Mediaboss Marketing

When he published The God Delusion in 2006, Richard Dawkins might have been disappointed to learn that even 14 years later a self-help guru steeped in Christian teachings can still attract a large, devoted following. The New Atheists, such as Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, seemed to conquer all before them in the noughties, but the years following were hardly a victory for sober reason over passionate belief.

Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychologist by training, came to fame in 2016 protesting Bill C-16, a proposed Canadian law which he claimed would compel him to use peoples preferred pronouns. Legal experts disagreed, but the once obscure academic became a focal point in a stewing culture war throughout the English-speaking world and a guide for many feckless young men.

In the British case, Petersons most memorable moment was a clash with Channel 4 News Cathy Newman in January 2018. In the interview, Peterson laid out the thesis of his new self-help book, 12 Rules For Life, arguing among other things that men should take responsibility for their lives if they wanted to be suitable partners for women.

Newmans reception of Peterson during the uncut half-hour posted on YouTube was uncharitable, with the interviewer alleging that Peterson was indifferent to womens interests in the gender pay gap debate and linking him to the alt-right. Even The Atlantic, a progressive American publication, held it up as a case study in hyperbolic misrepresentation. But the battle lines had been drawn around Peterson, whose views were dangerous to his critics and life-changing to his fans.

After the book tour, Petersons own life hit a snag. His wifes diagnosis with terminal illness led to an increase in his intake of benzodiazepine, which he had previously started taking to deal with anxiety. This led to what his daughter described on YouTube as a physical dependency, with Peterson spending eighteen months between hospitals in places as far flung as Russia and Serbia.

All this happened away from the Internets glare, until Peterson returned to the medium that made him famous. In a YouTube vlog in October, Peterson described the difficulties he had faced over the past two years, saying that he had only just recovered sufficiently to return to work.

Surprisingly, for a Western internet celebrity in 2020, his next steps included lectures and videos on the biblical texts Exodus and Proverbs. This followed his earlier analysis of Genesis a project which included a lecture video that has gathered 6.6 million views.

With Gods grace and mercy, Peterson says he can pick up where he left off, which suggests that the Christian belief he has previously professed remains. What his faith means in practice is tricky to define, with at least one interviewer having to wrench a straightforward admission of Christianity from him.

The gurus reticence about describing himself as a Christian is less to do with modern Western squeamishness about the old faith and more because he is a stickler for accuracy in speech. Indeed, a conversation with the New Atheist podcaster Sam Harris foundered when the pair could not agree what truth meant.

Despite the equivocation, there seems something significant about Petersons faith in our era, his rise having coincided with a new emphasis among English-speaking intellectuals about the Christians roots of the West. The historian Tom Hollands Dominion is the most prominent work to argue that Christian assumptions still underpin Western societies, even as the church pews empty.

Much of Petersons message is similarly old fashioned. The first chapter of 12 Rules For Life instructs readers to stand up straight with your shoulders back to present an assertive stance to others. This emphasis on personal responsibility runs through his message, with another chapter telling us to set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world.

A lot of this advice is good, if obvious and sometimes haphazard. It is scorned because it lacks the intellectual sophistication that many of his critics are comfortable with, save when Peterson delves into the kind of mystic theological musings that our atheistic public life has little experience in. We could do without the mumbo-jumbo, but that doesnt invalidate the core message.

Critics can take comfort in the fact that the Wests increasingly godless youth are unlikely to find faith in the divine anytime soon, whatever the messianic leanings of figures like Peterson. The problem, as Dawkins might lament, is that when people stop believing in God, other figures sometimes suffice.

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

Follow this link:
Who is Jordan Peterson? | TheArticle

Former University of Toronto Professor of Clinical Psychology Jordan Peterson recently received a flurry of condemnation for a tweet in which he criticizedSports Illustrated's choice to put plus-size model Yumi Nu on the magazine's cover. His tweet (below) not only criticized her looks, but also suggested that her appearance was an authoritarian attempt by the left to force people like him to appreciate her beauty.

The backlash to Peterson's comments was swift and broad, and included social media influencers; online political commentators (likeHasan Piker andVaush); independent news outlets (like The Young Turks); mainstream news sources (NBC News, New York Post); and even international news outlets (The Independent, and Toronto Sun). In America's current political climate, incidents like the one caused by the aforementioned tweet are becoming more common as culture war issues are at the forefront of the public mind. Popular intellectual figures like Peterson have built their careers off of stoking these hot-button issues and then claiming that they are being persecuted when others disagree with them.

Interestingly, much of the blowback ignored Peterson's follow up tweet (above), in which he justifies his position by linking to scientific articles that purportedly validate his opinion. Peterson raises an interesting question: Can science be used to measure whether or not someone is attractive? While some recent studies have tried to do just that, far more studies refute these claims.

The sociology of human sexuality and race has long held that concepts like beauty and race are social constructions determined by a range of cultural, biological, and other complex social factors. On some innate level, just about everyone recognizes this truism; famously, it was embodied in the classic The Twilight Zone episode "Eye of the Beholder," whose lesson is that beauty is a local characteristic rather than a universal one. Yet, the intellectual dark web (of which Peterson is an adherent) and practitioners of this kind of "science" try to apply their model to nearly everything linking and reducing all kinds of aspects of human behavior as serving an evolutionary function.

The crowd that engages in this type of oft-sophistic debate over beauty should be familiar to anyone who follows the machinations of this latest iteration of the culture wars. Sometimes dubbed the Intellectual Dark Web (or IDW for short), they constitute a group of disgraced academics and other pseudo intellectuals (including podcaster Joe Rogan, and conservative commentator Dave Rubin) who claim that their voices are being silenced by traditional institutions who have become overly concerned with political correctness or "wokeness."

Peterson's claims run the full spectrum of biological determinism, from justifying social hierarchies as natural to claiming patriarchy should be the preferred organizing principle in societies.

However, researchers in the field of evolutionary studies (an area which focuses on how much of our behavior is a product of our biology) whose work is well-regarded tend to be far more cautious than Peterson and his ilk in their claims as to what we can definitely say about the so-called science of beauty. Against the overly deterministic model posed by the IDW, current consensus among scholars in this field is that human "nature" is a complex combination of biology and other social factors. These researchers are quick to note that they can't tell us with any great deal of precision what their findings necessarily mean for society at large.

The kind of model advocated by the IDW more closely resembles that of the 18th and 19th century biological determinism the kind that served as the basis for eugenics programs in Nazi Germany and even here in the United States. Peterson's claims run the full spectrum of biological determinism, from justifying social hierarchies as natural to claiming patriarchy should be the preferred organizing principle in societies. He also appears, at points in his book, to vindicate violent men like the Buffalo shooter or the Uvalde shooter by asserting that young men have to endure an unfair burden. To say that the ideas espoused by Peterson and the IDW connect to white supremacist ideology is more than just conjecture, as their ideas are observably trickling down from academia to far-right groups online.

RELATED:How the far right co-opted science

Indeed, the parallels between the rhetoric of the Buffalo shooter, and of the rhetoric espoused by Peterson and the like, are eerily similar. Far-right groups rejoice in Peterson's claims that hierarchies are natural and good for society, as they serve as a "legitimate" scientific basis for promoting racist ideologies. Laced throughout the manuscript left behind by the Buffalo shooter are references to a range of claims espoused by race scientists. These include tweets, memes, and links to prominent thinkers in this field like Steven Pinker and his colleagues who have published and espoused flawed literature directly cited by the shooter. The most infamous of these models is Charles Murray's book "The Bell Curve," in which he argues that intelligence and race are correlated the implication being that most people of color are "naturally" somehow less intelligent.These models continue to be invoked by prominent academics like Stanley Goldfarb, a former Dean of Medicine and current faculty at the University of Pennsylvania's medical school, who also opposes anti-racist efforts in medicine.

Taken together, these events suggest that biological determinism has permeated the ivory tower of academia more than many realize. While some of the examples mentioned here are explicit in their bigotry, there are far more cases of miscommunicated or poorly communicated scientific research being co-opted by far-right groups.

Some anti-racist academics in genetics have criticized their colleagues (above) and called for change from within. They emphasize that scientists can and should protect against the exploitation of their work in recognizing the importance of clearly communicating their findings.

When scientists fail to consider the ways their ideas might be used, for good and for bad, the results can be disastrous. Such was the case when some sociologistslevied a social constructionist critique of the use of the psychiatric system, which was subsequently used by conservatives to justify dismantling the state public health system in the United States. Scientists must use caution when trying to convey their ideas lest they be used to justify heinous acts, including terrorism.

The radicalization of the Buffalo shooter should serve as a warning to other scholars, as he was one in a long line of domestic terrorists who relied heavily upon "race science" to justify their actions.

The radicalization of the Buffalo shooter should serve as a warning to other scholars, as he was one in a long line of domestic terrorists who relied heavily upon "race science" to justify their actions. The same kinds of logic have also motivated people to commit heinous attacks against the LGBTQ+ community.

While the Buffalo shooter may have lacked the scientific literacy necessary to understand the studies he cites, researchers must work to not be complicit in this process. Whether it be scientific racism to justify one's beliefs, or a lack of full consideration as to the larger impact of one's findings, scientists need to better understand how working in science is a social activity. Science itself is a powerful tool when used in pursuit of helping lead the way towards the betterment of society, and it is equally a tool for harm when used to naturalize hierarchies and inequality found throughout society.

Frankfurt School philosopher Max Horkheimer famously wrote a critique of instrumental reason, in which Horkheimer argued that science could be co-opted if it was not consciously guided by those practicing it. This was the focus of his classic work, "The Eclipse of Reason," in which he showed how the Nazi party weaponized science by treating it as an end to itself, rather than a tool to be harnessed in pursuit of an goal. Today we face the same issues and problems in science, and for our collective good we must decide to what ends these tools are used and what we as a society wish to prioritize.

Read more on race and pseudoscience:

More here:
Discriminating tastes: Why academia must tackle its "race science" problem - Salon

Reading Time: 4 minutesConservative podcaster Matt Walsh speaks with the Maasai Tribe of Nairobi, Africa, in search of an answer to the question, What is a Woman?. Screenshot: Youtube/TheDailyWire

In January, an episode of The Dr Phil Show was dubbed controversial in which trans activists debated conservative podcaster Matt Walsh over the topic of gender ideology and identity.

Walsh argued against the introduction of transgenderism to children and the use of non-gendered pronouns, but it was the issue of womanhood that revealed a critical chink in gender ideologys woke armour.

When asked the question, What is a Woman?, the trans activists were unable to define the term even though they repeatedly made the claim that trans-women were women.

Walshs everyman demeanour and composure in questioning is akin to the comical style of Michael Moore or Borat.

The absurdity of gender ideology was on full display as the activists struggled to give a coherent answer, leaning on vague nonsensical statements.

Clips of the exchange went viral and pressure from the radical left forced CBS and Hulu to pull the episode off their broadcasting services.

Encouraged by the fallout, Walsh and his Daily Wire colleagues have produced the entertaining, illuminating yet at times frightening documentary What is a Woman? that exposes the flawed logic behind the gender ideology movement.

Released on 2 June to coincide with the beginning of Pride Month, What is a Woman? takes the viewer around the United States and across the world on a mission to answer the question proposed in the films title.

Walsh lays the foundation for his investigation by seeking to establish definitions of sex and gender in use today through a range of well-balanced and eye-opening interviews.

While progressive protestors and gender ideology professors stammer their way to incoherency, it is the conservative responses given by the Maasai Tribe of Nairobi, Africa, and an elderly Star Wars shopkeeper which appear to be grounded in reality.

Walshs everyman demeanour and composure in questioning is akin to the comical style of Michael Moore or Borat. Its remarkably effective in creating the right environment for his subjects to open up, usually to their detriment.

The documentary touches upon key gender-related controversies such as the dominance of trans women in womens sports

An interview with a family therapist illustrates this perfectly as Walsh is affirmed for questioning his own gender after confessing a love of scented candles and the TV show Sex in the City.

Later, clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson speaks on the dangers of therapists who focus on gender-affirming patients who have come to them with real problems.

The documentary touches upon key gender-related controversies such as the dominance of trans women in womens sports and the fear of some female athletes to voice concerns about engaging biological males, both in competition and in the shower room.

Most disturbing is a segment on the indoctrination of young children and the effects of transition surgeries.

Psychiatrist Miriam Grossman gives a history of the unethical techniques and studies that have shaped the transgender movement, while paediatrician Dr Michelle Forcier gives an unapologetic account on her use of dangerous puberty blockers, used to chemically castrate sex offenders, to transition children.

An emotional testimony on the painful effects of transition surgeries by trans man and founder of TReVoices, Scott Newgent, really hits home the sinister truth of the transgender agenda.

Newgent breaks down while revealing that this experimental surgery is being conducted on children without any discussion of the risks or its permanence.

What is a Woman? provides a fair scope of both leftist and conservative beliefs on core gender issues, however it could be a more robust resource for Christians if a little more time was given to those arguments against gender ideology and the transgender agenda.

It wouldnt be a Matt Walsh production if it didnt mention his best-selling childrens book Johnny the Walrus about a little boy whos forced, by the internet people, to make a decision between the little boy he is and the things he pretends to be.

But in the context of shining a light on the dangers of the indoctrination of children, Walshs unashamed plug is forgivable.

What is a Woman? provides a fair scope of both leftist and conservative beliefs on core gender issues, however it could be a more robust resource for Christians if a little more time was given to those arguments against gender ideology and the transgender agenda.

Watch the Documentary What is a Woman? by subscribing via The Daily Wire website.

See the original post here:
"What is a Woman" Review - The Catholic Weekly

This is an odd looking graph of traffic to my latest YouTube video.

You might want to congratulate me on that sudden surprising surge of traffic in the middle of the night, but dont. Apparently, thats when the magical YouTube algorithm started recommending the video to others, and it brought an influx of Peterson worshippers, as the comments reveal.

all these years and you still cant get 10 k subs??? JP just hit 5 million and growing. Youre in the final stage of your life, stop being so jelous. Btw, you shpould check out JPs interview with Roger Penrose, eat your heart out.

But heres the thing: Im not concerned about traffic. I look at the most popular videos on the medium, and its garbage like Pewdiepie and the Paul brothers and bizarre twisted animated childrens videos designed to milk clicks out of babies. Im content with my tiny little niche. Ive also got a real job, fortunately, and the $50 my channel brings in every month is fine.

Then there are the feeble defenses of Peterson:

Peterson clearly states that what he is saying is highly speculative. If your going to critique the man at least do it honestly.

Theres a whole bit in my video where I point out that Peterson is flinging about the word speculation as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Useful speculation has to be built on some kind of empirical, testable framework. Peterson is lazy and doesnt do the work of justifying it.

Most common, though, are the people who deny his transphobia (the thing that made him famous!) and have a knee-jerk hatred of social justice.

I realize Petersons claims about consciousness traveling up and down the micro and macro levels is nonsense, but so are the accusations of transphobia towards Peterson and Dawkins. Myers never really bothers to explain how theyre transphobic. At least not in this video. I think Myers should maybe spend more time investigating his own biases and irrationalism than those of Peterson if he has such obvious blind spots.

I thought Petersons transphobic comments have been so thoroughly covered elsewhere that I didnt have to discuss them, and could focus on where he intrudes stupidly on my area of expertise, biology. I guess I was wrong. Do I need to make my next video about that? Id rather not, because Peterson is such a twit.

Of course, there are still swarms of anti-SJW clowns out there.

I am not going to talk much about Peterson, but here is my problem. PZ Myers is supposed to be a scientist and yet he lets social justice which has nothing to do with Science leak in.

I help a Transgender person overseas and help feed him and fix his bike, so this isnt about hate or anything, but pronouns and having many sexes is against the Scientific data.Its more like a problem with the mind itself and social justice should not be mixed with Science.

This is why I am upset, because if you are a Scientist, you should have NOTHING TO DO WITH STUFF THATS NOT SCIENCE AT ALL, its more pseudoscience than actual real science.

Disappointed in you PZ, I thought you would be better than that.

This is really shameful and I think thats worse than whatever Peterson is going on about.

What Scientific data is against pronouns and having many sexes? I suspect he couldnt name anything.

Im also unsurprised that there are people who think social justice should not be mixed with Science, but then have no problem at all with the irrational, unjust garbage that Peterson freely mixes in to his science-free babbling.

I guess Im going to have to make more spider videos to flush away these clowns and get my traffic down where its supposed to be.

Read the original:
OH NO! If that's the audience, I don't want to be popular - Freethought Blogs

Roy Edroso speculates about future Depp projects.

Saucy Jack vs. The Sea Hags. The woke Disney corporation wont revive the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise except in a feminazi version, but that doesnt mean we cant still have Johnny Depp riding the seven seas as legendary buccaneer Saucy Jack Grackle! In this totally separate and original IP hes put on a little weight, but hes still the drunk and disorderly rascal youve come to know and love. In his glad rags, mascara, and mannerisms he cuts a dashing figure and all the ladies love him except for the Sea-Hags, an eighteenth-century gang of nasty women who, damaged by daddy issues, roam the high seas in search of psychic compensation and plunder. They despise Jack Grackle for his roguish masculinity and have vowed to sink his ship The Dark Gem and to literally emasculate him! But Jack leads them on a merry chase with much derring-do and CGI, ending in a literally ravishing, literally climactic physical struggle with Hag Queen Millie Bobbie Brown in which he shows her what rolling in the deep really means and makes everything work out! With several of Hollywoods top young actresses as the Sea Hags (who, when they remove their spectacles and shake out their hair, are actually super hot) and, as Jacks pirate gang, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Ben Shapiro as Half-Pint. Special cameo by Tom Cruise as The Bitchmaster!

I like it. I wouldnt watch it, but I appreciate the authenticity of his crew, none of whom could act their way out of a soggy, weevily biscuit. Reality is that while something that blatant wouldnt get made, poor Johnny is going to have to resign himself to third tier movies and a lot of bad guy roles.

I also notice something in the comments over there: like me, a lot of lefties sat there quietly throughout the trial, doing their best to ignore it all. Maybe thats not the best strategy? You think?

Read more here:
Johnny better get used to it - Freethought Blogs