He talks about really emotional topics. Sometimes I do get teary eyed when I talk about certain topics like suicide and addiction as it has greatly impacted my life. What difference is that on or off the camera?
Maybe it hasn’t for you and I hope it never does. But it’s not strange at all to get emotional about those topics and certainly not pathetic.
This is clearly about your idea of him rather than what is happening. He could do anything and you’d find something off with it by the looks of it.
While I agree with Gain on many issues related to China. He seems to use these kinds of oversimplification reasoning like the above. I do think Russians do bare some blame in some way as Putin didn’t just sudden happen but they’re not guilty in many other ways.
I’ve also been put into his oversimplified categories based on his biases. Because I think abortion should be made an state issue, he said that makes me a republican. I’m not. But when I talk about criminal justice reform and how the current system destroys black American I don’t see him call me a democrat. There are nuances in things he seems to just either willfully ignore or just are incapable of grasping.
You wrote a great deal of hateful comments about him. I assume they are your comments. Now, you’re just trying to distance yourself from them. Whatever. Fickle people make the best bigots.
I don’t mind the crying, although I think in the video I saw it was mostly self-pity. I do think the period where (along with his family) he went offline and had a breakdown and moved to the all-steak diet cast some doubts on the general “man up” vibe of his message. I don’t find him to be a super great (1) pundit or (2) self-help guru, but I get that he has helped some men grow up a bit, so I’ll try to give him that.
He was going through benzodiazepam withdrawal which started when his wife was diagnosed with cancer, if I’m remembering right. Not sure how the diet matters. Not really a guru guy, and can’t say about his message really. Just saying his situation was a bit more than you describe there.
“12 Rules for Life” is pretty guru-y. Honestly, I don’t know the full story on how it went down, but it made me less likely to trust him on handling chaos.
That is not what Rowling is arguing. This is a key misunderstanding of her position. She accepts that genders can transition (I’m on the fence about this), but she does not accept that anyone born male can claim to be female and demand the few advantages females have.
I didn’t read all the comments so someone might have pointed this out. I think several people either didn’t watch the video or misunderstood what happened. He doesn’t cry about himself. He passes by the incel hero comment and starts talking about people literally dying for lack of encouragement and gets emotional about that. I’ve heard him make the exact same comment in the same shaky voice on another interview or something. Morgan turns back to the movie and Peterson shrugs it off, saying he’s already been the Red Skull and this isn’t any worse. At the very end, Morgan circles back to what made him tear up and asks him to talk about it. He got emotional again and started talking about other people’s problems.
This seems like a small think and not worth 3 days of commenting. I listened to the first few minutes of the new video on his YT channel and he said he had interviewed the guest for his podcast before but didn’t remember any of it because he was in bad health. The internet doesn’t seem to remember either, so I wonder if it was ever posted.
I neither confirm nor denying having an iphone, but this is interesting. On the one hand you characterize civilization as brain dead and about to (properly) collapse, while on the other hand your definition – civilization is just a set of ideas – implies that civilization exists as long as one person carries the ideas of civilization in its brain, even a hermit on a mountain, even after everyone else has died. I’m not saying that’s wrong, just that it doesn’t seem very useful as a definition, and that if it’s the definition you want to stick with, the total collapse of civilization is not just harder than you think but nearly impossible.
At one level I find this very logical, in the vein of the more a regime persecutes its own people, the less successful it tends to be, and the more people have faith in social customs like paying for something and then getting it or vice-versa, the more successful the society tends to be.
At another level, I think you’ve lost perspective. When in all of recorded history were people not living in a web of lies? They can be more cognizant or less cognizant of how much lying is going on, but it’s always going on. When a large number of people figures out something is a lie, there may be consequences, but you’re more likely to get some kind of reform than simply a collapse of civilization.
Again, when was objective reality not replaced by narratives? The shape of the planet doesn’t change (not very fast anyway), but the narratives about it do. A narrative can be closer to or farther from objective reality, but it’s still a narrative. What really matters is how useful it is. If people avoid sailing somewhere because the prevailing maps say “here be dragons”, that probably restricts economic growth and so on. So once people figure that out, a new narrative prevails, and they sail places they didn’t use to.
If a huge number of people sail to somewhere on the map marked “Avalon” or whatever, and it turns out it’s actually a deadly place they shouldn’t go near, then okay, that’s sad, but it’s still not the end of civilization, and the narrative will change again.
I really don’t know why corporate personhood is such a favorite of yours. It’s attributed to the Romans. Speaking of which, did the Romans understand that X, Y, or Z narrative was just a convenient fiction? Take the emperor’s divinity for example. Rational basis? Sure, strengthening and maintenance of a power structure. Totally rational. Also totally fictional and very dangerous. Yet the empire persisted for centuries…
We have a horrible situation now, but that’s what we’ve always had. It’s a bold new arrangement but still the same symphony underneath.
If it helps people though, I’m all for it.