Archive for the ‘Jordan Peterson’ Category

The holdovers: assistants Randy Jordan and Nate Kaczor were retained by Ron Rivera for a reason – The Athletic

Anyone attending a Washington practice knows exactly where special teams coach Nate Kaczor is. Its impossible to miss the energy he exudes, and so much harder not to hear him during special teams periods. And he has found a way to blend intensity, scheme, simplicity and not taking himself too seriously, all while being respected by his players and peers alike.

He shares those traits with Washingtons running backs coach Randy Jordan, about whom one could say many of the same things. In 2018, when Washington played the New York Giants in the Meadowlands, Adrian Peterson broke off a late-game, 64-yard for a touchdown to give the team a 20-6 lead with 3:06 remaining. As the future Hall of Famer sprinted down the sideline, just escaping the grasp of a would-be tackler at the very end, cameras caught Jordan, the teams longest-tenured coach, running down the sidelineas well, celebrating the score with his player.

Players say what sticks out the most is...

More here:
The holdovers: assistants Randy Jordan and Nate Kaczor were retained by Ron Rivera for a reason - The Athletic

In the ghoulish world of online snark, toasting to metastasis is a virtue – The Globe and Mail

U.S. radio host Rush Limbaugh, seen here on Feb. 04, 2020, is famous for being a radio shock jock.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Christopher Hitchens was dying when he went on tour in 2010 to promote his memoir, Hitch-22, which chronicled his life as a polemicist, an author and a pugnacious critic of religion. He had recently been diagnosed with esophageal cancer when, on one of his stops, a talk-radio host asked him what he thought of people suddenly praying for him, a self-described anti-theist.

Well look, I mean, I think that prayer and holy water, and things like that are all fine. They dont do any good, but they dont necessarily do any harm, Mr. Hitchens said. Its touching to be thought of in that way. It makes up for those who tell me that Ive got my just desserts.

Those who ascribed to the just desserts hypothesis pointed to the divine as explanation for Mr. Hitchenss cancer: Gods revenge for him using his voice to blaspheme Him, according to one religious writer. Mr. Hitchens countered that if God was indeed meting out cancers as a form of retributive justice, infants with leukemia must have committed some dreadful sins.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Hitchens was not one to be wounded by gloating over his misfortune, nor, I suspect, are many other prominent polemicists for whom strangers might delight in a terminal diagnosis. To achieve a level of success or fame such that strangers would even bother to form an opinion about you probably means that one has already endured a good degree of enmity. Ghouls toasting to metastasis is only a slight escalation.

U.S. radio host Rush Limbaugh, recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, and author Jordan Peterson, currently undergoing treatment for clonazepam dependence, have become two new sources for this particular brand of cultural schadenfreude.

Mr. Limbaugh is famous for being a radio shock jock, whose highlight reel includes calling birth-control advocate Sandra Fluke a slut and prostitute, and playing a song called Barack the Magic Negro, to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon, for his many listeners. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom last week, ostensibly because President Donald Trump finds him charming.

Mr. Peterson became famous after he publicly opposed a bill he argued would oblige him to call transgender people by their preferred pronouns. His subsequent book, called 12 Rules for Life, sold millions of copies worldwide. Mr. Peterson developed a dependence on the anti-anxiety medication in the wake of his wifes cancer diagnosis.

As in Mr. Hitchenss case, the perceived karma of both mens diagnoses have provided distinct joy for their online critics. [Mr. Limbaugh] used those lungs to spew hate so this is payback, wrote one. Jordan Peterson, oracle to gullible young men, preacher of macho toughness, and hectoring bully to snowflakes He deserves as much sympathy as he showed others, wrote another (notably, a university professor).

Dead philosophers would have plenty to say about these crude expressions of pleasure. Nineteenth-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer viewed schadenfreude (the act of deriving pleasure from someone elses misfortune) as an aberration: an infallible sign of a thoroughly bad heart, he declared. To feel envy is human, but to indulge in such malicious joy is fiendish and diabolical.

Friedrich Nietzsche, on the other hand, saw schadenfreude as a universal human trait one rooted in feelings of profound inferiority. And Aristotle attempted to draw a distinction between a malicious type of joy derived from another persons misfortune, and the pleasure one experiences in witnessing deserved hardship or punishment.

Story continues below advertisement

Though they might disagree on its precise nature, few theorists have characterized schadenfreude as a virtuous human trait. It may be useful in terms of catharsis, perhaps, or in satisfying a yearning for justice (or the perception thereof). But it doesnt rank high or at all among righteous human emotions of forgiveness, compassion, or the extension of unreciprocated kindness and empathy (is there a German word for that?).

Thats what makes the ecosystem of online commentary and social media so peculiar: normally exalted attributes of restraint and compassion which take far more effort than succumbing to visceral emotion are scoffed at as weak and conciliatory, and the celebration of misery is actually rewarded. Its where tweets hoping Mr. Limbaughs morphine is withheld and describing Mr. Petersons situation as one of the funniest things to ever happen are liked and shared tens of thousands of times, as if they werent inherently sadistic and cruel.

The effect is a perversion of what it means to rise above. Charity is for losers. Empathy for the spineless. The faithful openly delight in the suffering of the blasphemous, and social-justice advocates proudly boast their inhumanity. In this bizarre arena, schadenfreude is suddenly a virtue.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Continued here:
In the ghoulish world of online snark, toasting to metastasis is a virtue - The Globe and Mail

Jordan Peterson enters rehab after wife’s cancer diagnosis

Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and anti-political-correctness crusader, has checked himself in to rehab in New York, his daughter has revealed.

The 12 Rules for Life author has sought help trying to get off the anti-anxiety drug clonazepam, his daughter Mikhaila Peterson said in a video posted to her YouTube account Thursday.

Ive never seen my dad like this, the 27-year-old diet blogger said in the eight-and-a-half-minute video. Hes having a miserable time of it. It breaks my heart.

The elder Peterson, 57, began taking the addictive medication to deal with stress from his wifes battle with cancer and other health problems earlier this year, his daughter said.

He tried to quit cold-turkey over the summer after his wife, Tammy Roberts, miraculously recovered from complications with a kidney surgery, Mikhaila said.

But he went through horrific physical withdrawal that has left him looking like a lost puppy, she said.

He decided to check himself into a place because he didnt want to stress mom out, wanted to get off of this as quickly as possible, and honestly needs the medical help, said Mikhaila, who has used her YouTube channel to promote her all-meat Lion Diet.

Peterson is getting weaned off clonazepam at the unidentified rehab facility with other drugs that will help abate the withdrawal, Mikhaila said.

She added that she had a similar withdrawal struggle when she tried to get off Oxycontin as a teenager. At one point it made her feel like ants were crawling upside down under my skin, she recalled.

Peterson has gained international fame for his strident critiques of academic safe spaces and feminism, as well as his refusal to use transgender peoples preferred pronouns.

The controversial University of Toronto professor has been open about his previous struggles with depression, which he has battled since his teen years.

Hes said he beat it back with the meat-heavy diet his daughter encouraged him to adopt. Cutting out greens altogether improved both his mental and physical health, he said in an interview last year.

Im better now probably than Ive ever been in my life, and I havent been taking anti-depressants for a whole year, Peterson said in a July 2018 episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast.

View post:
Jordan Peterson enters rehab after wife's cancer diagnosis

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: Jordan B. Peterson …

A RELIGIOUS PROBLEM It does not seem reasonable to describe the young man who shot twenty children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 as a religious person. This is equally true for the Colorado theatre gunman and the Columbine High School killers. But these murderous individuals had a problem with reality that existed at a religious depth. As one of the members of the Columbine duo wrote:

"The human race isnt worth fighting for, only worth killing. Give the Earth back to the animals. They deserve it infinitely more than we do. Nothing means anything anymore."

People who think such things view Being itself as inequitable and harsh to the point of corruption, and human Being, in particular, as contemptible. They appoint themselves supreme adjudicators of reality and find it wanting. They are the ultimate critics. The deeply cynical writer continues:

"If you recall your history, the Nazis came up with a 'final solution' to the Jewish problem. . . . Kill them all. Well, in case you havent figured it out, I say 'KILL MANKIND.' No one should survive."For such individuals, the world of experience is insufficient and evilso to hell with everything!

What is happening when someone comes to think in this manner? A great German play, Faust: A Tragedy, written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, addresses that issue. The plays main character, a scholar named Heinrich Faust, trades his immortal soul to the devil, Mephistopheles. In return, he receives whatever he desires while still alive on Earth. In Goethes play, Mephistopheles is the eternal adversary of Being. He has a central, defining credo:

"I am the spirit who negatesand rightly so, for all that comes to bedeserves to perish, wretchedly.It were better nothing would begin!Thus everything that your terms sin,destruction, evil representthat is my proper element."

Goethe considered this hateful sentiment so importantso key to the central element of vengeful human destructivenessthat he had Mephistopheles say it a second time, phrased somewhat differently, in Part II of the play, written many years later.

People think often in the Mephistophelean manner, although they seldom act upon their thoughts as brutally as the mass murderers of school, college and theatre. Whenever we experience injustice, real or imagined; whenever we encounter tragedy or fall prey to the machinations of others; whenever we experience the horror and pain of our own apparently arbitrary limitationsthe temptation to question Being and then to curse it rises foully from the darkness. Why must innocent people suffer so terribly? What kind of bloody, horrible planet is this, anyway?

Life is in truth very hard. Everyone is destined for pain and slated for destruction. Sometimes suffering is clearly the result of a personal fault such as willful blindness, poor decision-making or malevolence. In such cases, when it appears to be self-inflicted, it may even seem just. People get what they deserve, you might contend. Thats cold comfort, however, even when true. Sometimes, if those who are suffering changed their behaviour, then their lives would unfold less tragically. But human control is limited. Susceptibility to despair, disease, aging and death is universal. In the final analysis, we do not appear to be the architects of our own fragility. Whose fault is it, then?

People who are very ill (or, worse, who have a sick child) will inevitably find themselves asking this question, whether they are religious believers or not. The same is true of someone who finds his shirtsleeve caught in the gears of a giant bureaucracywho is suffering through a tax audit, or fighting an interminable lawsuit or divorce. And its not only the obviously suffering who are tormented by the need to blame someone or something for the intolerable state of their Being. At the height of his fame, influence and creative power, for example, the towering Leo Tolstoy himself began to question the value of human existence. He reasoned in this way:

"My position was terrible. I knew that I could find nothing in the way of rational knowledge except a denial of life; and in faith I could find nothing except a denial of reason, and this was even more impossible than a denial of life. According to rational knowledge, it followed that life is evil, and people know it. They do not have to live, yet they have lived and they do live, just as I myself had lived, even though I had known for a long time that life is meaningless and evil."

Try as he might, Tolstoy could identify only four means of escaping from such thoughts. One was retreating into childlike ignorance of the problem. Another was pursuing mindless pleasure. The third was "continuing to drag out a life that is evil and meaningless, knowing beforehand that nothing can come of it." He identified that particular form of escape with weakness: "The people in this category know that death is better than life, but they do not have the strength to act rationally and quickly put an end to the delusion by killing themselves. . . ."

Only the fourth and final mode of escape involved "strength and energy. It consists of destroying life, once one has realized that life is evil and meaningless." Tolstoy relentlessly followed his thoughts:

"Only unusually strong and logically consistent people act in this manner. Having realized all the stupidity of the joke that is being played on us and seeing that the blessings of the dead are greater than those of the living and that it is better not to exist, they act and put an end to this stupid joke; and they use any means of doing it: a rope around the neck, water, a knife in the heart, a train."

Tolstoy wasnt pessimistic enough. The stupidity of the joke being played on us does not merely motivate suicide. It motivates murdermass murder, often followed by suicide. That is a far more effective existential protest. By June of 2016, unbelievable as it may seem, there had been one thousand mass killings (defined as four or more people shot in a single incident, excluding the shooter) in the US in twelve hundred and sixty days. Thats one such event on five of every six days for more than three years. Everyone says, "We dont understand." How can we still pretend that? Tolstoy understood, more than a century ago. The ancient authors of the biblical story of Cain and Abel understood, as well, more than twenty centuries ago. They described murder as the first act of post-Edenic history: and not just murder, but fratricidal murdermurder not only of someone innocent but of someone ideal and good, and murder done consciously to spite the creator of the universe. Todays killers tell us the same thing, in their own words. Who would dare say that this is not the worm at the core of the apple? But we will not listen, because the truth cuts too close to the bone. Even for a mind as profound as that of the celebrated Russian author, there was no way out. How can the rest of us manage, when a man of Tolstoys stature admits defeat? For years, he hid his guns from himself and would not walk with a rope in hand, in case he hanged himself.

How can a person who is awake avoid outrage at the world?

Originally posted here:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: Jordan B. Peterson ...

How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor …

The Canadian psychology professor and culture warrior Jordan B Peterson could not have hoped for better publicity than his recent encounter with Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. The more Newman inaccurately paraphrased his beliefs and betrayed her irritation, the better Peterson came across. The whole performance, which has since been viewed more than 6m times on YouTube and was described by excitable Fox News host Tucker Carlson as one of the great interviews of all time, bolstered Petersons preferred image as the coolly rational man of science facing down the hysteria of political correctness. As he told Newman in his distinctive, constricted voice, which he has compared to that of Kermit the Frog: I choose my words very, very carefully.

The confrontation has worked wonders for Peterson. His new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has become a runaway bestseller in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Germany and France, making him the public intellectual du jour. Peterson is not just another troll, narcissist or blowhard whose arguments are fatally compromised by bad faith, petulance, intellectual laziness and blatant bigotry. It is harder to argue with someone who believes what he says and knows what he is talking about or at least conveys that impression. No wonder every scourge of political correctness, from the Spectator to InfoWars, is aflutter over the 55-year-old professor who appears to bring heavyweight intellectual armature to standard complaints about social-justice warriors and snowflakes. They think he could be the culture wars Weapon X.

Despite his appetite for self-promotion, Peterson claims to be a reluctant star. In a sensible world, I would have got my 15 minutes of fame, he told the Ottawa Citizen last year. I feel like Im surfing a giant wave and it could come crashing down and wipe me out, or I could ride it and continue. All of those options are equally possible.

Two years ago, he was a popular professor at the University of Toronto and a practising clinical psychologist who offered self-improvement exercises on YouTube. He published his first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, in 1999 and appeared in Malcolm Gladwells bestseller David and Goliath, talking about the character traits of successful entrepreneurs. The tough-love, stern-dad strand of his work is represented in 12 Rules for Life, which fetes strength, discipline and honour.

His ballooning celebrity and wealth, however, began elsewhere, with a three-part YouTube series in September 2016 called Professor Against Political Correctness. Peterson was troubled by two developments: a federal amendment to add gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act; and his universitys plans for mandatory anti-bias training. Starting from there, he railed against Marxism, human rights organisations, HR departments and an underground apparatus of radical left political motivations forcing gender-neutral pronouns on him.

This more verbose, distinctly Canadian version of Howard Beales mad as hell monologue in Network had an explosive effect. A few days later, a video of student protesters disrupting one of Petersons lectures enhanced his reputation as a doughty truth-teller. I hit a hornets nest at the most propitious time, he later reflected.

Indeed he did. Camille Paglia anointed him the most important and influential Canadian thinker since Marshall McLuhan. Economist Tyler Cowen said Peterson is currently the most influential public intellectual in the western world. For rightwing commentator Melanie Phillips, he is a kind of secular prophet in an era of lobotomised conformism. He is also adored by figures on the so-called alt-light (basically the alt-right without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate), including Mike Cernovich, Gavin McInnes and Paul Joseph Watson. His earnings from crowdfunding drives on Patreon and YouTube hits (his lectures and debates have been viewed almost 40m times), now dwarf his academic salary.

Not everybody is persuaded that Peterson is a thinker of substance, however. Last November, fellow University of Toronto professor Ira Wells called him the professor of piffle a YouTube star rather than a credible intellectual. Tabatha Southey, a columnist for the Canadian magazine Macleans, designated him the stupid mans smart person.

Petersons secret sauce is to provide an academic veneer to a lot of old-school rightwing cant, including the notion that most academia is corrupt and evil, and banal self-help patter, says Southey. Hes very much a cult thing, in every regard. I think hes a goof, which does not mean hes not dangerous.

One person who has crossed swords with Peterson declined my interview request, having experienced floods of hate mail

So, what does Peterson actually believe? He bills himself as a classic British liberal whose focus is the psychology of belief. Much of what he says is familiar: marginalised groups are infantilised by a culture of victimhood and offence-taking; political correctness threatens freedom of thought and speech; ideological orthodoxy undermines individual responsibility. You can read this stuff any day of the week and perhaps agree with some of it. However, Peterson goes further, into its most paranoid territory. His bete noire is what he calls postmodern neo-Marxism or cultural Marxism. In a nutshell: having failed to win the economic argument, Marxists decided to infiltrate the education system and undermine western values with vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, such as identity politics, that will pave the road to totalitarianism.

Peterson studied political science and psychology, but he weaves several more disciplines evolutionary biology, anthropology, sociology, history, literature, religious studies into his grand theory. Rather than promoting blatant bigotry, like the far right, he claims that concepts fundamental to social-justice movements, such as the existence of patriarchy and other forms of structural oppression, are treacherous illusions, and that he can prove this with science. Hence: The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory. Islamophobia is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons. White privilege is a Marxist lie. Believing that gender identity is subjective is as bad as claiming that the world is flat. Unsurprisingly, he was an early supporter of James Damore, the engineer fired by Google for his memo Googles Ideological Echo Chamber.

Cathy Newman was wrong to call Peterson a provocateur, as if he were just Milo Yiannopoulos with a PhD. He is a true believer. Peterson is old enough to remember the political correctness wars of the early 90s, when conservatives such as Allan Bloom and Roger Kimball warned that campus speech codes and demands to diversify the canon were putting the US on the slippery slope to Maoism, and mainstream journalists found the counterintuitive twist what if progressives are the real fascists? too juicy to resist. Their alarmist rhetoric now seems ridiculous. Those campus battles did not lead to the Gulag. But Petersons theories hark back to that episode.

Peterson was also shaped by the cold war; he was obsessed as a young man with the power of rigid ideology to make ordinary people do terrible things. He collects Soviet realist paintings, in a know-your-enemy way, and named his first child Mikhaila, after Mikhail Gorbachev. In Professor Against Political Correctness, he says: I know something about the way authoritarian and totalitarian states develop and I cant help but think that I am seeing a fair bit of that right now.

In many ways, Peterson is an old-fashioned conservative who mourns the decline of religious faith and the traditional family, but he uses of-the-moment tactics. His YouTube gospel resonates with young white men who feel alienated by the jargon of social-justice discourse and crave an empowering theory of the world in which they are not the designated oppressors. Many are intellectually curious. On Amazon, Petersons readers seek out his favourite thinkers: Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Solzhenitsyn, Jung. His long, dense video lectures require commitment. He combines the roles of erudite professor, self-help guru and street-fighting scourge of the social-justice warrior: the missing link between Steven Pinker, Dale Carnegie and Gamergate. On Reddit, fans testify that Peterson changed, or even saved, their lives. His recent sold-out lectures in London had the atmosphere of revival meetings.

Such intense adoration can turn nasty. His more extreme supporters have abused, harassed and doxxed (maliciously published the personal information of) several of his critics. One person who has crossed swords with Peterson politely declined my request for an interview, having experienced floods of hatemail, including physical threats. Newman received so much abuse that Peterson asked his fans to back off, albeit while suggesting the scale had been exaggerated. His fans are relentless, says Southey. They have contacted me, repeatedly, on just about every platform possible.

Peterson's audience includes Christian conservatives, atheist libertarians, centrist pundits and neo-Nazis

While Peterson does not endorse such attacks, his intellectual machismo does not exactly deter them. He calls ideas he disagrees with silly, ridiculous, absurd, insane. He describes debate as combat on the battleground of ideas and hints at physical violence, too. If youre talking to a man who wouldnt fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then youre talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect, he told Paglia last year, adding that it is harder to deal with crazy women because he cannot hit them. His fans post videos with titles such as Jordan Peterson DESTROY [sic] Transgender Professor and Those 7 Times Jordan Peterson Went Beast Mode. In debate, as in life, Peterson believes in winners and losers.

How does one effectively debate a man who seems obsessed with telling his adoring followers that there is a secret cabal of postmodern neo-Marxists hellbent on destroying western civilisation and that their campus LGBTQ group is part of it? says Southey. Theres never going to be a point where he says: You know what? Youre right, I was talking out of my ass back there. Its very much about him attempting to dominate the conversation.

Petersons constellation of beliefs attracts a heterogeneous audience that includes Christian conservatives, atheist libertarians, centrist pundits and neo-Nazis. This staunch anti-authoritarian also has a striking habit of demonising the left while downplaying dangers from the right. After the 2016 US election, Peterson described Trump as a liberal and a moderate, no more of a demagogue than Reagan. In as much as Trump voters are intolerant, Peterson claims, it is the lefts fault for sacrificing the working class on the altar of identity politics. Because his contempt for identity politics includes what he calls the pathology of racial pride, he does not fully endorse the far right, but he flirts with their memes and overlaps with them on many issues.

Its true that hes not a white nationalist, says David Neiwert, the Pacific Northwest correspondent for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump. But hes buttressing his narrative with pseudo-facts, many of them created for the explicit purpose of promoting white nationalism, especially the whole notion of cultural Marxism. The arc of radicalisation often passes through these more moderate ideologues.

The difference is that this individual has a title and profession that lend a certain illusory credibility, says Cara Tierney, an artist and part-time professor who protested against Petersons appearance at Ottawas National Gallery last year. Its very theatrical and shrewdly exploits platforms that thrive on spectacle, controversy, fear and prejudice. The threat is not so much what [Petersons] beliefs are, but how they detract from more critical, informed and, frankly, interesting conversations.

Consider the media firestorm last November over Lindsay Shepherd, a teaching assistant at Ontarios Wilfrid Laurier University, who was reprimanded for showing students a clip of Peterson debating gender pronouns. Her supervising professor compared it to neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, before backing down and apologising publicly. The widely reported controversy sent 12 Rules for Life racing back up the Amazon charts, leading Peterson to tweet: Apparently being compared to Hitler now constitutes publicity.

Yet Petersons commitment to unfettered free speech is questionable. Once you believe in a powerful and malign conspiracy, you start to justify extreme measures. Last July, he announced plans to launch a website that would help students and parents identify and avoid corrupt courses with postmodern content. Within five years, he hoped, this would starve postmodern neo-Marxist cult classes into oblivion. Peterson shelved the plan after a backlash, acknowledging that it might add excessively to current polarisation. Who could have predicted that blacklisting fellow professors might exacerbate polarisation? Apparently not the most influential public intellectual in the western world.

The key to Petersons appeal is also his greatest weakness. He wants to be the man who knows everything and can explain everything, without qualification or error. On Channel 4 News, he posed as an impregnable rock of hard evidence and common sense. But his arguments are riddled with conspiracy theories and crude distortions of subjects, including postmodernism, gender identity and Canadian law, that lie outside his field of expertise. Therefore, there is no need to caricature his ideas in order to challenge them. Even so, his critics will have their work cut out: Petersons wave is unlikely to come crashing down any time soon.

See the original post:
How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor ...