How did this guy become a darling of the conservative skeptic/atheist movement?

Jordan Peterson is mystifying. He’s a boring, tendentious, unoriginal authoritarian who gets most everything wrong. He’s not an atheist, as the following clips show, so why do atheists pay attention to him?

He has written a book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (of course a conservative book is all about arbitrary rules), which gets savagely reviewed.

Peterson, who has become one of the most prominent critics of anything that can be labelled as “political correctness”, is especially conservative on gender and family roles. “Female lobsters . . . identify the top guy quickly, and become irresistibly attracted to him,” he writes. Generalising from the crustacean to the human he adds, “This is brilliant strategy, in my estimation.”

Apparently, the secret to success is to appeal to the vast audience of male lobsters.

Oh, look. David Brooks gives Peterson a thumbs up. Now we know what kind of person favors our Canadian authoritarian.


  1. KG says

    Apparently, the secret to success is to appeal to the vast audience of male lobsters.

    Surely Peterson’s spew would only appeal to self-identified alpha male lobsters – who will be too busy harassing female lobsters to do anything as sissy as read.

  2. Derek Vandivere says

    The review is behind a paywall, just so you know…might want to mention that in the post to prevent useless clicks.

  3. says

    Of my friends who listen to Mr. Peterson, they use his pseudointellectual authoritarian to justify heir own prejudices.

    You answered your own question in the title…

    How did this guy become a darling of the conservative (authoritarian and prejiduce) skeptic/atheist movement?

  4. doubtthat says

    The path we’ve watched these atheist dudebros travel is just hilarious. They’ve gone from being the worst kind of condescending atheists – Hitchens acolytes without the wit – to just foaming, angry misogynists, to neo-libertarians, to alt-right racists, and finally to psuedo-Christians.

    The only thing that links it all together is a leader who (1) allows them to continue to believe in their intellectual superiority and (2) offers simple scapegoats to explain away any weakness or insufficiency. The funny part is that they used to define their superiority by laughing at dumb creationists, but in less then a decade they’ve swung back to being largely on their side. The number of these folks who are now straight-up culture warriors (abortion, gays, guns…) is both hilarious and terrifying.

    Now they just flock to anyone who tells them that feminists and minorities are the problem.

  5. says

    That is a good root of the problem.. The Laughing at Creationists stuff of a decade ago.

    I watched those videos. I needed those videos. I also listened to Hitch, P&T Bullshit, PZ’s wafer in the garbage and other stark overt and “fighting words” takedowns of religion. It was needed. That was how to break out of the religious hold at the time. I am better for it now.


    After the fight, has to be a time of self reconciliation. Who am I now as I break away from religion. Am I always going to be this angry? Will I always need to fight?

    For me, luckily, and with hard work, I am not as angry now. Some, didn’t know how to lose that anger.

    Now we see these rebels without a cause heading to a new extreme in search of.

  6. Michael says

    “He’s a boring, tendentious, unoriginal authoritarian who gets most everything wrong.”

    I think the answer to your problem is that you are focusing on the god aspect, which is not what is attracting interest, instead of focusing on his other arguments. So people will see his debate with Cathy Newman, agree that she did not prepare properly and came across poorly, agree with some/most of what Jordan said, and not have a serious rebuttal to it.

    Personally I would like to see a thorough response to either the points he discusses in the Cathy Newman debate, or his objections to Bill C16.

  7. doubtthat says

    @6 Michael

    I would be curious for an example of a Peterson argument you find compelling. Just pick one solid one, your favorite, and recreate it here.

  8. taikonotaiko says

    I counter his lobsters with spotted hyenas! We can all cherry-pick from nature to prove a point. Plus hyenas are (probably, as far as I know) smarter than lobsters.

  9. says

    I also saw a lecture he was giving to students, where he was talking about the drug DMT, and it was a lot like what I see in youtube videos made by people who believe their DMT hallucinations are real (people who say they have met extra-dimensional beings). Of course he adds in a lot of “we don’t know” and such, but it was pretty weird to see something I’ve seen before like that. It’s a whole little new religion, and his crank magnetism seems to have bought into it to some extent.

  10. says

    In the end, the atheistbros are just the same as the evangelical christians who are praising Trump as the saviour: They don’t actually care. Peterson and Trump are against people they are also against and therefore the rest is ignored

  11. doubtthat says

    #13 Siobhan

    Thanks for the link. I’m watching that tv appearance of his. He says this:

    “Made up words people now describe as gender neutral.”

    Made up words? As opposed to those we found in nature? The ones god gave us in the Bible? What the hell is he talking about?

    What is a non-made up word?

  12. Muz says

    “The path we’ve watched these atheist dudebros travel is just hilarious. They’ve gone from being the worst kind of condescending atheists – Hitchens acolytes without the wit – to just foaming, angry misogynists, to neo-libertarians, to alt-right racists, and finally to psuedo-Christians”.

    Hilarious and utterly fascinating. He’s becoming the intellectual masculinity guru that seems to inevitably pop up in times of high anti-feminism. The whole thing adds some credence to the idea that some folks just desperately want to be led (Peterson seems to think everyone really needs to be led to some degree. He hopes by a grand historical narrative that sounds suspiciously like jesus, or some version thereof).
    It really is as though he soft peddles just how much religiosity there is in what he talks about because he knows it’ll alienate most of these guys. Gotta bring them in and then let that true faith emerge, I suppose. Give them structure and comfort and purpose while smiting their enemies. Leave god until later.

    Of course, if someone is more familiar with the territory his blend of Jung and Dostoyevsky, as well as fear mongering about any and all progressive change throwing open the doors of complete and inevitable moral chaos, sounds a lot like stuff you get from actual pastors arguing for religious order, if they are of a more philosophical bent.

    And to think all of this seems to have happened because people saw some feminism in the world and lost their damn minds (they say it’s because of “injecting to much stuff into atheism” or “ethics in games journalism” or whathaveyou, but that really doesn’t manage to explain very much about these new culture wars when you get down to it)

  13. unclefrogy says

    OK here is “my hypothesis”
    most of the “dudebros” are atheists who came to not believe in god because they were anti church authority and so gravitated to atheism but are now having a hard time adjusting to the realization of the finality of their own mortality. so now they are just whistling past the grave yard with any leader or authority who can both support their basic anti-authority bias and offer a simple answer clear vague solution. any thing to avoid the “Felliniesque” absurdity of existence and human life

    uncle frogy

  14. secondtofirstworld says

    @unclefrogy #17: Nice idea, but heck no. The dudebros who listen to networks like the Drunken Peasants, became atheists by a side effect, not as an intentional goal. If you care to read, listen and watch what they have to say, most of them is… let’s just say “adorably” schizophrenic. On the one hand they preach free will and humanism, but on the other in practice they revere what they see as Western civilization, where only the dude brings money home the wifey takes sole care of kids and of course people of color have poorer paying jobs.

    Using atheistic arguments against religion is like a drug in the sense they like the fact that the non-belief based argument needs no proof. Once it goes over to knowledge they still “forget” being atheist doesn’t mean you never have to prove anything. Thus they come up with the illusion peddled by the GOP that the American economy can perpetually support high paying jobs for “real men”.

    People like Peterson and atheists in the Drunken Peasants Network talk to people in such a manner because as customers they keep businesses like the NFL alive, so the problem is way deeper.

  15. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    From the FT review:

    His response, we are told in the typically self-aggrandising “Overture” to the book, touched a nerve with readers, who “upvoted” it 2,300 times and gushed “You win Quora. We can just close the site now.”

    Ha! I’ve got him beat. I’ve won the whole damn internet, more than once.

  16. unclefrogy says

    yah that’s true they are still avoiding all the contradictions inherent in “western civilization” and the basic absurdity of human thought
    and still just whistling past the grave yard
    uncle frogy

  17. says

    It’s worth looking at the reasons someone might find that lobster flavored sexist bullshit. Someone in his immediate vicinity should have pried both logic and relevance to a real world problem from his desperately needed stereotype right? RIGHT? (Glances at 4chan, 8chan, Reddit, YouTube…)

    I want to figure out how to dismantle that.

  18. brutus says

    Jordan Peterson is mystifying. He’s a boring, tendentious, unoriginal authoritarian who gets most everything wrong. There’s certainly a lot more to Peterson than just the question of atheism. Tendentious I’ll grant, but boring, unoriginal, and authoritarian are all baseless charges from what I’ve been following.

    Peterson came to prominence over the issue of forced pronouns and broadened into free speech and then to his real passion project, mythology (religious and otherwise) as a basis for right living. That’s the real source of appeal to authoritarians and atheists alike: a “how to …” or “… for dummies” primer on presumably correct way(s) to be oriented in the world. I find him more descriptive than prescriptive or restrictive on that account.

    It’s easy to pluck some quotes, string them together out of context, and entirely miss the point of what he’s trying to say. Mocking him about lobsters is just one such gambit. His style of speech also places conclusions perpetually just over the horizon, so getting a good fix on his philosophy is difficult. I haven’t read his books so can’t comment on their content.

    I wish there were more specific criticisms to consider here than a Ben Shapiro-style bash-on-everyone-not-me kludge or I-just-don’t-get-it swipe.

  19. consciousness razor says

    doubtthat, #4:

    The path we’ve watched these atheist dudebros travel is just hilarious. […] The funny part is that they used to define their superiority by laughing at dumb creationists,

    I don’t know who you’re talking about, but he’s evidently just a dudebro and not an atheist one. I know very little about Peterson … was he ever laughing at creationists?

    For a long time, I’ve noticed that many of these people who cling to assorted “leaders” in the atheist/skeptic world aren’t actually atheists, or at any rate they’re not nearly as skeptical as they make themselves out to be. For whatever reason, they didn’t fit in so well with certain religiously-oriented groups and infested ours (more than it already had been). No big suprise there. But if they’re simply not atheists and now you know that, then it wouldn’t make sense to call them that.

    brutus, #24

    Peterson came to prominence over the issue of forced pronouns and broadened into free speech

    Sounds like a real jackass — a professional one, even. I already want to know less about him.

    and then to his real passion project, mythology (religious and otherwise) as a basis for right living.

    It isn’t one. Done. So what’s the next passion project going to be?

    You’ll have to explain to me how ripping off Plato’s noble lie is something other than “boring, unoriginal, and authoritarian,” because it looks to me like all three charges are right on target. Or you should look up the meaning of the word “baseless.”

  20. einsophistry says

    brutus @24,

    re: more specific criticisms: I have two, and I think they’re pretty fundamental.

    1. His James-via-Darwin pragmatic notion of truth is deeply conceptually confused. Peterson mistakes what is at best a defeasible indicator of truth—viz., utility—for truth itself. Now, the issue to which Peterson’s responding is legitimate and pressing enough: We don’t have any god’s-eye-view of the relationship between reality and our representations, no perfect vantage point from which we can assess the accuracy of those representations. We therefore have to judge their accuracy via more indirect assessments, like whether they allow us to predict really unexpected things and to reliably intervene in the world in successful ways. Put somewhat inversely, it would be very hard to explain how it is we can do so many astounding things with, e.g., the theory of general relativity without that theory being at least partially true.

    So utility has some relevance here. But note that only certain uses can really speak to the question of a representation’s truth. The fact that GR can be used to make an entertaining sci-fi story or to inspire awe toward the universe is not particularly relevant to the question of GR’s truth (though, of course, these are nice features); the fact that GR can be used to predict and model gravitational lensing phenomena, however, is. We can think of it this way: Plenty of false representations might allow us to write an entertaining sci-fi story or feel wonder at the universe, but a task as specific and demanding as modeling gravitational lensing is a much finer sieve; very few contenders for truth can get through.

    How fine a sieve is ancestral survivability? Not very—at least not with respect to the sorts of truths with which religions are classically concerned. True, we needed to have at least a crude grasp of certain Middle World facts—what is safe to eat, what predators look like and how they may be avoided, when the wet and dry seasons fall, etc.—but plenty of incompatible falsehoods about, e.g., the fundamental constituents of the universe or its ultimate purpose could be utterly interchangeable as far as natural selection is “concerned.” And within the ethical realm, survival wouldn’t have required us to know what constitutes the most morally optimal life but only what our fellow tribesmen would demand of us and what they’d let us get away with. And even among those mundane Middle World facts, selection often treats false positives and false negatives differently. It was super important, ancestrally, that we not confuse a dangerous snake for a harmless snake-shaped object. It was far less important, however, that we not confuse a harmless snake-shaped object for a dangerous snake. These are both errors of similar magnitude, factually speaking, yet their effects on survivability are radically different. Fleeing from a harmless object costs a little extra energy, but failing to flee from a dangerous snake could well cost everything.

    Contribution to ancestral survivability is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for truth (and by the by, it’s pretty rich that someone who complains so much about postmodernism has no apparent qualms about attacking and perverting traditional notions of truth in order to insulate his own beliefs from factual criticism).

    2. As suggested above, Peterson seems to invest natural selection with far more power and intentionality than it actually has. Evolution is only pseudo-teleological; its apparent goal-directedness is an artifact of differential extinction. And fitness is always relative to protean environmental context (which, incidentally, renders it woefully inadequate as a foundation for morality).

    I don’t know if Peterson actually thinks evolution is purposeful or if he’s simply been lead into confusion by the ways in which we (biologists often included) often speak heuristically about what genes “want” and so forth. If he does believe it’s properly teleological, then of course that might explain why he thinks it can ground a defensible pragmatic notion of truth. But there’s a problem with this, for evolution can only really be teleological if there’s intelligence behind it. If the proposition that this is so is true, then either it is true in a non-pragmatic sense, in which case Peterson owes us a non-pragmatic argument for it, or it is true (or meta-true, as he sometimes says) in precisely the pragmatic sense the proposition is intended to justify. The latter possibility, of course, suggests that Peterson is arguing in a circle, attempting to ground the theological elements of his worldview in a pragmatic conception of truth that itself depends for its justification upon the truth of (a subset of) those same theological elements. You can’t just take a Thomistic metaphysics as a given.

  21. Hairhead, Still Learning at 59 says

    I surfed through a couple of turgid Peterson videos, then came upon him saying this; “Obviously, abortion is wrong.”

    Translation: All Women Fuck Off, You Are Worth Nothing!

    Therefore, I ceased listening, and haven’t listened to a word of his since.

  22. thirdmill says

    Respectfully, I don’t think most commentators here understand the essence of dudebro philosophy. So I shall do my best dudebro imitation and explain it.

    At the end of the day, winning is all that matters. Whatever may be your opinion of militarism, sexism, homophobia, racism, authoritarianism, violence, guns and Western Civilization, those things are what conquered the world. Whatever may be your opinion of Trump, his tactics worked, and he won. Ultimately, the fascists are going to win because they’re not hampered by your sense of fair play, egalitarianism, and social justice. Adopting those as your philosophy means that not only are you bringing a knife to a gun fight, but you’re doing so with one hand tied behind your back. It’s an abandonment of basic evolutionary principles, like survival of the fittest,

    It’s all very Nietzcheian: The will to power. The side that wins is the side willing to do what they have to do in order to win. So take your morals and ethics and fuck yourself with them. While you tsk-tsk about what bad boys we are, we’ll just continue on about the business of world domination. Because at the end of the day, winning is all that matters.

  23. thirdmill says

    Just to clarify, No. 29 is not my moral philosophy, so don’t attack the messenger. It is, however, the essence of dudebro philosophy.

  24. unclefrogy says

    dudbro philosophy
    well they can win the control of the political world and maybe even for a time the moral world but reality does not give a dam what you think or believe there are many ruins of great civilizations scattered around the world what is one more to the earth or the universe.
    he who thinks his will is more powerful is a fool
    as is this dope with his big words and highfalutin sounding bull shit
    uncle frogy

  25. doubtthat says

    @25 consciousness razor

    Peterson is the new fair haired child of the “skeptic” community. Tracing back through previous heroes will outline the journey I describe.

  26. Muz says

    Peterson came to prominence over the harassment law changes in Canada, but he wasn’t really opposed to that purely on (misguided) free speech grounds. As some of his other talks reveal, he’s picked this moment to stand up because he wants to oppose Trans thinking, as I suppose you could call it. To him it’s the exemplar of creeping post modernism. And post-modernism is a stalking horse for Marxism. And all Marxism is revolutionary Marxism, and all revolutionary Marxism is Stalinism. So an even tacit acceptance of gender fluidity nomenclature is heading us down a road to GULAGs.

    I’m being a little terse but I don’t think I’m misrepresenting his views at all there. Post modernism is the purest evil, seemingly because it questions and decays the moral and psychological foundations of our civilisation. Interestingly his arguments don’t seem to be able to say post modernist critique is wrong. Only that’s it’s wrong and destructive to the real order to use it. This, incidentally, is why he’s an authoritarian conservative. Not because he’s and explicitly scoldy Nazi type, but because he believes that there is or ought to be an immutable moral and philosophical order which you don’t mess with through relativism or what have you, at least until you’re old and wise enough to understand it properly.

    Some of this stuff is at least somewhat interesting to a pol-sci type like me (I don’t think it’s ever good to upend social structures too rapidly, for instance. In that sense I can be sympathetic to some of the fears behind his ideas sometimes). On the whole though, this is really McCarthy era Red Scare stuff of demon-like insidious cultural thought-rot and we’ve got to reinforce those good old fashioned values or the wayward willful kids being taken in by fashionable philosophy are going to bring it all down.

  27. Muz says

    Oh, I see probably better commentaries appeared while I was typing. Sorry about that (never half comment over lunch, folks. One of my 12 steps for living)

  28. Marissa van Eck says

    Isn’t Marxism about as Modernist an ideology as it’s possible to get? I was told that Modernism and Post-Modernism strictly differ in that the latter has no overarching “meta-narrative,” no teleological goal or over-story that the human race is following, whereas Modernism does.

    And dialectical materialism sounds like that kind of meta-narrative to me.

    So…does this guy Peterson just not know what words mean, or worse, does he not care?

  29. Muz says

    Marissa van Eck

    Yeah, it’s sloppy at best. I think it’s fair to say that some Marx is in the genesis of Post Modern and Post Structuralist thought. Historical materialism theory involves (from memory anyway) a lot of implications of the constructed experience in the creation of the class mindset and the power relations inherent in that. Post structuralists jump off from that sort of critique and run with it (hog wild, sometimes). But that’s about as far as it goes. As you say, it’s missing the other aspects that make a properly Marxist line of thought and it’s also far from the only philosophical trend that fueled the movement.
    A lot of these 20th century thinkers and art groups were a bit Marxist at the same time, but they weren’t all that big on Authoritarian Government and the Soviet Union (some perhaps).

    Such things don’t seem to matter that much to Peterson though. It’s all part of the same thing, or it’s going to lead to the same thing and that’s GULAGs.

  30. rietpluim says

    The “skeptics” will accept anything that confirms their prejudices as long as it sounds sciencey to anybody who had a high school level of science education so it does not challenge how skeptic they really are.

  31. Dunc says

    So…does this guy Peterson just not know what words mean, or worse, does he not care?

    I’m pretty sure it’s both.

  32. thirdmill says

    Nerd, what specifically did you find inaccurate in my description of dudebro philosophy? Please note, I didn’t ask if you liked it; I asked what you found inaccurate in my description of it.

  33. billyjoe says

    I’ve had a similar impression listening to Peterson’s videos. He’s certainly read a lot, but he seems not to have put it together. His main problem for me is that he is loud and overbearing. And humourless. If you don’t have a sense of humor, you’ve got something wrong. Has anyone seen him even smile? If so, please give me a link. I’d like to think his life is not all misery.

    But I don’t understand the link with scepticism and atheism. Why should he be their darling? And I haven’t seen that. The only thing I’ve seen some agree with him on is his push back against being forced to use trans pronouns. Of course he will not use them anyway, but I can see why he gets some support for pushing back against being forced to use them.

    We were never forced to use Ms. It just gradually assimilated into the language as more an more saw the reasonableness of it and met woman who wished to be addressed in that manner. And surely that’s the only way trans pronouns are ever going to catch on. Everyone will just gradually start using them when they meet trans people. To force their use just begs for opposition. Bad strategy in my opinion.

  34. Dunc says

    The only thing I’ve seen some agree with him on is his push back against being forced to use trans pronouns.

    Who’s being forced? Did I somehow miss the reports of the Trans Gestapo going around forcing people to change their pronoun use at gunpoint? Are people being shipped off to the Alaskan Gulag for using the wrong pronouns?

    We were never forced to use Ms. It just gradually assimilated into the language as more an more saw the reasonableness of it and met woman who wished to be addressed in that manner.

    I’m pretty sure there were a bunch of reactionary arseholes that complained endlessly about that one too.

  35. billyjoe says

    Well, interesting in that he has a few problems of his own regarding valid arguments and logic..

  36. rietpluim says

    billyjoe You won’t meet that many trans people if you don’t welcome them into your community. How would you like your existence to be constantly denied? Using the correct pronoun is just a start and not that much to ask for.

    Always the same goddamn excuse. Cis het male white whiners.

  37. dusk says

    @Dunc from what little I’ve seen of him I think his main issue was with the change in the law in Canada that criminalises misgendering someone or using the wrong pronouns, he has no issue with trans people and will use the correct pronouns when asked, but is against the change in the law.

    I’d never heard of him until fairly recently after that disastrous interview on UK news channel. I’ve since watched a few of his videos and he comes across as a bit of a pseudo scientific windbag.

  38. Rob Grigjanis says

    Dunc @47:

    Who’s being forced?

    Nobody. Peterson seems to think (or pretends) that Bill C-16 does that, but it doesn’t.

    Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most “extreme manifestations” with the intention of promoting the “level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection” that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups.

  39. Dunc says

    @Dunc from what little I’ve seen of him I think his main issue was with the change in the law in Canada that criminalises misgendering someone or using the wrong pronouns

    Except that it doesn’t do anything of the sort.

  40. dusk says

    @Dunc fair enough, I’m along way from Canada and haven’t looked at the bill myself. Just thought it was worth pointing out that he is happy to use preferred pronouns when he is asked (at least that’s what he said on the video I saw), but he disagrees with the rule change.

  41. dusk says

    Just had a read through that bill and I can’t see how he has concluded that it criminalises misgendering, as pointed out above it does nothing of the sort.

  42. doubtthat says

    Yes, to be specific, the only thing Bill C-16 says with respect to using proper pronouns deals with sentencing.

    If someone has been convicted of a crime, evidence of refusal to use preferred pronouns can be used to prove anti-trans motivation – similar to hate crime law. It’s no different than using evidence of someone saying the N-word over and over as proof that the crime they committed was racist in intent.

    So, either Peterson is just talking out his ass, confused and paranoid, or he is legitimately worried that it may be an issue for him someday. Always a problem when stupidity is the charitable interpretation.

  43. says


    he has no issue with trans people and will use the correct pronouns when asked, but is against the change in the law

    Isn’t the whole thing that he did refuse to use trans pronouns when asked? Yeah, he said it was a protest against this law he doesn’t care for: “There’s no way I’m going to use words made up by people who are doing that [trying to control language through the law] – not a chance.”
    But he’s clearly showing a serious lack of respect for a group that is in a vulnerable position, even if he really does believe it’s for the greater good of fighting … what exactly? He’s willing to sacrifice other people’s real health and lives for his ideals. No matter how you slice it, he’s an asshole.

  44. dusk says

    @cmhlx Yes I would agree with you, I wasn’t aware of that and I only recently heard of him in this interview from channel 4 in the UK last week:

    In it, at approx 21min30s they discuss his views on trans people and Bill C-16 – he states he would use a students preferred pronouns and his issue has never been trans people per se but that “he wasnt going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists”, whatever that means.

  45. Porivil Sorrens says

    He seems to be somewhat schizophrenic about it, because he’s also said

    I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

  46. says

    It’s a tool. The aggression. They need it. It’s manner is a bit different online versus off. Peterson needs it. So they he and tell stories about things they don’t take the time to justify as a means of spreading the tool around. Gossip has the advantage of speed (I use it too but I’m always willing to unpack it). The lobsters are a matter of convenience, as was Harris’s “estrogen vibe”, or the whole “alpha/beta” meme.

    The lobsters are all about that on a dimension having to do with assumptions about people they want to create social bias towards. They need women and percieved female people to be this way. They will act based on their beliefs. It’s riddled with weakness and vulnerability and the only thing keeping it going is force of numbers. The physical act of sex is but a fragment of it.

    Peterson has also shown that he needs physical aggression against other people in a more explicit manner.
    He just flows so naturally towards it.

    *Why would I ever need to physically push? If I can’t justify it I have no business advocating it aggressively. If I ever got into an argument with Peterson I would goad him in a way relevant to this need they have to resort to force when they can’t meet a need in a argument and refuse get physical. This only works if they get people to go along with it and it only takes one person to voice doubt at the right moment and fuck up the house of cards. That would be worth risking a punch. They act like it’s impressive so I enjoy finding the ways it’s a literal flaw in interacting with people and society. Like how the whole “alpha/beta” narrative neglects that the alpha also has responsibilities. Their grotesque caricature of social power and hierarchy would get them kicked out of the pack.

    *Privilege note: I realize that many other people do not have the luxury or tolerance for this and I try not to forget that. The Tourette’s Syndrome definitely lends some benefits here. Feature, not bug.

    @John Morales 23
    Would it be advisable to publicly challenge Peterson to a debate and throw lobster urine at him?

  47. DanDare says

    Praying Mantis females bite the heads off the male while they are copulating. Obviously human females can adopt this best strategy by using stainless steel knives and packing the remains in a fridge for later.

  48. says

    If Peterson remains a celeb long enough I’m sure he’ll write a book, which will be like the paperback version of Mark Steyn’s America Alone and have “Soon to be banned in Canada” on the front cover. Like Steyn’s book the claim will of course be nonsense, but his fans will believe it.