The Peterson/Zizek debacle to come

Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek are going to have a debate next month. I have a hard time imagining a more hellish prospect.

First, it’s a debate — regular readers know how much I’ve come to despise debate. They might as well make it a wrestling match or a tiddly-winks contest for all the relevance it will have. It will settle nothing, and just allow a couple of blowhards to shout past each other.

Second, it’s Peterson, a bloviating airhead with nothing but his biases to trot about. I want his 15 minutes of fame to end soon.

Third, Zizek. You can read the opinion of a man who totally favors Zizek; I’m not impressed at all. If he can’t resolve his own personal contradictions, why should I care about his philosophy? (Yeah, I know, a lot of philosophers seem to be colossal assholes, who still manage to say interesting things — Zizek is just one who has also put his personality front and center.)

But also, Zizek is going to lose this debate, not because he will do a poorer job of defending his position, but because a debate is never about who makes the most logical, best supported argument. Most of the audience will be there because of Peterson’s inexplicable popularity, and they will not be budged from their cultish idolatry, and they will totally shut off their brains while Zizek speaks. It’s going to be an ugly mess of childish assertions against a professional obscurantist, and the child will triumph with his audience of man-babies.

Zizek was nuts to consent to this, which is another reason to doubt his competence in performing in this circus.

What else do you hate? Asking for a friend.

There’s another common theme in comments to that video about Ethan Van Sciver: oh, no, he’s not using right-wing rage to promote himself. Uh, yes, he is. That’s what his entire channel is about, claiming that the SJWs are coming to take your comic books away. They’re killing your movies. They’re turning women into merciless, man-hating lesbians. He’s using the Fox News/Donald Trump model of engagement.

It’s all about anger as a tool.

In other words, anger is a powerful tool in the worlds of both politics and media. Anger is why narratives about people being “outraged,” written with the intent of actually making readers feel an outrage over that (real or imagined) outrage, are so popular in political media. A lot has happened since Ryan published his study in 2012, but the state of politics and media would seem to only bolster his conclusions.
Keeping audiences lathered into a perpetual state of outrage is good politics and good business. Look no further than Fox News for proof.
Was there ever really a “War on Christmas” involving mass calls to ban Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and the song Baby, It’s Cold Outside? No. Is Purdue University trying to ban the word “man”? Also no. Does Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) want to steal your steak? Not at all. Is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) proposing that we “get rid of children?” Absolutely not.

Are the SJWs coming to rip the comic books out of your hands, replacing them with feminist tracts, full of flat-chested old ladies in loose clothing? Nope.

Although this idea of fanning the flames of hatred to drive traffic to your site has some merit. I’ve been doing it lately. Why do you think I’ve been posting all this stuff about spiders? It’s to get you seething and coming back for more.

Is it working?

If you poke a sewer rat in the eye, it doesn’t respond rationally

I did a little experiment. I made a video criticizing a loony comic book guy who hates SJWs. I was also partly driven by disgust: he lies transparently. In this one video he made, he goes over published reviews of a movie online, taps on the screen with his pencil, and says the reverse of what the reviewer said, and his fans believe him. Honestly, it’s that blatant: he shows a positive, favorable review, which any viewer can easily read, and declares that, well, this reviewer can’t even stomach the film, contradicting the review in plain sight. It’s psychologically fascinating and revolting at the same time.

So I pointed out that he’s lying over and over again.

Of course his fans discovered that I’d criticized their hero and came flooding in, which is where it gets interesting. I’m told I have low testosterone, I’m boring, I need to watch more of his videos (no thank you), and since I’m obviously a Social Justice Warrior, my opinion is not to be trusted. For instance…

I think you misunderstood what SJW is . You are a Beta Male by definition. That would make you a white knight with a agenda to deny your own masculinity in procurement of selfish attention . Mostly by overly dominant females. Your total lack of information is also a symptom of a SJW mindset and especially a Beta Male.

Ouch. So many cliches. “Beta male”, “white knight”, “deny your own masculinity”, and I’m motivated solely by my craving for attention from dominant feeemales. None of that addresses any of the points I made, and in fact, none of the comments addressed the problem that this Ethan Van Sciver character is openly misrepresenting what he shows.

Further, they mainly seemed to be focused on their martyr complex and imaginary conspiracy theories. For example…

The problem with SJ is that it’s not real Justice. In real justice, you are innocent until proven guilty. You have the right to a trial. You have the right face your accuser. You have the right to counsel. Evidence needs to be gathered to support the accuser’s claims. SJ has no court, no appeals and no jury. SJ only requires an accusation and a twitter mob to take your life away. SJ is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I couldn’t let that stand, so I asked, “Whose life has been taken away without due process by SJWs?” He had an answer.

OH MAN! I’m glad you asked. I’m short on time, so I’ll just point some more glaring examples of the lives effected by an evil philosophy.

Count Dancula
Jessie Smollet
Vic Mignogna
Hayden Williams
Nick Sandmann (along with the entire school)
Steven Crowder
Jordan Peterson
Martina Markota
Lindsay Shepherd

I could sincerely go on. Social justice sounds beautiful. I get it. But the underlying philosophical pillars are build on sand.

Jordan Peterson video on SJ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA96Kf30TQU

Count Dankula is a British YouTuber who trained a dog to make a Nazi salute in response to the phrase, “Gas the Jews”. He was fined £800 for violating the Communications Act with his tasteless joke. He then went on to raise £100,000 on GoFundMe.

Jussie Smollett is an American actor who apparently (it’s currently under investigation) staged a hate crime. I’m not sure why he’s on the list, since it blew up in his face and he’s destroyed his own career.

Vic Mignogna is an American voice actor for anime. Multiple women, many of whom were underage at the time, have stepped forward to accuse him of decades worth of sexual harassment, and he’s lost a major gig after an investigation, and anime cons aren’t inviting him to their events any more. So yes, he’s lost revenue for his actions. Deservedly.

Hayden Williams is a representative for Turning Point USA who was punched by Zachary Greenberg while he was staffing a table at UC Berkeley. Greenberg was arrested and is facing serious criminal charges. Greenberg’s life has been and is going to be seriously affected…is that a bad thing?

Nick Sandmann is the smug, obnoxious high school kid who confronted a Native American singer at the Lincoln Memorial. Nothing has happened to him or his school, other than that his behavior was shown in a viral video. His family is suing the Washington Post for $250 million.

Steven Crowder…are you fucking kidding me? He’s one of the dumbest people on YouTube, and he’s parlayed that into gigs on Blaze TV, Fox News, PragerU, and the Glenn Beck show. The only penalty he seems to have suffered is that Fox News dropped him…for criticizing noted SJW Sean Hannity.

Jordan Peterson…jesus. This is ridiculous. Peterson is a man who has turned his persecution complex and his bizarre Jungian ideas into a money-making machine. He has suffered no substantial consequence other than, perhaps, self-afflicted constipation from his terrible diet.

Martina Markota is a far-right fanatical Trump supporter who spreads conspiracy theories, like PizzaGate, and shills for the Proud Boys. She had an account with Chase Bank that was closed, because the banks…hate…conservatives? I guess? She then raised $34,000 on IndieGoGo.

Lindsay Shepherd was a Peterson acolyte who was reprimanded for showing a Peterson video in a class she was TAing (I actually think the reprimand was inappropriate), and has since gone on to a career as a speaker and columnist for far right media, and has a few multi-million dollar lawsuits against the university pending.

So, basically, in response to a request for names of people who have had their lives taken away by horrible SJWs, he listed people who are profiting from conspiracy theories about how horrible SJWs are taking away people’s lives. Please, could someone ruin my life this way?

I expressed my disbelief that he actually cited Jordan Peterson as someone whose life has been destroyed by SJWs. Here’s his nonsensical reply.

Jordan Peterson is a Genius Canadian Treasure. And the leftist propaganda machine have been trying to slander him for years. It’s not working because no one trusts the media, and Peterson makes sense. The fact that he’s successful isn’t evidence that he’s not been maligned. All the money he’s making is a result of free market choices. Which in the end, is the fairest measure of success.

I think I’m done with these loons. Experiment successful. Once again, dishonest conservative blowhard is exposed for his lies, and once again, it makes no difference — it will be turned into profit and imaginary confirmation of the lies.

Doom, doom, doom, doom

It’s not a shot of cold water in the face…more like a blast of super-heated steam. Yeah, this article on our prospects for global climate change is the most terrifying thing I’ve read in ages.

The present tense of climate change — the destruction we’ve already baked into our future — is horrifying enough. Most people talk as if Miami and Bangladesh still have a chance of surviving; most of the scientists I spoke with assume we’ll lose them within the century, even if we stop burning fossil fuel in the next decade. Two degrees of warming used to be considered the threshold of catastrophe: tens of millions of climate refugees unleashed upon an unprepared world. Now two degrees is our goal, per the Paris climate accords, and experts give us only slim odds of hitting it. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues serial reports, often called the “gold standard” of climate research; the most recent one projects us to hit four degrees of warming by the beginning of the next century, should we stay the present course. But that’s just a median projection. The upper end of the probability curve runs as high as eight degrees — and the authors still haven’t figured out how to deal with that permafrost melt. The IPCC reports also don’t fully account for the albedo effect (less ice means less reflected and more absorbed sunlight, hence more warming); more cloud cover (which traps heat); or the dieback of forests and other flora (which extract carbon from the atmosphere). Each of these promises to accelerate warming, and the history of the planet shows that temperature can shift as much as five degrees Celsius within thirteen years. The last time the planet was even four degrees warmer, Peter Brannen points out in The Ends of the World, his new history of the planet’s major extinction events, the oceans were hundreds of feet higher.

It gets worse from there. Much worse.

Future generations — I mean, the current generation — will look back on this time and regard all those Republican climate change deniers as monsters committing crimes against humanity, and the rest of us as lazy good-for-nothings who couldn’t get off our butts to arrest the liars and frauds and greedy, corrupt short-term thinkers who are busily wrecking the planet for our species.

But wait, you say, didn’t Trump recently bring on a science advisor, at last? Isn’t he a scientist of some sort? Of some sort, sure — Kelvin Droegemeier is a weather man with no knowledge of climatology, but he has some credentials. If you think he’ll be a voice of reason in the White House, watch this and be disillusioned.

That was a truly masterful demonstration of cowardice and evasion — he’s got no spine at all. If he doesn’t die of natural causes first, our descendants are going to have his wobbly, worthless head on a pike, and he’ll deserve it.

Arielle Duhaime-Ross, the interviewer, is good and persistent, though, not letting him off the hook at all. I wish more journalists would do that.

American medicine has a problem

The CEO of GoFundMe did not anticipate that a third of the money raised on that platform is used to meet life-threatening medical needs, which should tell everyone that the system is broken.

The system is terrible. It needs to be rethought and retooled. Politicians are failing us. Health care companies are failing us. Those are realities. I don’t want to mince words here. We are facing a huge potential tragedy. We provide relief for a lot of people. But there are people who are not getting relief from us or from the institutions that are supposed to be there. We shouldn’t be the solution to a complex set of systemic problems. They should be solved by the government working properly, and by health care companies working with their constituents. We firmly believe that access to comprehensive health care is a right and things have to be fixed at the local, state and federal levels of government to make this a reality.

Hah, right, “government working properly”. We haven’t seen any of that since a mob of assholes got elected who think government is the problem. Thanks, Reagan, keep on putrefying, you slimeball.

They’re all lovely! Every one!

I should let you know about this article, The ultimate lovely legs competition: the world’s nine most beautiful spiders, although I’m not too thrilled with the premise. It’s not a competition, all spiders have lovely legs…and chelicerae and eyes and abdomens and cephalothoraxes.

(I didn’t include any photos in this post because I’ve learned that some of you get so overwhelmed by the beauty that you close your eyes or close the browser window and go have a nice lie-down, and I didn’t want to disturb your work flow.)

Good Morning Spider!

It’s Thursday, which means it’s my spider clean up day — feeding and removing withered dead corpses from their vials, and also bottle-washing and general tidying up.

I’ve also been working on compiling some resources for students, since in a few months I have to sit down with a few of them and teach them how to identify spiders (challenging, since I’m a novice myself). For everyone’s general edification, here’s a short list of websites with taxonomic information:

Of course I also have a couple of printed field guides. I’m eager for the spring thaw and an opportunity to go chase spiders.

What happens when philosophers & biologists talk about a movie? Turns out they don’t talk about the movie much

If you were following the podcast Philosophers in Space with Aaron and Thomas and, last week, me, we continue our discussion this week, with 0G47: Annihilation and Deep Ecology, Part 2. Strangely, we don’t talk much about the movie Annihilation this week, and instead focus on philosophy and evolution and ecology. Dive in and listen, it’s loads of fun.