email: 


About two years ago I heard your podcast with Harris and it was a defining moment. 
Harris had taken the place of a hero. Your criticisms made me defensive and dismissive but I couldn't help carry them with me after that and notice Rubin, Saad, and so on. 

Peterson came along and I felt strange. When did dubious messianic preachers become the cool new thing the kids are into? 
I watched Bill Maher have this unremarkable chickenhawk cult leader in the making on his show unquestioned, unchallenged, and that's when you popped into my head for the first time in a long time. 

When I went to see what you were up to, I was really happy to see you were still active, and having conversations about the alt-right in movement atheism. 

I'm really thankful I'm not blind to these problems as they unfold, that I'm not in denial, not falsely convincing myself of my rationality while being a hypocrite. 

That was largely provoked by you and a few lines of criticism.

 Thanks,
-J

***

Thank you to all my wonderful Patrons who make this work possible. 

If you enjoy my work please consider supporting via Patreon here.
Posted by at 5 comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Jordan Peterson - His Strange Atheist Bedfellows & His War on Cathy Newman


Over the last week or so, I’ve watched this Cathy Newman/Channel 4 saga unfold. It took twists and turns that were quite surprising to me, but shouldn’t have been - especially considering the recent trend of Movement Atheism to join hands with almost anyone that is sufficiently anti-left or anti-feminist. Even if that means allying with a Christian fundie snake oil salesman they themselves would have laughed out the room a few years ago.

I mean just take a look at this short clip below, wtaf is this nonsense?



(clip via TMM)

As we see the rise of the Cult of Jordan Peterson, we also see the rise of I-love-Jesus atheism. Douglas Murray is a good example of that...though, he's been one long before Peterson arrived on the scene, to be fair. He's a hispter Jesus Atheist. 



Murray is embraced wholeheartedly by the increasingly rightward shifting atheist scene for his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim stances (going so far as to worry about the future children Muslim asylum seekers may have, *possibly* growing up to become extremists even if their parents weren't) 


“We could take in two asylum seekers, who might be the nicest most pro-British people ever, but their son might turn out to be a suicide bomber" - Douglas Murray

"But what levels, after all's said and done, do the celebrants of diversity want to get to? What is their ideal target figure? Is a ceiling of 25 per cent white Britons in London — or the country at large — optimal? Or would it be 10 per cent? Or none at all? A final, and perhaps harder, question: how — given the concatenation of claims against them — might "white Britons" ever acceptably argue, let alone complain, about such unspecified or unspecifiable odds?"  - Also Doug Murray 


You'll never believe who Doug is a big fan of: 



He's consistently been an excellent judge of character though, so we should *totally* trust him on this one...his other judgements have been So. Spot. On... especially regarding Trump.  -___-




***

Anyway, aside from I-Iove-Jesus-atheism (which is still some form of atheism), Peterson is also having the effect of stirring the embers of religion...in the hearts of some 'atheists' (being anti-left is a powerful uniting force). Perhaps some lost lambs needed a father-figure like JBP in their lives, to yell basic shit at them, shit that my grandma gave away for free...like 'clean your room!' 'Sort yourself out!'...they needed someone to lead them toward god's warm and loving embrace. Yay!

screenshot via @classiclib3ral



After this recent Channel 4 interview, we've seen a flood of predictable 'contrarian' thinkpieces pouring out in defence of this newly emerged hero...one who dares to challenge 'leftist orthodoxy', by sharing ‘truths’ that no one else will tell you. 'Truths' like, how women just don’t WANT powerful positions, (no really, I've watched lectures of his where he, a top earner on Patreon making over 60K $ A MONTH, spends a lot of time deterring women from wanting power positions. He talks about how awful and complicated being rich is, how it can make you (women) unravel) about how the gender pay gap can be explained away because women are choosing lower paying careers, what they need in order to be happy is marriage and babies, ok? Also, there is no systemic discrimination, you silly emotional, brainwashed neo-marxist sjws! 

"The more I see women in particular, they hit 35-40 …and they’re not married…and they don’t have kids…and they are not happy. Cuz what the hell are you gonna do from the time you’re 40 till the time you’re 80?! You got no family… you got no relationships? What are you gonna do?! Go run your company?!!! Yeah well… if you’re 1 in a 1000 that will satisfy you.” - an actual JBP quote. 

“each sex has it’s own unfairness to deal with, but to think of that as a consequence of the social structure….come on really?!" - also an actual JBP quote (from the lecture linked above)

Anyway, amidst those thinkpieces...shared by the most popular anti-left (but still clinging to leftist status) figureheads,  there is a wave of outraged culty fanbases coming together, speaking out in unison against this shrill harpy of a woman who dared to have an adversarial interview with Peterson. 



The ones with a bit of self-awareness and self-respect will never admit to being sympathetic to Peterson’s views (kind of like they did with Milo)...and so will phrase their disgust at this interview more along the lines of, “I’m no Peterson fan BUT, all he did was say true things while she aggressively strawmanned him.”

How dare she assume *this man* could be saying sexist things????
I honestly had to watch the interview 3 times to see if maybe I had missed something the first two times, and no, I still don’t understand where the hate and rage towards Cathy are coming from. 

Why are people SO upset that she didn’t perform to their liking (people who claim to be 'for equality & progress')? I don't get it...She was pretty standardly 'meh' I thought. Not great at grilling him, sure. But at least she tried to take on this shifty charlatan.

I see it as I would if someone was imperfect in grilling someone like Mo Ansar, like sure they made some mistakes...but even attempting to expose someone like that is good (Though, I don't think Mo is remotely as rich, powerful or influential as Peterson...so not nearly as dangerous).

Why the full blown outrage? I mean, I understand where it’s coming from with people who are openly anti-left and anti-feminist, people who think diversity is a codeword for white genocide…people who think theres a leftist cultural marxist conspiracy to compel them to use non-binary pronouns, or some garbage like that - But I really don’t understand what so-called sophisticated thinkers & non far-right lunatics are doing lowering themselves to defend Peterson in any way whatsoever. 

There could have been a perfectly fair and measured critique, where people kept in sight who Peterson actually is; 

--An extremist thats radicalizing many young people every day, and making big bucks off it--

A man with ideas so regressive that they're sure to set us back a few decades, if they gain enough influence. His explanation here for accusations of sex assault is not to first find fault with the perpetrators of the assault, but to blame the idea that sex is no longer enshrined in marriage (not like marital rape ever happens or anything, never mind that many of the accused are MARRIED). I mean, I'm no stranger to hearing such garbage, I did grow up in Saudi Arabia, as a woman. 

I just don't expect to hear this nonsense being embraced so gleefully by people outside of a blatantly misogynistic theocracy.



Like any Salafist preacher in Saudi, JBP doesn't like the idea of casual sex. Quelle Surprise.

In this now disproportionately notorious Channel 4 interview he remained cool and calm is all. That is not to be confused with performing well or having decent ideas...or speaking 'truths'. 

He could have performed in any way and his sycophantic followers would have perceived it exactly how they do now. In their eyes he would have 'won' regardless. 

The harassment Cathy received from this misogynistic fanbase was mentioned in several publications. At first, even causing Peterson to tell his fans:


Don't let it fool you though, Peterson often engages in this kind of performative condemnation, of the alt right, or of misogynistic harassment...when he feels the mainstream media are on to him. But it isn't long before he shows his hand. 
He continued to post criticism of Cathy right after telling people to stop threatening her, which is not something you'd do if you were genuinely concerned about her being targeted. 




He then soon went on to do another interview where he started off obsessively complaining about her...and the apparent 'spin' that was being created, that she was some kind of planned feminist martyr, because this was a sort of ...I dunno face saving tactic, because she had received so much criticism. He said the criticism was being spun as harassment. 

So first he says stop threatening her, then he expresses regret for saying that and now is discrediting that it could be harassment or threats at all. That faux-concern didn't take long to unravel at all...

If that wasn't tasteless enough for you - he even dogwhistled to his followers through this other interview by saying,

29:30: "I was reviewing maybe 10-11 of these newspaper articles that had played this twisty game and accused me of like, siccing my internet trolls on poor hapless journalists and I thought --this was the dark part of me-- the shadow part thought, If I wanted to sic my internet trolls on channel 4 then there'd be nothing but broken windows and riots, and then there's a little part of me that thinks... wouldn't that be fun"

This man is dangerous, and he's clearly on some power trip. 

If a future interviewer ever tried to press him on this statement and say something like 'wow what an irresponsible thing to say after a channel had to call in extra security because of your fanbase' - he'd most definitely hide behind semantics, as he always does...and say something like, "Oh I wasn't signalling that they should do that, I was saying that that's the dark part of my thoughts, something everyone experiences...everyone has dark thoughts...but obviously I believe we should control those. So I'm not sure why you are misrepresenting what I was saying there" - Meanwhile, his followers would get enraged again that someone dared 'misrepresent' him, and again he'd get away with putting out troubling statements.

The idea that media coverage of Cathy Newman's post-interview harassment is part of a leftist conspiracy to portray Peterson’s poor fanbase as misogynistic is ludicrous beyond belief. Not like his own ideas could set the tone for his fanbase, and how people perceive them. It's got to be a conspiracy. 





Consider his chat with Camille Paglia which an article from Chatelaine puts as:

"Peterson said that men can’t control “crazy women” because men aren’t allowed to physically fight women. “I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me,” he said. “The parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is."

"He adds that men unwilling to throw a punch are contemptible. “If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect.”"

"...talking to Paglia, he laments that his own socialization prevents him from taking a swing at a lady. Referring to a woman who accused him of being a Nazi, he said, “I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me.” It’s hard to decide which is creepier: Is it the suggestion, in Peterson’s rueful tone, that he’s kind of bummed out about the fact that he can’t hit women? Or is it the implication, if you were to follow his argument to its conclusion, that because women can’t be hit, they shouldn’t be allowed to participate in civil discourse with men at all?"

***

Regarding the Cathy Newman interview though, let's not forget who the real victim in all of this was - Jordan B Peterson, of course. 

Not only did Cathy treat Peterson unfairly (even though confrontational interviews like this are not uncommon in Britain, I hear), but it was actually HER Feminist fanbase that threatened and abused HIM. 

And who was reporting on that, huh? Only one noble MRA blog (there might be another, but I haven't found it yet). 






We mustn't laugh....they could be a reliable source, we shouldn't jump to conclusions.... 

Ok..I checked their twitter account and it's full of great stuff like Retweets of Breitbart's Raheem Kassam, Cernovich and Paul Joseph Watson. See? Perfectly reasonable account. 

Daily mail, on the other hand, was reporting on how Cathy received extreme harassment and death threats. But we're all aware that the Daily Mail is known for it’s far left, radical feminist bias right? Everyone but the MRA blogs have been infected...it's why you've got to go straight to these sources for REAL information without a cultural marxist bias.



Speaking of cultural marxism and postmodernism corrupting things, here's Peterson the free speech activist calling for entire fields of study to be shut down because he deems them corrupt. Fields like 'English Literature'.

Totally normal professor. 


(clip via @cyberharm)

***

In all seriousness though, not everyone who jumped into this social media debate knew the backstory of Jordan B Peterson. I’m not faulting them for being unfamiliar with his views - and there are some fair criticisms to be made of Cathy’s interview but it just wouldn’t be the hill I’d die on when a swarm of far-right MRA types are already descending upon her.

It just seemed wrong to pile on in the middle of all that. 

***

In the past, many on the left became complacent with the progress we’d made. We never could have imagined that these stone-age ideas about traditional gender roles, race etc. would aggressively claw their way back into the public square like this.

These regressive ideas we thought we'd put to bed, come again in the form of various new-media far-right commentators like Milo, PJW, Molyneux, etc…who spend their time decrying victimhood culture on the left that portrays women, PoC as ‘victims’ of some systemic discrimination. Though this far rightwingery isn't all new...it's just that Fox News has more friends now - friends with influence among young people. 



These uncucked heroes turn our attention to who the real victims are - White men (especially conservative) brave enough to take a stand against victimhood culture are the most victimized group of all. 



Peterson actually *weeps* in this clip about how some
poor men have it real hard. Not the first time I've seen him cry for his causes either.
Funny, because he certainly doesn't have that kind of compassion for women.
Maybe, just maaaybe..Cathy Newman sensed something off about his views. 


***

However, now that there’s some distance I’d like to point out that Cathy was indeed a bit ill-prepared for the interview. 

Exceptionally so? Nah, nothing outside of what I’d expect from mainstream journalists trying to grapple with the slippery tactics and sophistry of the new far right. That's how we get clueless 'Nazi next door' type articles. They aren’t in the trenches of youtube comments daily, hearing the arguments against every possible reasonable position that most of us took for granted. Unless they specifically research this or are personally targeted...they aren’t usually dealing with or studying crypto rightwingery, that hates more than anything to be called right-wing. Such free-speech warriors (who will sue you if you so much as suggest they are associated with the right or far right) cultivate a specific image, with a veneer of credibility that only thrives if the waters are murky on this…incredibly murky.  



Could some mainstream journalists be better on this? Yes, absolutely... as the far-right updates it's tactics, they should too. Especially if they want to have conversations where these types are held accountable for their positions.

I cringed when I heard Cathy's point about Free Speech. 

"Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?"


That was really a gift to the Peterson trolls. I thought it was pretty basic understanding among journalists that the freedom to offend was an important one. I for one would love to hold on to my freedom to offend conservatives from around the world. As Peterson rightfully said, Cathy was benefitting from the freedom to offend Peterson at that very moment (hate to agree with Pete, but hey).

What I didn’t understand was the proportion of the anger. Yes that one bit was terrible...but say that and move on. Ultimately she attempted to do a good thing (at least to her best ability) by trying to expose Peterson for what a caveman he is.

Now I’m not a fan of Cathy Newman, I had no idea who she was before this whole thing. I have no emotional investment in her as a person. I just think the harassment and outraged articles calling her interview a 'catastrophe' are ridiculously out of proportion with how mediocre the interview seemed to me. It was nothing out of the ordinary - what they refer to her doing as 'strawmanning' Peterson, is her just trying to cut past his bullshit flowery language to make some sense of what his points actually are for her audience. Which he of course masterfully sidesteps because vagueness is his game, so he can’t actually be pinned to his vile positions if you don't have enough information on him. It reminded me of good ol' fashioned atheists trying to get a theist to acknowledge that a certain bit of scripture is violent or misogynistic. If you've played that game, you've seen the semantics dodges, you've seen the 'you're taking it out of context' accusations. This was just more of that. A pity many atheists fell for it though. 

I will say that Cathy barely scratched the surface with the things she could have pinned him on. His sexist tradlife ideas are shit but there are better ways to expose him. Firstly, I’d have asked about his posing with a Pepe flag and a white nationalist…



Then about his friendly appearance on a neo-nazi podcast, with a host that has advocated violence towards people residing ‘illegally’ in her fantasy ethnostate. 



He should have been asked this especially in the context of how he himself deplatformed (now) open ethnonationalist Faith Goldy from one of his Free Speech events, for going on a Daily Stormer (Nazi) associated podcast and not questioning them sufficiently about their beliefs. If that was something he judged Goldy on, surely he could see that he himself hasn't always met those standards. 

Peterson who is also a staunch defender of people fired for their unpopular views can’t get others fired quick enough (those he doesn't align with ideologically, that is). 


(As ridiculous & unhelpful as her tactics are, had this been blatant discrimination towards a PoC,
Peterson's tune would be entirely different). 



He who complains about the left not tolerating differing opinions, reacts this way when confronted with an opinion he disagrees with. When...Infowars...is criticized. 



After holding him to account on his most blatant contradictions and hypocrisies, Cathy could have gone into his more absurd viewpoints where he considers Disney’s Frozen to be propaganda, simply because Elsa didn't need a man to succeed. How very dare she get by on her own. 

Talk about fragility and snowflakery...being upset by Disney movies....tsk. 

(click to enlarge)

Or she could have questioned him about a chat where he doesn't quite grasp the concept of consent, with 'race realist' and known misogynist Stefan Molyneux (who also has theories about movies like Star Wars being anti white, white genocide propaganda) 



-----

But then again, it wouldn’t really have mattered what she said to be honest…because his fans would have been furious with her regardless. She had the audacity to be combative with the great Peterson. This is a cult like following, no jokes. 


(click to enlarge)


Had she made him look properly foolish with excellent points, they would have been twice as enraged and felt twice as victimized by the postmodern neo-marxists who are always out to get them. *sob*

***

I have had many discussions with 'moderate' Petersonites, where they start fairly reasonably. It's almost as if they're reading from a script.

First, they'll say they aren’t *at all* fans of Peterson (they just happen to agree with and defend everything he says and vehemently disagree with the critic). Then they jump to the fact that they are in disbelief that you could find anything particularly alarming about him at all...or that you could find him even remotely 'right wing' (there's that crypto rightwingery again). They demand that you back up your claims that he’s right wing… and from here on, it really doesn’t matter what you say. 

You could show his friendly appearances with neo-nazis, his proud posing with pepe (hate symbol) flags & white nationalists, his naziesque conspiracy theories about cultural marxism being everywhere. His conservative views on sex and gender roles, his love of sharing far-right media, none of that matters. They can explain everything away with a "Oh he meant it metaphorically" or "You haven’t seen his *entire body of work* otherwise you’d know he isn’t right wing, he was doing that ironically to piss off leftist SJWs like you", the excuses are endless. And that is why this brand of right wingers enjoys vagueness so much, because it gives them plausible deniability. 

Now, I’m sure there are some lectures by Peterson that aren’t far-right..but that doesn’t excuse him for times his views overlap with alt-right talking points, his alt-right associations and it certainly doesn’t excuse his free speech hypocrisies….when he is every bit a screaming, sniffling, unable to tolerate differing opinions, wanting to get people fired 'SJW' as the people he projects this stuff on to - except his idea of social justice is upholding the status quo…so SQW to be precise. 

He is what he hates.

And his dogpiling fans are exactly the intolerant bunch they claim the left are. 

----

If you enjoyed this piece you might also enjoy my other blogposts on JBP

Professor Jordan Peterson: Charlatan Conservative Christian Perpetually Paranoid about Pronouns & Postmodernism

Thank you to my patrons who make this work possible. 

If you enjoy my work please consider supporting it via Patreon. If you'd like to see more deep dives on alt right/lite figures, more support could certainly go a long way in creating time for such projects.
Posted by at 22 comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)