Lately I’ve been asked for my opinions on Jordan Peterson. They are not good. Particularly worrying is that pseudo-intellectuals on the left seem to be on his side. Don’t get me wrong, he is a very smart man. But smart in the same way that a stoat is smart. A stoat isn’t going to write a symphony, but it can very easily trick you and eat all your babies. I’m not saying Jordan Peterson eats babies, but I haven’t seen him in the room with one. I started watching as many videos of him as I could, and there is a clear pattern to how he operates. Eventually I got too close to tearing my own eyes out and I had to stop. Combining Bill Maher with Jordan Peterson should be against the Geneva Convention. There are four steps to his formula:
- The Vaccination Opener – Often when Jordan Peterson speaks, he will throw out a statement that is hard to argue against and most people would accept. For example, he will say something like “In order to find truth, we have to be able to put our ideas out there in order to discuss these difficult topics.” Now, that can be argued against, but it’s much harder to argue against than women who belong in the kitchen. That statement is ridiculous, but he’s building up to that, he wants to suck you in and get you onside up front. He’s inoculating you so what’s to come is more palatable.
- The Universalism Follow-up – He’ll then move on to something easier to argue against, but he’ll just throw it out there as a universal truth and quickly move on. Because he started off reasonable, you’re caught off-guard. You’re less likely to speak up. He’ll say something like “any time we say something we have the potential to offend someone.” You might try and argue against it and say “no, that’s not true.” Then he’ll come back with something ridiculous like “oh, but by saying that you’ve just offended me, so therefore my previous statement is true.” He’s just used himself as evidence that what he just said is right. It’s circular now, and it’s hard for you to interject.
- The Evolutionary Psychology Back-up – He’ll then reference something stupid about men being alpha-male hunters and women being emotional nesters. Any time anyone mentions evolutionary psychology – they are wrong and probably going to follow it up with something misogynistic. I could be wrong, but I don’t know many female evolutionary psychologists. There’s a reason for that. I don’t often say this, but evolutionary psychology is wrong. Someone put that on a T-shirt and send it to me please.
- Poking the Bear – If he’s debating against someone, he will then intentionally try and get them pissed off so they prove their point. He’ll say “and that’s why women belong in the kitchen and shouldn’t be in politics – they’re too emotional.” So then, if the woman he’s debating with gets angry, he can say “see I told you, you can’t even manage your emotions talking to me, how could a woman run the country.” He’s creating his own evidence as he goes, and you now want to smack him in the face. He’s won, and may go on to eat your babies (just saying, the correlation is uncanny).
Most of his videos have followed this formula. If you know a Jordan Peterson / Toe Rogan / Tool fanatic (more uncanny correlations), then I hope this helps you keep your eyes in your sockets before you tear them out.
