Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The GOP Needs a Dose of Jordan Peterson

Conservatives need to get their own act together.

Jordan PetersonRene Johnston/ZUMA Press/NewscomThe Republican Party needs to seek professional help. Badly. Perhaps it should consult with Dr. Jordan Peterson.

If you have not picked up on the Peterson phenomenon, then you have missed the news about a huge cultural movement. Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist who has gained a huge following by promoting what might be called the sterner virtues—self-examination, self-discipline, striving, and, well, sucking it up: Quit complaining about your miserable life, he says, and take ownership of it. Don't point the finger at others: Do what you should be doing to become the best version of yourself you possibly can. And don't presume to lecture the rest of the world about how it needs to shape up until you have proved you can do something minimally competent—like, say, cleaning your bedroom.

Peterson also has gained fame and notoriety by opposing political correctness. In an era when the press is full of ruminations about "toxic masculinity," Peterson makes no excuses for virility. He considers being nice a lower-order virtue, if it is a virtue at all, and contends that a weak man is far more dangerous than a strong man. Men should be strong, he says, so they can fight the evil in the world—of which, he says, there is a very great deal. Peterson expands upon these messages with hefty helpings from biblical lore, Solzhenitsyn, Viktor Frankl, and even works such as the children's book "There's No Such Thing as a Dragon."

All of this is catnip for young men, especially conservative young men, and Peterson's critics—who are legion—accuse him of giving aid and comfort to the alt-right through, e.g., his frequent attacks on Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and "left-wing identity politics."

The question here, though, is why those conservatives who find Peterson's message to the individual so appealing don't apply it to their movement as a whole.

Because, let's face it: The conservative movement needs to straighten up.

To take the most obvious example first: Many conservatives have spent the past couple of years making excuses for a man who cheated on his wife with a porn star; who lies about that and everything else, constantly; who ran a scam university; who filed for bankruptcy four times; who hired illegal immigrants and paid them substandard wages; who refused to pay contractors for work they had done; and much more. Never once has Donald Trump taken personal responsibility for any of it.

What kind of man is that?

Some of Trump's defenders respond to lists like these by saying, "Yes, but Clinton...." Which is a tacit admission that Trump's behavior is indefensible on its own terms. How about this instead: Quit making excuses for the inexcusable. Period.

Or take Vice President Mike Pence. By all accounts, he is a man of integrity and character. Nevertheless, last week he introduced Joe Arpaio, the disgraced Arizona sheriff who is running for Senate, to a crowd by calling him "a tireless champion of ... the rule of law."

Bunk. This would be the same Joe Arpaio who was convicted of contempt of court for violating a court order to cease racial profiling. The same Joe Arpaio who faked a murder plot against himself to increase his popularity—an act that sent an innocent man to prison for four years and cost taxpayers $1 million in compensatory damages. The same Joe Arpaio whose office has cost taxpayers $142 million in legal fees, settlement claims, and court awards. The same Joe Arpaio who has arrested critical journalists, defied court orders to provide adequate medical care to jail inmates, and ... well, you get the point: Arpaio is to the rule of law what a prison riot is to the rules of decorum.

In Alabama last year, Republican voters nominated Roy Moore to fill the seat vacated by Sen. Jeff Sessions. Moore, a former judge on the Alabama Supreme Court, was removed from the bench twice for defying the federal courts, and he once suggested America would be better off without the constitutional amendments banning slavery and giving women the right to vote. He ended up losing the Senate election after allegations about his sexually predatory behavior toward underage girls.

Plenty of other examples abound. Many Republicans, it seems, will tolerate anything, so long as the perpetrator puts an (R) by his name. Party ID apparently matters more than virtue or, often, even basic human decency.

Which leads to an obvious question: How can the party be trusted to govern the country when it can't even govern itself?

Photo Credit: Rene Johnston/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Oh, yeah, this is going to go well.
    Grabs popcorn.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I am so confused! I thought Reason hated Jordan Peterson.

  • JesseAz||

    Just the beta male columnists that live in blue states with other beta males that go to cocktail parties.

  • Nihil||

    Are you implying there are Reason columnists who live in red states, are alpha males, and do not go to cocktail parties? Because I find that inconceivable.

  • Ariki||

    This does not answer the question..... or does it?

  • JesseAz||

    Just the beta male columnists that live in blue states with other beta males that go to cocktail parties.

  • Steve-O||

    And the squirrels.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hey!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    They can't all be guys who live in red states with downscale graduates of backwater religious schools, economically irrelevant and superstitious yahoos, bigoted goobers, chickenhawk militia members, street-pill-addled losers, and the rest of the depleted human residue that has been on the wrong end of bright flight for generations.

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    That doesn't mean they have to be idiots in blue who look down on their fellow Americans becasue of their unwarrented self-importance and their need to virtue-signal their virtue to the world, when in reality they have none. Not to mention, how the constant doublethink they fall into when talking about how racist the gov't and it's agencies are yet how we need more of them in our lives and want to dengrate other's rights because they don't see how they would need it. Personally, both groups of people sound like retards. But, hey Arthur, just because you're special doesn't mean you aren't unloved.

    Also, that's disgusting. A Reverend ought to know no to use a runon sentnce

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    *sentence

  • MSimon||

    20 to life.

  • DaveKunard||

    I guess he would be a "more reasonable" face for conservatives then the current lot.

    But he's no libertarian. People here like him because of his defiance of the intersectionalist left, but he's very much an old school conservative, and ironically his academic writing and thoughts about "truth" and symbolism are very in line with post-modernist thinking.

  • ThomasD||

    "Grabs popcorn.

    Can you share some? Because mainly I'm just hanging, waiting for the next crappy article on the latest Westworld episode.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Thank you, Reason for the change of tune. You need to be making bridges to these natural allies; doing hit pieces on internet personalities is what the dying mainstream does -- you need to adapt.

    Jordan Peterson, Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad; you went bush league on all of these people and you started digging your grave in the process. Again natural allies! I was astounded when just last night I was watching a PewDiePie video and he showcased a Reason TV segment from a few months back. I was dumbstruck, PewDiePie is the king of Youtube, he has 62 million subscribers, that video has 4 million views! He constantly red pills the youth -- and here I am afraid now to look back to see if Reason jumped on the PewDiePie is a Nazi smear campaign....

  • esteve7||

    No, Reason will try to make allies with progressives, which as I have pointed out countless times before, will never work. Progressives are completely against everything at the core of libertarianism (individual freedom, natural rights, universal rights, etc).

    Between Jordan Peterson, Sargon, and others, you have people from around the spectrum that are still believers in Classical Liberalism. You'd think Reason would talk with those people, but instead the snide hit pieces on them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Esteve7 has called to order another joint meeting of Libertarians For Bigoted Immigration Policies, Libertarians For Government Micromanagement Of Certain Health Care Facilities, Libertarians For The Drug War, Libertarians For Torture, Libertarians For Superstitious Gay-Bashing, Libertarians For Military Belligerence, Libertarians For Tariffs and Protectionism, and Libertarians For Conservative Authoritarianism.

  • Drunicusrex||

    And the good Reverend is calling now upon his flock of Libertarians for Censorship, Libertarians for State Control of the Economy, Libertarians for Affirmative Action, Libertarians for Identity Politics, Libertarians for Gun Control, and Libertarians who are clearly just here for the weed, man...

  • Drunicusrex||

    And the good Reverend is calling now upon his flock of Libertarians for Censorship, Libertarians for State Control of the Economy, Libertarians for Affirmative Action, Libertarians for Identity Politics, Libertarians for Gun Control, and Libertarians who are clearly just here for the weed, man...

  • GILMORE™||

    I am afraid now to look back to see if Reason jumped on the PewDiePie is a Nazi smear campaign

    Without checking, i'm pretty sure Robby described him as a

    "controversial youtuber, who, under the guise of free-speech support, has made disgusting and racist remarks which i personally find vile and tasteless"

    or some formulation of that.

    (checks)

    lol, the bloody headline

    "PewDiePie: Alt-Right Nazi, Victim of Political Correctness, or Just an Idiot?"

    He falls short of actual denunciation (which is the sort of way he shat on someone like sargon - "Because Vox doesn't like him, he MUST be bad"), but does his typical poo-pooing routine.

    FWIW, even 10 seconds of PDP makes my brain hurt, but he had the best response in the history of the internet to being accused of racism (by the WSJ, i believe); he makes a video of himself going back in time to Kill Hitler

  • esteve7||

    Wow it's almost as if I made a similar point over the weekend during the ridiculous JP articles Reason had out. He is a center left classical liberal pulling people away from the extremes. Just because he thinks Marxism / the collectivist far left is more of a threat than the collectivist far right, doesn't make him a 'darling to the alt right' or whatever.

    JP has read letters he's received from both people on the far left and alt-right, saying he helped them put themselves together and reject that nonsense. He's done more to combat identity politics and tribalism (of the left and right) than any of these hitjob news outlets have.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Just because he thinks Marxism / the collectivist far left is more of a threat than the collectivist far right, doesn't make him a 'darling to the alt right' or whatever.

    Anyone to the right of Stalin is "alt right." All Right Thinking People know this. /sarc

  • CatoTheChipper||

    WRONG!!!!

    Stalin was alt right. He is to blame for ending the journey to the workers paradise envisioned by Marx and Lenin and Trotsky. Marxism has never been tried. When humanity finally eliminates the right, the alt right, and all other reactionary elements, and the bourgeoisie that they enable, we can finally have a genuine demonstration of socialism. If you understood Marx, you'd understand that it will be unicorns and rainbows.

  • ThomasD||

    I was told there would be Skittles as well.

  • Ska||

    And mentos for the dissenters.

  • ThomasD||

    Nobody needs Mentos, comrade.

  • BYODB||

    On an unrelated note, all bullets have been renamed to 'mentos'.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Thank you for setting me straight, comrade. You've certainly given me a lot to think about ahead of tonight's struggle session.

  • DaveKunard||

    I think a lot of people don't quite realize how conservative he actually is.

    He's a "sex before marriage is bad, porn is bad" hardcore social conservative.

    There's this tendency today to qualify people as entirely good or entirely bad. Peterson makes eloquent points about the intersectionalist left, but there's a lot of baggage with what he's selling.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Oh shit guys, Matt's pretentious diatribe on JP didn't go down too well with the readership. We'd better jump on this, quick.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yes, I am sure Matt called A. Barton yesterday and told him to write a pro-Peterson piece. Brilliant analysis, mashed potato.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Are you being [/sarc]? I don't mean to imply Matt Welch told anyone to write the alternative perspective. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my postato. I merely was making an observation on the about-face from Raisin, but now I think about it, I actually enjoy the fact that there is such a diversity of opinion from the writers.

    I'm sorry I made such a half-baked post. My thoughts were mashed after a hard day's work and some vodka. I'd say that perhaps I deserve a roasting for lowering the tone around here. If you've got the spuds for it I'm sure someone would find that a-peel-ing.

  • BigT||

    Irish Rights Abuse, I've got my eyes on you.

  • esteve7||

    Now if only that worked with Dalmia's ridiculous hack pieces.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I feel like she was brought in to "shake things up" and various other managerial idioms applied to a deliberately disruptive appointment.

    "A real maverick."

  • DajjaI||

    Yup. Don't go full 'handmaids', but yeah this would be great.

  • NoVaNick||

    Many Republicans, it seems, will tolerate anything, so long as the perpetrator puts an (R) by his name. Party ID apparently matters more than virtue or, often, even basic human decency.

    Ummmmm-I'm not a fan of whataboutism, but you could say the exact same thing about Democrats. The only way to stop political parties from making excuses for their shitty politicians is to have no political parties, or allow an infinite number of them.

  • Tony||

    Democrats didn't tolerate John Edwards's cancer cheating, and every time any Democrat commits so much as a grammatical error they are forever piled upon by the rightwing bullshit factory. Trump is not only among the worst people ever in American politics, his supporters have forever branded themselves as among the worst hypocrites. Live with it.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Hey, let's everybody do a whataboutism now.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's whataboutism all the way down!

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I have nothing against turtles, but what if the elephants weren't enabling them?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What about whataboutism don't you understand?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    All of it.

  • Thomas O.||

    BUT BOOOOOSH

    (gotta love the classics)

  • ||

    every time any Democrat commits so much as a grammatical error they are forever piled upon by the rightwing bullshit factory

    Pah-tay-to, Poe-tah-toe.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Actually, it's pronounced Puh-tay-ter.

  • MarkLastname||

    Democrats tolerated Ted Kennedy driving that girl into a lake then wandering off. They tolerate their congressmen cozying up to a raging anti-Semitic black supremacist.

    Stop it Tony, it's just embarrassing.

  • JesseAz||

    It took nearly a dozen victims to come forward in Seattle before liberals turned on their mayor.

  • damikesc||

    San Diego's mayor had similar good fortune.

    I remember Democrats applauding a Congressperson who had sex with an underage page.

    Or who went to the WH to applaud a President not being convicted and removed from office.

    Obama couldn't find any crime Jon Corzine committed, oddly enough.

  • Sam Grove||

    Not to mention their toleration of expanded bombing and drone attacks under Obama.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Democrats didn't tolerate John Edwards's cancer cheating

    It was tolerated for quite a while until the chick he was cheating with got knocked up. The lesson for Democrats who are having affairs is that you don't leave evidence behind, whether it's a money shot on your side piece's dress or a kid.

  • esteve7||

    they tolerated and promoted a pig who left a woman to die at the bottom of a river and only got away with it because of his fucking name.

  • Tony||

    50 years ago. Your argument eats itself you partisan dumbfuck.

  • Careless||

    They only stopped electing him because he died

  • Tony||

    At worst he negligently homicided one woman and got away with it. If you want to posit a miscarriage of justice, fine, but conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen.

    Meanwhile his Republican colleagues have been perpetrating a sociopathic domestic and foreign policy for that entire 50 years with little to show for it but bigger yachts for Arab royalty.

  • BYODB||

    I had no idea Obama was a Republican, but you've convinced me!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    For Tony, I suppose one woman is nothing compared to the millions triumphantly slaughtered in the name of the Revolution. He doesn't like women anyway.

  • Woodchipper of the Apocalypse||

    This a very telling comment, Tony. You're a true collectivist. If one woman has to die so that the Better Party is in power, so what?

    Meanwhile, individualists, for whom the ends don't justify the means, can't really hand wave a woman's negligent homicide.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Has long has it been since the Dems had a Grand Kleagle of the Klan as their Senate Leader?
    Still too long ago?

  • damikesc||

    Democrats didn't tolerate John Edwards's cancer cheating

    The press worked awfully hard to cover it up, leading the National Enquirer to report it. And given that a huge chunk of the "likeability" of that dipshit was "He stuck with his ugly wife when she had cancer", it seems relevant.

    I don't see Trumpsters saying "Man, Trump is a kick-ass husband who would never stray!"

    and every time any Democrat commits so much as a grammatical error they are forever piled upon by the rightwing bullshit factory.

    Like having a special prosecutor investigating a non-crime, wasting time and money for literally nothing?

    Trump is not only among the worst people ever in American politics, his supporters have forever branded themselves as among the worst hypocrites.

    Hey, YOU guys said a President's personal life was irrelevant. You won that argument. Congrats.

  • Tony||

    If Obama had been caught in an affair, would it have been a non-story?

    No? Then fuck you. Trump is not the lumpy hill of lard to die on and you should know that.

  • damikesc||

    If Obama had been caught in an affair, would it have been a non-story?

    No? Then fuck you. Trump is not the lumpy hill of lard to die on and you should know that.

    They were few complaints that he, apparently, was nailing a Wookie, so there's that. Assuming you believe that the least masculine man on Earth and Chewbacca's understudy were in a loving relationship was real...

    If Trump forced gun stores to illegally sell guns to straw buyers that were then funneled to Mexican drug cartels, would that have been a non-story?

    What if he had his Sec of State running a personal email server that had zero oversight and was emailing said Sec of State on that server, would that have been a non-story?

    What if his IRS attacked conservative groups and then destroyed evidence? No harm, no foul, right?

  • Tony||

    Racism agains the former first lady and three bullshit debunked conspiracy theories. You're certainly worthy of my attention.

  • Ariki||

    "Debunked"

    Lolz

  • damikesc||

    Racism agains the former first lady

    What "race" is Chewbacca, out of curiosity? Perhaps it's a comment on a spectacularly unattractive wookie-like creature?

    Nope, gotta be racism. Everybody knows Barack only dicks down hot bitches.

    three bullshit debunked conspiracy theories

    *snicker* yeah, sure. Hold on to that.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Man, Trump is a kick-ass husband who would never stray!"

    I always assumed he was not exclusive with his wives, and that this was a privately acknowledged part of the deal with all his wives.

    I concluded the same with Bill and Hillary. And Huma Weiner.

    In all cases, a marriage for power and status.

    Trump and Melania seem relatively traditional. Trophy wife to trophy husband. An actual marriage, instead of a beard for political power.

  • MSimon||

    "supporters have forever branded themselves as among the worst hypocrites. Live with it."

    Could I get a certificate?

  • Azathoth!!||

    What is 'whataboutism'?

    'Whataboutism' is the retarded cousin of the tu quoque fallacy (which is itself simply a means of trying to shut someone with inconvenient facts at their disposal up)

    In both, one notices that a persons argument had been undermined by their previous --or current-- stances or actions.

    The person, revealed as a hypocrite shrieks 'whataboutism' or 'tu quoque' in the hope that this will make the revelation of their hypocrisy go away.

    Sadly, it works far too often.

    Donald Trump lies about sex. Isn't this a libertarian magazine? It's pretty clear that Trump has 'arrangements' with his various wives, girlfriends and trysts. He's be doing this his entire life. No one's making excuses for him. They simply accepting it.

    The Reason staff has a problem with employing illegals and using them like second class trash? That's Shikha's raison d' etre. She desperately wants dalits to kick around.

    People only scream 'whataboutism' when they stand exposed of hypocrisy.

    Scream on, reason.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's pretty clear that Trump has 'arrangements' with his various wives, girlfriends and trysts. He's be doing this his entire life. No one's making excuses for him. They simply accepting it."

    Reason is all "sex positive" and accepting of "non-traditional" arrangements, except when the TDS kicks in.

    Maybe that was the problem. Rich man with trophy wife and an arrangement is not "non-traditional" enough for them.

    Thought, I did love the gratuitous "porn star" insertion.

    Why was the lady's occupation relevant to this story?
    Perhaps ENB could enlighten us.

  • MSimon||

    "Thought, I did love the gratuitous "porn star" insertion."

    I see what you did there.

  • DaveKunard||

    There is an assymetry here. While any group is prone to infighting or groupthink, conservatives do seem better at unifying disparate views under a common tent, whereas those on the left have more of an exclusionary "purifying" tendency.

    I could suggest ideological reasons for this, but I don't have much in the way of hard evidence.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "why those conservatives who find Peterson's message to the individual so appealing don't apply it to their movement as a whole."

    Maybe they aren't the "wayward generation" Welch kept referring to yesterday. Truth be told, Reason is starting to confuse me.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Reason is confusing me also. Why A. Barton Hinkle he makes the assumption that the "wayward young men" that support Peterson must also support Trump makes absolutely no sense and, I'm sure, is some sort of logical fallacy. D- for the effort.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What if I told you that Reason is actually multiple people?

  • JesseAz||

    You'd be making a reasonable point.

  • Just Say'n||

    Between "newly woke" Matt Welch smearing Peterson and all the other attacks on him, I can only imagine he's actually saying something worthwhile. I have not read or watched any videos about him. All I know is that he pushed back against a law mandating pronoun usage. Opposing speech codes use to be libertarian, but now libertarianism seems to just mean "convincing progressives that you are totally not conservative" and have quickly abandoned most principle.

    So, I'll have to read some of Peterson's stuff if all the "right thinking" people are trying to un-person him. He must be making sense

  • esteve7||

    Watch this, starting at 14 minutes. It's one of my favorite lectures

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68tFnjkIZ1Q

  • buybuydandavis||

    Vox Day (self professed Alt-Right) is going ballistic attacking Trump lately. The ad hominem overflows, for Peterson and his supporters.

    Peterson is pissing off all the right people.

  • DaveKunard||

    Of course the left attacks him and smears him, but he is very much a social conservative, and has a lot of tradionalist ideas many here might not care for.

    For example, he's said things like "a society that tolerates casual sex is prone to totalitarianism."

    Or, bizzarrely, "the schoolyard need the Nelsons of the world. Without the bullies, there would be no one to keep the Milhouses in line."

    He also has weird views about "truth" that actually seem very post-modernist. He doesn't come off well in this interview with Harris (the title is clickbaity)

    I think he is unfairly smeared by the left (as many are), but I'm not a huge fan. Of course I'm very much a social liberal, rational humanist.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfJFxAvyE1Y

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    It says something pretty sad about our times that this guy would have been considered a mediocre philosopher 100 years ago.

  • Just Say'n||

    Have you read anything by him? I haven't

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I haven't read anything but I've seen a couple of things on YouTube. I have no problem with what he's saying, it's just sad that it's now considered some kind of mind blowing concept.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, I see that. I am probably even more ignorant about what he's saying than most people here. I've watched virtually nothing about him on YouTube and I haven't read anything by him. The only thing I know about him is that he pushed back against a law in Canada mandating pronoun use, which I commend him for doing. But, I'm withholding judgement about him until I've read something.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    As with everyone, if you take time to dig into his views I'm sure you'll find some you agree with and some you don't. He seems to be making an honest effort to put forth reasonable (to him) points in a clear and calm fashion so at least he has that.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, except the digging and the smearing only ever seems to go in one direction. We've gone from "Milo is problematic" (fair) to "Peterson is problematic". Seems like opposition to government mandated speech codes should be a big deal to people who self-identify as 'libertarian', but it seems like proving you're not conservative has trumped principles

  • ThomasD||

    "...proving you're not conservative..."

    The Reason writers equivalent to praying the Hours.

  • Just Say'n||

    To be honest that is pretty much the only principle that Reason is intent on pushing constantly. It's made National Review look more libertarian than Reason.

    They've dumped religious liberty, they've made peace with speech codes so long as it's for a "woke" purpose like pronouns, and they've made their piece with governments usurping parental rights. The only principle that they still strenuously defend is managed trade and open borders, but above all else "we are not conservative" is their guiding principle. And that's fine. But, by being centrally focused on that they aren't very libertarian either anymore.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Huh? It's like we are reading different magazines. Where did Reason stand against religious liberty or support restrictions on free speech?

  • Just Say'n||

    Probably that time that they went all in on a candidate who called religious liberty a "black hole" and then "newly woke" Welch wrote an article calling anyone who criticized Johnson for that position "conservative concern trolls". We also shouldn't forget the fact that Johnson briefly flirted with the idea of a burka ban.

    Then there was the fact that the Reason Foundation eventually joined the side of the bakers after the election, but under the basis of "free speech" rather than "religious liberty". We also shouldn't forget that writers took both sides on the issue of nuns being forced to pay for birth control.

    Then there is the fact that nothing was ever written opposing the state of California's forced speech laws for crises pregnancy centers or its pronoun law. In fact, in the case of the crises pregnancy center they even tried to argue that the state had a compelling interest in forcing crises pregnancy centers to post information about where to acquire an abortion.

    You can like reading Reason and still realize that it's not really good at writing defenses for individual rights that are unpopular.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    So you have no examples of Reason opposing religious liberty or free speech. Supporting GayJay as the best of three bad choices is not the same thing as coming out in favor of a particular policy he supported. And not writing about an issue is not the same as supporting it. Honestly, I am seeing a lot of projection here based on your pet issues.

  • Just Say'n||

    I offered you several examples including their foundation eventually joining the side of the bakers, but under the auspices of free speech rather than religious liberty.

    And not covering something is stating a position. Let's be honest- it wouldn't matter what I argued to you, because you won't accept it.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    No, a simple link to an article would to, if the article a) calls for the government to restrict someone's religious liberty or b) calls for the government to restrict someone's free speech.

  • ThomasD||

    "So you have no examples of Reason opposing religious liberty or free speech."

    Boy, you sure nailed him.

  • MSimon||

    Democrats SHOULD have abortions.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Except the part where he advises people to pet every stray cat they see. That is unforgivable.

  • ThomasD||

    Not if you pet them hard enough.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Everyone deserves toxoplasmosis.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""it's just sad that it's now considered some kind of mind blowing concept.""

    its sort of like how Trump's political platform...which is basically, "A 1980s Democrat like Dick Gephardt"... is now considered "extreme right-wing". Its not that his ideas are new or different or even remotely "Fascist" = its that the public has been tuned to treat everything to the right of Bernie as "extreme".

    The same can be said for peterson, who mostly recites things like gender-models are the norm *for valid biological and historical reasons*, not because of some artificial social-construct which oppresses anyone. He says boring and obvious shit, but it comes off as 'extreme' because a generation of the media-employed audience has gone full-retard and swallowed decades of gender-studies gibberish.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Remind me, when did Dick Gephardt talk about how we should be more like General Pershing when he had Muslim terrorists shot with bullets dipped in pigs' blood?

  • GILMORE™||

    It was pig grease, and it was the british in pakistan, and what in god's name are you even blabbering about

  • Hail Rataxes||

    The made-up story Trump likes to tell is about General Pershing and pigs' blood. It's almost like you're not familiar with the bullshit daddy likes to spout.

  • GILMORE™||

    -"daddy"?

    when i point out that idiots over-react about Trump...

    ...you don't really make an effective counter-case by calling him the american version of "Furher"

    never mind, i'll throw you in the tony-hole.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    And when I point out that you don't know shit about the politician you purport to defend, you get sand in your vagina.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Look, Virginia, I realize you're upset that daddy walked out on you and you're taking out your anger on the stepfather, but one day you'll figure out the former deserves more blame than the latter.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's almost like you're not familiar with the bullshit daddy likes to spout

    Unlike you, we don't obsessively track every utterance from a politician or reality TV huckster like a childless 40-something woman memorizing the details of the latest episode of Grey's Anatomy.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Yes, I know you're very proud of your ignorance.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Yes, I know you're very proud of your ignorance.

    How many boxes of wine do you go through while reading Trump's twitter feed?

  • JesseAz||

    And Obama once praised mao. Therefore everything he ever stated was nothing but pro propaganda bullshit. This is the argument you're making of trump.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    No, the argument I'm making about Trump is that he's not exactly like Dick Gephardt.

  • Just Say'n||

    Policy wise he is. His disposition is unlike any previous politician, though. That's true. He's offensive

  • BYODB||

    Good thing no one made the argument that he was exactly like Dick Gephardt, then.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, pretty much this. We're witnessing a generation that no one remembered to teach any type of philosophy to whatsoever grope their way through the dark towards nothing in particular.

    The death knell of an empire, I suspect. Thankfully our forgotten forebears left us nuclear weapons in enough quantity to possibly destroy the planet. Those should extend our ever-hastening demise by quite some time, provided we can continue to live off foreign labor and welfare.

    When people can't even figure out gender anymore, we're pretty much fucked.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I've watched some of his stuff. 90% of it is just standard self-help be all you can be common sense. He offers a few unique insights based on his work as a clinical psychologist. of course we all know that in todays world common sense and facts are racist and facist.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I think the only reason he's such a big deal now is that a lot of younger people have never been told that they're not special and that they need to grow the hell up. 30 years ago, no one would have paid any attention to that.

  • esteve7||

    JP is saying people know to be true but they've never been told. The SJW crowd wants you to be a victim, makes you think you're powerless to do anything (without their help), etc.

    JP tells you to clean your damn room and go make something of yourself.

    I've told the story of my cousin a few times here, but he is 14 and him and some of his friends have really taken to peterson. I thought they would be bored when I was playing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68tFnjkIZ1Q) in the car, but they hung on every word.

  • Ariki||

    Yeah that is my take on it too. It's a generational thing.

    I have listened/read most of Peterson's work because every now and then I need a boost to my motivation, or I want to explore a different conceptual perspective of the world. i like the guy, I like what he does. And I agree with most of it. However, I am 36 so I grew up on the tail end of generation X before the ideas that spawned grunge had truly taken hold.

    The reason that Peterson is so inspiring to young men is because the majority of them have been told their entire lives that their very nature is bad.
    In schools the new standard of behaviour is little girls, so any boisterousness, any desire to build, to destroy, to compete is a negative trait.

    How can a female teacher who has been educated in a female education system understand the behaviour of a boy? They cant.

  • Ariki||

    In my country it is highly likely that a student wont encounter a male teacher until they reach high school at age 13. According to 2017 data; Preschool teachers are 97% female, primary school teachers are 85% female, intermediate (middle school?) teachers are 72% female, and high school teachers are 60% female.

    A female friend of mine is a teacher and told me stories about her school preventing any boys from playing any "boy" games; soldiers/war, cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, knights of the round table, as these games are grounded in toxic masculine notions of violence.

    When I corrected her by saying that these games are not about violence at all but rather about being the hero, fighting against the bad guys (yes someone has to be the bad guy but you swap roles to learn from both sides), standing up and being a good man, she was shocked.
    During her entire education she had never been told "why" boys play these competitive games.

    So, when someone like Peterson tells these young boys the opposite of their entire education, tells them that their instincts are not evil, tells them that by embracing their nature they have the power to make the world a better place, they tend to stand up and listen.

    It is funny how during times of world crisis the universe puts forward those who are needed.

  • Steve-O||

    I don't think the practical points he's trying to make are particularly mind-blowing, but the way he goes about it is. Peterson thinks about things in patterns, and his philosophy is rooted in evolutionary psychology and Jungian archetypes. For me, and probably for a lot of people, this is an entirely new way of thinking about the world.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    That's why I'm saying it says more about the current times than it does about anything else. It's run of the mill philosophy that literally nobody has ever been exposed to before. It's like watching hipsters read one thing by Nietzsche then turning into goth punks.

  • Nardz||

    Nietzsche would've hated goths. Goths on the other hand, both Visi and Ostro, he had some respect for.

  • Shirley Knott||

    "Zombie Strippers" has the last word on Nietzsche.
    Nothing further need be said.

  • Petie Cue||

    Take a look at Maps of Meaning. His Twelve Rules for Life is a dumbed-down version of his philosophy with practical applications. Maps of Meaning is mind-blowing, in that it attempts to pull together politics, philosophy, Jungian psychology, and the nature of mind and embodiment in a coherent framework. It requires reading a little, mentally chewing it for a few days, and then reading a little more.

  • Petie Cue||

    Take a look at Maps of Meaning. His Twelve Rules for Life is a dumbed-down version of his philosophy with practical applications. Maps of Meaning is mind-blowing, in that it attempts to pull together politics, philosophy, Jungian psychology, and the nature of mind and embodiment in a coherent framework. It requires reading a little, mentally chewing it for a few days, and then reading a little more.

  • JonFrum||

    Peterson says himself that it's mindblowing that just saying stand up straight and clean your room before you try to save the world should be considered notable.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    And he gets credit from me on that level of awareness.

  • Microaggressor||

    It's true that much of what he's saying isn't groundbreaking. The reason it matters is the context of our times. Some things that used to be common knowledge, like the positive aspects of masculinity, are being actively suppressed by the modern day Marxist influencers. It's a message that a lot of people never got to hear because the usual suspects have worked overtime to make it taboo. He's become a sensation because he's blowing up the Overton window and undoing the decades of effort Marxists have made to shape the culture to their liking.

    The message that you are ultimately responsible for your lot in life, and others are not to blame, is a message that dearly needs to be heard these days, because it's a toxic mentality that will only lead to a miserable life.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Thanks for the longer version of what I said.

  • Boomer||

    The thing is, based on what I've seen of him, he would not call himself a philosopher. I think what he does is frame often dense philosophical concepts in terms of contemporary pop culture, making it more digestible to people who don't have a degree in philosophy.

    Some might say that makes him no different than any other modern Pied Piper, and that may be true. But it doesn't change the fact he's tapped into a previously aimless (or at least misaimed) social energy, and he's trying to do with it what he believes will make things better for a lot of people.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I think what he does is frame often dense philosophical concepts in terms of contemporary pop culture, making it more digestible to people who don't have a degree in philosophy.

    Sure, nothing wrong with that. Other philosophers have done the same thing.

    But it doesn't change the fact he's tapped into a previously aimless (or at least misaimed) social energy, and he's trying to do with it what he believes will make things better for a lot of people.

    Indeed. As I said, it says more about the times than it does about the man.

  • Dan S.||

    What kind of man is that [i.e. Trump]? Perhaps an example of exactly the kind of "toxic masculinity" that Peterson's followers don't think is toxic at all? Perhaps. But perhaps we'd all be better off if people on all sides stopped "diagnosing" their political or ideological opponents with "psychological disorders" of various kinds. Almost certainly.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    No, when someone disagrees with you there are only two possibilities:

    1. They're insane
    2. They're evil

    /sarc (obviously)

  • Pro Libertate||

    You missed "insanely evil" and "evilly insane." And "insane weevil."

  • Tony||

    I think this may be more true of the majority of commenters at Reason than it is card-carrying members of the GOP, who at least know when it stops being politically tenable to support kid fuckers and world-class grifters.

  • Shirley Knott||

    We all pray for the Democrats to rise to that level of ethical insight.

  • Fancylad||

    kid fuckers and world-class grifters
    Gerry Studds and the Clinton Foundation are now honorary Republicans.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Since Bill Clinton diddled an intern in the Oval Office, social liberals have been saying that a politician's sex life is private matter and has nothing to do with the job. Now Trump is in office, social liberals are pearl clutching that conservatives have embraced that outlook. Why is whatever took place between Trump and Stormy Daniels before Trump was elected not a private matter that is irrelevant to the job?

  • Tony||

    If you bothered to pay attention to what liberals are actually saying, you see them bending over backward not to give a shit about the actual sex and infidelity (if not the cosmic hypocrisy of the people who support Trump despite making a global crisis out of Clinton's penis).

  • Just Say'n||

    Why do you think people are being hypocrites on infidelity? This should be a cause for introspection from your side, but it won't be

  • Tony||

    Because once even the biggest moral prigs gain power (say, to appoint judges), they miraculously discover the virtue of ends justifying means?

  • Just Say'n||

    So you realize that the inability of your side to realize how poisonous the current brand of the Democratic Party is to vast swaths of the country is why it's been reduced to regional party status, right?

    How could a religious person vote for Hillary Clinton when her agenda included ending religious liberty and forcing others to pay for abortion?

  • Tony||

    Never let it be said that I didn't sufficiently praise the Republican party's propaganda efforts. If only they could apply that skill to governing.

  • Just Say'n||

    The GOP didn't need to employ any "propaganda" efforts, your boy sued a bunch of nuns because they didn't want to buy contraceptives. You can't be this dense. It's your policies that are losing your elections.

  • Tony||

    Those policies being ending religious liberty and taxpayer funded abortions, yes?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Or forcing anti-cowpox supporters of the income tax to pay the CDC for vaccines against foreign attacks with biological weapons? Mystical fanatic sockpuppets are what piped the income tax from the Communist Manifesto to the US Constitution per Bellamy, Howells, Jack London et alii. Now they whine because the libertarian party 1972 platform managed to secure some individual rights for women (and reduce the risk of Malthusian disaster) despite the harm already done by Christian National Socialism with its Comstock laws. Just sayin'...

  • Just Say'n||

    "and reduce the risk of Malthusian disaster"

    Holy shit, you're way dumber than I thought. You're so stupid that you actually believe in peak population. That's a whole other level of retard.

  • ace_m82||

    ...Christian National Socialism...

    I've brought this up several times, and still you repeat the lie. The Nazis were NOT Christian. They specifically tried to co-opt the name to garner more support.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

    "The Nazis eventually gave up their attempt to co-opt Christianity, and made little pretence at concealing their contempt for Christian beliefs, ethics and morality."

    "No, Christianity is not dependent upon the Apostle's Creed... True Christianity is represented by the party" - An actual Nazi

    Why do you lie? Why should anyone listen to you?

  • Tony||

    What, are Christians and Nazis in competition to see who can kill more people for irrational reasons?

  • ace_m82||

    I'm sorry, haven't atheists (government worshipers) killed more in the past 100 years than all (other) religions throughout time?

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

    People who call themselves "Christian" who initiate force are wrong. So are all other people. I will defend none of them.

  • Chipper Jones||

    This explains your desire to significantly curtail the size and scope of government.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The social liberals got the standards they said they wanted, and now they are bitching about it. Which is hypocrisy.

  • Tony||

    There's plenty to bitch about without specifically going after his wayward dick, and we aren't, if you'd pay attention.

  • MarkLastname||

    This is precious. Every left wing rag in the country spends half its space on Stormy Daniels or Steele dossier pee fetish conspiracy theories, but "we" aren't interested in his sex life. Maybe you should pay attention.

  • Tony||

    I didn't say they weren't talking about it. It is news, just like it would have been if Obama had done any of things. Just like it was when Clinton did 1% of those things. Why are you whining so much?

  • damikesc||

    Well, Trump hasn't had the ATF kill dozens of religious wackos, so Clinton does that have on him. Also, didn't blame the media for a massive bombing. Didn't sit back and refuse to call the Rwandan genocide a genocide because we'd be forced to do something.

  • Tony||

    So you're in favor of humanitarian intervention by Western powers. Not in Libya I suspect! And Trump's primary goal is to round up and expel 10 million undesirables, and when he appoints recently pardoned concentration camp leader Joe Arpaio to do that, I'm sure you'll have a lame excuse then too.

  • damikesc||

    So you're in favor of humanitarian intervention by Western powers.

    Hey, if they want to say "genocide is cool", then have the balls to say it. "Never Again", as we have learned, was always a lie.

    Not in Libya I suspect!

    You're aware a "civil war" and a "genocide" aren't the same thing, right?

    And Trump's primary goal is to round up and expel 10 million illegals

    Yup, enforcing border law is kinda important.

    and when he appoints recently pardoned concentration camp leader Joe Arpaio to do that, I'm sure you'll have a lame excuse then too.

    Ironic that the only President to use concentration camps was a Democrat, ain't it?

  • Tony||

    Okay so you think governments should treat human beings is heavily dependent on the words used to describe them (as opposed to anything they've done).

  • damikesc||

    Okay so you think governments should treat human beings is heavily dependent on the words used to describe them (as opposed to anything they've done).

    You're aware that was precisely Clinton's belief, right?

    My view is that if it cannot harm the US, it is not our concern. Lots of bad shit in the world. Leave it where it is and let them fix it. That, of course, also means don't bring those problems HERE, either.

  • Tony||

    So why are you bitching about Rwanda?

    If nothing else we got out of Rwanda a lesson in how much rightwing talk radio can corrupt brains and cause mass death.

  • BYODB||

    It's amazing that you've gone through life with such a magical inability to retain any information about your own party in either it's beliefs, history, or current day status. Truly, you are a marvel of partisanship that can not even retain the memories of things your own party has done. Yet, somehow, every misstep of the Republicans (of which there are many) are branded into your skin forever.

  • damikesc||

    If nothing else we got out of Rwanda a lesson in how much rightwing talk radio can corrupt brains and cause mass death.

    What "right wing" things were said in the government broadcasts?

    Provide examples.

    Because I know you would never peddle debunked conspiracy theories and all.

  • Tony||

    Genocide against an undesirable ethnic group is the distilled essence of rightwingism. It's what it aspires most to.

    The civilized world exists to attempt to prevent this. Guess which side you're on?

  • damikesc||

    Genocide against an undesirable ethnic group is the distilled essence of rightwingism.

    Stalin was right wing?

    Pol Pot?

    Explain what part of "right-wingism" is pro-genocide. I know you cannot, but the attempt will be amusing.

    Isn't it odd that Communists killed far more people than the Nazis did? Like multiple times more people...I guess Communists were all right-wing.

    The civilized world exists to attempt to prevent this. Guess which side you're on?

    You might want to read up on Rwanda. It was not the Right who worked hard to avoid trying to prevent this.

  • Tony||

    I thought I told you that you were too dumb to talk to me.

  • damikesc||

    While I do bow to your expertise on idiocy, your opinion on others seems specious at best.

  • MarkLastname||

    You are truly delusional. Democrats are bending over backwards to ignore Trump's sex life? Have you seen the Daily Show or Jon Oliver lately? Or Jonathan Chait's proclamation about being a "pee-Liever?"

  • Tony||

    Comedians making fun of Trump, well I never! Maybe we should just ban comedians.

  • damikesc||

    CNN is comedy?

    Well, can't disagree there.

  • Mark22||

    if not the cosmic hypocrisy of the people who support Trump despite making a global crisis out of Clinton's penis

    (1) Clinton serially abused his position of power to harass and abuse women and even used government employees to procure women for him.

    (2) Trump (may have) paid a porn star a lot of money for something; a voluntary transaction.

    Yes, classical liberals, libertarians and conservatives have a much bigger problem with (1) than with (2).

    (Though, frankly, what I found most shocking about Clinton is his poor taste in women; Clinton seemed to be willing to f*ck anything with a vagina.)

  • Karen24||

    I can't speak for all liberals, but my problem is not with Trump having an affair with Stormy Daniels. I am, however, livid at social conservatives who thought a Democrat's blow job was a constitutional crisis but yawn at Trump's aggressive adultery.

  • Just Say'n||

    Why do you think people are being hypocrites on infidelity? This should be a cause for introspection from your side, but it won't be

  • ||

    I am, however, livid at social conservatives who thought a Democrat's blow job was a constitutional crisis but yawn at Trump's aggressive adultery.

    To be fair (once again) he was only convicted of lying under oath and quite a few women said that Bill Clinton raped them or used is political power to coerce them Weinstein/Cosby/Moore/#metoo-style.

    Trump, OTOH, as a private citizen was pretty well-known to have started dating his second wife before his first divorce. It's a decent slight to Melania if you think she was under the impression that she was really jumping into bed with an honest, upright and first class gentlemen.

  • ThomasD||

    "... a Democrat's blow job..."

    Yes, that is exactly what it was. It had nothing to do with lying under oath or a double standard for enforcing sexual harassment law.

    Thanks for reminding everyone.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    They have repeated that lie so often that many Americans actually believe it.

    They block out the alleged and substantiated facts that Clinton sexually harassed and sexually assaulted subordinates and campaign workers. Clinton lied in depositions and before a grand jury under oath. Clinton was disbarred for the latter by the the US Supreme Court. He wasn't disbarred for a blow job.

  • ThomasD||

    "They have repeated that lie so often that many Americans actually believe it."

    Which is why they repeat it every chance they get.

  • damikesc||

    I can't speak for all liberals, but my problem is not with Trump having an affair with Stormy Daniels. I am, however, livid at social conservatives who thought a Democrat's blow job was a constitutional crisis but yawn at Trump's aggressive adultery.

    Did Trump lie under oath about it?

    Because that is why Clinton was impeached.

    Getting blown by a fat chick is something plenty of dudes have done. After all, the dick isn't going to suck itself.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But who is actually complaining about the sex part? I think it's really just the moral scold wing of the Right that is pearl-clutching about that.

  • damikesc||

    Actually, the Left is concern-trolling that the "moral scold wing" (and, let's be honest, there is no larger moral scold wing than the feminist movement on the Left) isn't upset about it.

  • rbulldog||

    "there is no LARGER moral scold wing than the feminist movement"

    *narrows gaze*

    I see what you did there.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    There's a difference between power and authority. The US has the power to mass-produce its currency, and yet it lacks the authority to vest the dollar with intrinsic value.

    Leadership and power work in a similar manner. Far from being fungible, the presence of one does not guarantee the other. Hillary and the DNC have oodles of power. At the same time, nothing is ever their fault. No, it's the white women, the darkies, a gap in rural wifi, the Red Menace, Bernie Sanders, and the FBI. Hillary didn't do anything wrong, she just happened to get a bad result when the universe failed her.

    Power is fun. Power makes things easier. Leadership is hard. When we're in charge, the buck stops here. Even when it was really a subordinate's screw-up, because who was responsible for training the subordinates? The leader, that's who. Even when it's unfair, and a freak storm causes havoc, because who's job is it to anticipate all points of failure and mitigate in advance? The leader.

    Anyone can stand in the wreckage, shake their fist at the sky, and demand repairs be effected immediately. It's easy. The guy ruefully rolling up his sleeves with plans to set it all to rights and make sure it doesn't happen again - that's the man in charge.

    Leadership comes with responsibility. It's a damned shame power doesn't work that way as well.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Gap In Rural Wifi was my nickname in college.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I just want to know what happened to the other five Citizen Xs.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    That's not the version number, that's my place in your namesake's List of Top 10 Hit'n'Run Fascists. Note: the defining feature of a fascist is a willingness to sass o.g. Hihn.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Oh, the hijinks this commentariat has seen.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    In the last list Hihn put out, I was number one.

  • BYODB||

    He's oddly fond of lists for a Libertarian, one might note.

  • ThomasD||

    Citizens I through IX were all sent to Room CI.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    At first I thought it was a Seven of Nine thing. Then, maybe Whovian. I had to eventually concede the possibilities were endless. Clone army. Vat-grown assassins. Mormons. I have to admit a secret plot hatched by the Vatican, hailing from the days of ancient Rome did not occur to me, and I curse my poor imagination.

  • ThomasD||

    Sigh...

  • ThomasD||

    Although I should not be surprised that Orwell is firmly in your blindspot.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Yes. How offensive of me to pick up on Roman numerals rather than Orwell. My apologies.

  • ThomasD||

    If you read them as numbers it should be obvious.

    You might need to move your lips, that's ok.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Of course. I should have read the Roman numerals as numbers. I do hope you can forgive this egregious lapse on my part.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The ability to counterfeit is ability, not political power. The 1908 definition of government makes it the monopolist of deadly force, which is uses to enforce every law from littering to larceny. Normal journalistic usage, especially in wartime, assumes that political power is the time derivative of the use of deadly force, which fits the context just fine. Let's not cheapen the language unnecessarily.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I've noticed folks get remarkably distracted by the perception of communication failure. I'm not sure if anyone understood what I said though. It's almost as if I could have been saying anything, really, and what the brain sees is words words words random et cetera, words words Shiny look at my words.

    And the brain says, "Shiny isn't a proper noun or the start to a sentence, there was no reason to capitalize it."

    But what was communicated?

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    The 'but' what in reference to... *makes all-encompassing hand gestures* ... you know, like, everything. Not just me. Didn't think I'd communicated that effectively.

  • ace_m82||

  • Eidde||

    The author switches quickly from "conservatives" to "Republicans" and then he seems to presume that voting for a corrupt human being means endorsing the corruption. Maybe it's a concession to reality in which voters pretty much have to choose among corrupt politicians all the time.

    Perhaps some of the "whataboutism" is overdone, but it's in the context of attacks saying Trump is *uniquely evil* threat to all that's good and decent, and white women were betraying their sex by voting for him instead of Hillary, etc.

  • Eidde||

    A *responsible* voter doesn't sulk in his tent because Sir Galahad isn't one of the candidates, he goes to the polling place and tries conscientiously to select the candidates who suck least - perhaps weeding out the nonviable candidates (but that part is controversial).

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Um, no

  • Eidde||

    Really? What is your recommended approach?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Stop

  • Eidde||

    I don't understand what you're trying to say.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You don't understand "Stop"? Really?

  • Eidde||

    If you're telling me to stop, I'll take your views into consideration, but I can't promise I'll obey.

  • Eidde||

    I remain unclear as to your position on voting, though it's possible you don't really have a coherent position.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I remain unclear as to your position on voting,

    I'm amazed about your inability to understand "Stop". That's my position on voting. Stop.

  • Eidde||

    OK, I thought you were telling me to stop commenting.

    So, do I dare ask the reasons for your position, or should I just look to Katherine Mangu-Ward to explain your position?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    So, do I dare ask the reasons for your position, or should I just look to Katherine Mangu-Ward to explain your position?

    Katherine's article is a good enough interpretation. Aside from the fact that I no longer have any faith in the government and have no wish to even tacitly support it, I live in MA so my vote for anything federal is completely irrelevant. Of all the local politicians I could vote for, there are none I would consider less evil and there are none who share even part of my views on anything. I figure I'd be better off spending the 30-45 minutes it would take me to vote doing something I enjoy.

  • Eidde||

    I can see that, and indeed, non-voters are a big "voting bloc" so I can't dismiss the views of that many people as irrational.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Translation: LeftandRight socialist infiltrators come here to try to get libertarians to throw away their law-changing spoiler vote clout. Every LP vote carries the law-changing clout of anything from six to several thousand looter votes and undermines both the fascist and communist agendas. So naturally it is a good investment. Every such gambit that sticks is the same as adding at least six suckers to their own initiators of force.

  • Mark22||

    Sparky is saying "give up and let Democrats and progressives take over the country".

  • MarkLastname||

    While voting may not be rational for the individual, it's hard to argue that boycotting voting is an effective political position. In fact it's kind of the definition of a counterproductive one.

  • ThomasD||

    " In fact it's kind of the definition of a counterproductive one."

    In so far as it gives politicians/authorities incentive to seek to discourage participation and in effect cultivate only the sorts of voters who will vote for them, then yes, it is profoundly counterproductive.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You are missing the point. That's like if someone said "I don't fuck prostitutes, because I don't want to get an STD," and you reply with "that is not an effective way to have sex for money."

  • ThomasD||

    Wow, That is so profoundly inapt I'm frankly at a loss for words.

    Bravo.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Translation: looter sockpuppet code says to wing it and say anything, no matter how stupid, to get libertarians to not cast libertarian spoiler votes like the ones that stopped our Comstock coathanger abortion laws. Reference: Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, Chapter 2. How to Become a Statesman, "I got a marketable commodity——one vote."

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    That's the way it's working right now in Venezuela. Perhaps we could ponder this. A moment's thought, at the least.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Venezuelans have no libertarian party. They have to vote (at gunpoint) for fascist or communist parties, or not at all. Same in Brazil, where NOTA carried majorities in many of the largest mayoral races. The infiltrator strategy is to convince libertarians that the choice is between hiring looter candidates--until they can ban our party. The real choice is between using spoiler votes to make the worst looter platform lose so they have to change it and repeal bad laws.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I'm really trying and I'm not seeing how we aren't vehemently agreeing. Run it past me again.

  • ace_m82||

    Not "lesser evil", "greatest good".

    ALL of history shows that voting for the lesser evil gets (pay attention now), greater evils the next time around. The party will continue to nominate evils because you'll vote for them. Eventually, you'll have to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump! (God only knows what it will look like in 2024!)

    No, pick the greatest good. If there isn't even one candidate that gets to up to 0, then vote "none of the above".

    ^My voting guide.

  • Eidde||

    OK, I can see cases where the choices are so bad there's nothing of relevance to choose between them.

    But assume a case - I mean, this is totally hypothetical - of two corrupt big-spending blowhards, one of whom screws prostitutes and then pays them off, the other of whom covers for her cheating husband and promotes the killing of unborn babies. One of them has a list of more or less sound judicial candidates he'll appoint, and the other has a list of unsound candidates. Then the prostitute guy is actually the lesser evil, unless you're comparing him to the 3rd parties, but again hypothetically, let's assume the minor party candidates are as puke-inducing as the major-party options.

    I would understand not voting in such a situation, after all, nonvoters are a large, uh, voting bloc.

    But in the looking-glass world of politics, where you have to run just to stay in place, neglecting to vote could allow a candidate to win who would make the country even worse off than it is.

    And conservatives, at least by their rhetoric, are skeptical of utopian dreams attached to politicians, so their expectations are not geared to the highest pitch of idealism like with a Bernie voter.

  • Eidde||

    Wait, I see you're endorsing voting for the best candidate - well, in my hypothetical I'm not sure there's any candidate who's good enough to be called "best" as opposed to "least bad."

  • ace_m82||

    Let's put it this way, if the candidate were to actually win, would they do more "good" than "harm" (in the long term)? If yes, they are a "good". If no, they are an "evil".

    I used to vote for the lesser evil, until I figured out that's what everyone does, and what that historically has led to.

    If there is only a "least bad", then screw 'em, I'll vote "none of the above". I will not be a party to helping one of those "evils" to take power.

    The long term is all that matters. If the lesser evil does "better" in the short term, but it voting for them [A] encourages that party to continue to nominate evils and [B] ensures the greater evil wins the next election, then you've chosen poorly.

    You've chosen NOT to be shot in the foot rather than the liver, your chose to be shot in the foot BEFORE being shot in the liver.

  • ace_m82||

    ^Apologies for all the grammatical errors in the above. I didn't sleep enough last night.

  • Iheartskeet||

    I follow you, but I think your view of the long term is a bit idealistic. When a really bad one gets in, things get done that are irreversible. Or at least, for the past 100 years or so thats been true. The income tax and major social programs, for instance, have proven immune to serious reform/reversal, even when good (or good-ish) people are voted in. My guess is even if we put a saint in there, those things are a permanent part of the landscape now.

    So, by voting for the lesser of two evils, I believe one really does avoid some "evil" in the long run. Hell, if we just stop fucking up for 4 years, let alone improve anything, we'd be golden.

  • ace_m82||

    even when good (or good-ish) people are voted in

    I'm sorry, when has this happened? A few have been elected to Congress, one or two to Senate.

    My guess is even if we put a saint in there, those things are a permanent part of the landscape now.

    Elect me and I'll send everyone home.

    So, by voting for the lesser of two evils, I believe one really does avoid some "evil" in the long run.

    Everything you've just described is caused BY voting for the lesser of two evils! That's what everyone does (tries to do).

    What do you get? Lesser evils that are greater than last cycle's lesser evils. Eventually, you'll have the second worst person in the country "winning" the election. Then you can be comforted that the worst person in the country didn't really mess things up!

  • Iheartskeet||

    I think your thought process simply devolves into a highly fractured electorate. To many here, even someone like Rand Paul isn't quite good enough, and is considered the "lesser of two evils". You are assuming whats "evil" to you is "evil" to everyone.

    If everyone just stood on PRINCIPLES then we'd likely have 20+ political parties. I don't think being more like Italy is a good thing. Plus, even with all that PRINCIPLED voting going on, they end up having to make deals with each other to get anything done, so it doesn't seem to serve any practical purpose.

    So, instead we have two big political parties, and we choose the least-worst package of policies.

  • ace_m82||

    I think your thought process simply devolves into a highly fractured electorate.

    Assuming that's true, is that a bad thing?

    You are assuming whats "evil" to you is "evil" to everyone.

    It need not be, but in my studies, the best way to measure the "evil" is by governmental power, which is always at the expense of the individual rights. The best way to measure governmental power is by spending (though this isn't perfect).

    So, evil is best estimated by governmental spending. If the politician will spend more, they are an "evil". If they spend less they are a "good".

    Plus, even with all that PRINCIPLED voting going on, they end up having to make deals with each other to get anything done

    The thing is, that's a best case scenario. Government should do nothing. It's twice an initiation of force, once when it taxes, and again when it demands a monopoly on force.

    So, instead we have two big political parties, and we choose the least-worst package of policies.

    And we see what that strategy ends with, Trump vs Clinton. It will just keep getting worse. You incentivize the parties to nominate evil when you vote for it...

  • BYODB||

    Am I the only one who took political science? Your vote is always a waste at the national level, the only vote that matters is the collective vote you're able to swing behind what you want to happen.

    Duh-doi, McFly!

    Arguably, the exact same things plays out in local elections it's just all a lot more compressed and people have closer viewpoints, generally, the smaller the geographical area.

    This isn't even rocket science, did you guys go to college?

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, college. Studied economics. In the meantime I studied real (Austrian) economics so I wouldn't be ruined by government worshiping professors.

    I understand incentives and long term results. "Lesser evil" strategy of voting results in what you now see in political parties, and I fail to see how that conclusion would be controversial in any way.

    Ergo, the paradigm must be changed, unless we think this is the best case scenario! It's never too late to do the smart thing for the long term.

  • Hank Phillips||

    See? The idea is to get you to think about looters, not principles.

  • GILMORE™||

    May 2018 Reason Editorial meeting:

    Editor: "we need stuff on Peterson"
    Writers: (groan)
    Editor: "Yes, I know, he's too big to do the Milo on."
    Writers: "But he's so boring"
    Editors: "Look, donors want something"
    Robby: "Well, firstly ..."
    Editor: "Shut the fuck up Robby."
    Writers: "What's the point? He hardly says anything controversial. He just pisses off the SJW types saying boring-but-truisms"
    Editor: "Discredit and distort him, then use as cudgel against his own supporters"
    Writers: "I thought you said, "not the Milo"
    Editor: "Its an Indirect Milo. The purpose is to discredit the voices of anyone criticizing the left, and use them against the right. Have you forgotten our mandate?"
    Writers: (grumble)
    Matt: "I can pretend people think he's Jesus?"
    Editor: "That's a good start"
    Hinkle: "How about, "Republicans Need to Clean Their Room?"
    Editor: "What the fuck are you talking about?"
    Hinkle: "Its a Peterson reference"
    Editor: "you actually READ the guy?"
    Hinkle: "..... well...."
    (hostile stares)
    Hinkle: "...not really. i picked that up on twitter"
    (sigh of relief)
    Editor: "I like the sound of it. Can't it be more aggressive tho?"
    Matt: "How about: "Peterson is GOP Jesus""
    Editor: "Not sure that works alongside your piece"
    Matt: "Aw"
    Hinkle: "How about, "Peterson is the cure for GOP ills"
    Editor: "Too 'cowbell', but we can fix that. Probably the best we're going to get for the shit we pay you"

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    A. Barton Hinkle is senior editorial writer and a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

  • Just Say'n||

    Welch had a piece over the weekend

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I know, but Bart wouldn't have been at a Reason editor's meeting.

  • GILMORE™||

    "Also: Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal was fatally flawed commentary because of the obvious insufficient nutritional properties of poor-babies corpses"

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    The classic chicken soup consists of a clear chicken broth, often with pieces of chicken or vegetables; common additions are pasta, dumplings, or grains such as rice and barley. Chicken soup has acquired the reputation of a folk remedy for colds and influenza, and in many countries is considered a comfort food.

  • GILMORE™||

    Satire should alway stick to dry fact, said the humorless idiot

  • ThomasD||

    Sparky wants your artistic license revoked.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Sparky wants your artistic license revoked.

    You call that art?

  • ThomasD||

    Artistic license is no guarantee of output.

    But what makes you think you are the final arbiter?

  • GILMORE™||

    Also, Star Wars was total bullshit because in space you'd never hear the Death Star explode. I mean come the fuck on people its like basic physics.

  • GILMORE™||

    -"Fact-checking = a helpful antidote to wit for the insipid reader"

  • GILMORE™||

    Carbon is the most abundant element in the universe

  • Pro Libertate||

    H.

  • GILMORE™||

    I was hoping to get fact-checked

  • Pro Libertate||

    I fell into your carbon-based trap!

  • ThomasD||

    You've been sequestered.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    The only was Gilmore can get off is if someone fact checks him.

  • GILMORE™||

    Fact check: False

    I only climax by baiting Michael Hihn into attacking me and then driving him into bolded-all-caps screeching.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Nice:)

  • Microaggressor||

    I'm still pretty surprised so many people know so little about him, they just know about him. Like, all you have to do is type his name in YouTube and spend some time there watching 10 minute clips and you'll get the gist of him.

    Matt managed to read his book and still know almost nothing about him. His weekend piece was a colossal fuckup.

  • Fancylad||

    Alright, that was pretty good.

  • ThomasD||

    So, the comment to Welch's article about Jordan Peterson being the journolist topic of the week is apparently accurate...

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Before, nobody was taking about it because nobody was talking about it. Now everyone's talking about it, so everyone has to say something about it.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Oh look it's more butthurt Peterson fans, what a surprise

  • ThomasD||

    Butthurt Marxist is butthurt.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Lol, yes, everyone who's not a pathetic Jungian loser is a Marxist.

  • Just Say'n||

    Do you take issue with Jung too? It's hard to keep up with all the people that must be un-personed in the Left's cultural revolution

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Yes, I want to unperson him, not criticize his shitty ideas, of course. God you're fucking retarded.

  • Just Say'n||

    Clearly you are retarded, because I don't think you are even aware of who Jung is. Actually, I know you don't. And I'd venture to guess you've never read anything by him. Fail Rataxes

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Lol, you "know" I'm not aware of who Jung is? You're the one who's barely aware of who Peterson is, as you freely admit. Would you like to actually defend Jung on any grounds whatsoever? Would you like to explain what we should learn from Jungian archetypes? Would you like to explain why we should believe in a collective unconscious? I'll wait.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes, I freely admit that I haven't read anything about Peterson, but I am surprised that people like you who have read nothing by Peterson and are only vaguely familiar with Jung suddenly have such strong opinions.

    And, yes, you are clearly Crusty's sock puppet.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    What makes you think I've read nothing by Peterson or Jung? Not everyone is a know-nothing asshole.

  • ThomasD||

    "God you're fucking retarded."

    Sounds vaguely familiar. That you Crusty?

  • esteve7||

    no, everyone who is a pathetic loser IS a Marxist.

  • ||

    The only successful Marxists tend to have guns and kill people.

  • MarkLastname||

    You do know a thing or two about butthurt I bet.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Can we just agree that everyone on this thread has a little bit of butthurt going on?

  • ||

    No.

    There's a difference between criticism and being butthurt.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The GOP need to join the Democrats in denouncing Republican candidates for being sleazebags, while the media lionizes and deifies the Democrat candidates. Sounds like a winning strategy there Lou.

  • juris imprudent||

    And yet the LP stands ready to recycle Republicans as Presidential candidates.

  • GILMORE™||

    ouch

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, what's up with that?

  • Eidde||

    Not just any Republicans, they have to be carefully vetted to make sure they're willing to endorse Democratic candidates running against their own ticket, and that they support compulsory nazi cakes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    He said he was sorry.

    Seriously, no one else? Maybe if the LP's goal was, I dunno, to limit government, maybe they'd get better candidates.

  • GILMORE™||

    " Maybe if the LP's goal was, I dunno, to limit government..."

    This is crazy fascist-talk and a sign of growing right-wing extremism in the Reason commentariat.

  • ||

    Hilary was a fine public servant.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Ah, Reason, when you aren't arguing that Rs and Ds are moral equivalents, you're arguing that Rs have an especially depraved nature to atone for.

    You are really cementing my Trump 2020 vote.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Have you actually READ all the crap that's been collected on Trump and buddies, here in the above article? Checked out the links? And after that, are you going to vote Trump in the next (R) primaries? WTF? Please explain, as you would to a child!

  • Eidde||

    He didn't specify primary or general.

  • SQRLSY One||

    If Iheartskeet is gonna vote Trump in the primaries, after having studied the links here, then I dearly hope that all of the other (R)s in the primaries are variously Hitler-Stalin-Mao or AIDs viruses or some such, because otherwise, no sane and decent human would punch the primary ballot for Trump!

  • Iheartskeet||

    I can't tell any more...is yours a parody account ? Did I miss sarcasm ?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Not sarcastic here. Trump is a nasty over-inflated narcissist, and if better, smarter people don't keep a very-very close eye on him, he could very easily lead us to wrack and ruin! See my comment further below...

  • SQRLSY One||

    I fundamentally think that a huge percentage of Trump voters (who bothered to study up in the slightest) voted for a Pussy-Grabber in Chief who would pussy-grab for them, on behalf of them and theirs! If PGC (Pussy-Grabber in Chief) could pussy-grab the people whose loans he defaulted on, people who'd been ripped off by his "school", and illegal humans who'd worked on building his buildings, and on and on, then SURELY the PGC can grab some pussy for us selfish, short-sighted voters! We can pussy-grab our international trade parters, and other nations, races, and creeds in general!

    These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

  • VOTE MILES||

    Jesus, you're a bore.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Then don't read my shit, you whiner! Can I call a wambulance for you?

  • Fancylad||

    "Can I call a wambulance"
    You probably want the 2004 internet, this one's 2018

  • Iheartskeet||

    It all boils down to this: Compared to what ?

    Have YOU read what the other side is up to ? What their long-term dreams are ? The damage they did in the last administration ?

    My eyes are wide open to Trumps issues, but at the end of the day, he is the smaller of the shit sandwiches that we all have to eat each election cycle. And that is indeed what an election is: eating one of two similar sized (but one smaller) shit sandwiches.

    Also, I said "cementing" and if not clear, it means its not all the way set, but heading there. I don't expect Trump to have a serious challenger in the primaries, but who knows.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "I don't expect Trump to have a serious challenger in the primaries..."

    I pray mightily to Government Almighty that you are wrong!

    But yeah, I hear ya about the shit sandwiches...

  • Hank Phillips||

    Infiltrators Gee-Oh-Peeing in here are shifting your attention from platform planks and spoiler votes changing laws to the grinning teeth of looter politicians. Even George Wallace Dixiecrats understood how spoiler votes work. They knew the redneck would not win, but THEY sure as hell won with their votes. Their Wallace posters said "Send a message to Washington." That message got Nixon and Congress working for the Klan for 8 years. Effective much?

  • ThomasD||

    Is it too obvious to note that 'Bart Hinkle' would never have written such an article?

    Or to note that, if the GOP were 'governing' itself in the manner prescribed, then A. Barton Hinkle would have -no doubt- taken it as reason to criticize them for their top down, over- authoritarian approach to party discipline?

  • JonFrum||

    I just started following the Peterson thing - watching his videos, mostly. And I couldn't help but think - why is it that a Canadian college professor has to be the one to say these things? It seems to me that American conservative politicians fall into two camps - the bigots, and those who are afraid of standing up to criticism from the left. The bigots pine for the old days, when a black man knew his place. And the rest don't have the backbone to make a moral argument against gender nuttiness and other assorted identity goofiness. Better to just keep their heads down, apparently.

  • ThomasD||

    Judging how certain people are responding to Kanye West I'd say it's not conservative bigots who are pining for the days when a black man knew his place.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Because Americans don't vote for Canadians. I suspect any American politician who said these things would soon find himself the target of a lynch mob.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It seems to me that American Left politicians fall into one camp - the identitarian bigots.

  • lap83||

    What about the Democrats? Do they need him at all or do they have it all figured out?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Peterson is a mystical altruist preaching familiar Horatio Alger sermons. The difference between him and the last 4 or 5 Republican candidates is that he does not overtly and loudly shriek for: bombing mohammedans, executing hippies, forcing pregnant women to bleed to death or obey mystical mandates. So his delivery of the Republican Party's Mein Kampf platform is more subdued and intellectual-sounding since he hems, haws and hedges his way around clarity or objectivity with plausible deniability at every turn if pressed for specifics. Like Milo, the guy is a foreign shill, just shilling to a more mature audience in search of Republican votes in US elections.

  • ace_m82||

    forcing pregnant women to bleed to death

    Never heard that one, Strawmanner!

    obey mystical mandates

    Like "Thou shalt not murder"? What is the purpose of government if they're incompetent to define murder?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Readers will observe that every male mystical bigot sockpuppet seeks to redefine a lady as something other than an individual with rights once she has been effectively raped or disappointed. Their whole purpose is to deflect attention from "All persons born..." in the Constitution and bring back the Comstock laws that made ALL forms of birth control--even talking about them--into chain-gang felonies. They never mention that rubbers and diaphragms were banned by their godly grandpappies. The LP wrote the Roe v. Wade decision in its 1972 platform and these Robert Dear clones are out for revenge.

  • ace_m82||

    every male mystical bigot sockpuppet seeks to redefine a lady as something other than an individual with rights once she has been effectively raped or disappointed

    You have no right to murder. It's called "NAP". Just because you've been inconvenienced, by self or against your will, that doesn't give you the right to murder.

    Their whole purpose is to deflect attention from "All persons born..." in the Constitution

    I don't care what it says. It's not magic. We're libertarians, not Constitutionalists.

    They never mention that rubbers and diaphragms were banned by their godly grandpappies.

    Red Herring.

    Now that I've answered your charges, answer mine!

  • MSimon||

    Red Herring.

    Have you ever tried eating that? Even pickled it is terrible.

  • ||

    Jesus, are people ACTUALLY LISTENING to what Peterson says?

    He doesn't say that....at all.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I'm fairly certain Hank Phillips is not a real person.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Translation: Tinker Bell is real.

  • ThomasD||

    It's Hank.

    So long as you view him through a sort of 'free association/word salad (heavy on the word salad)' lens it will begin to appear coherent, if not exactly rational.

  • ThomasD||

    Maybe there's a decoder ring involved...

  • VOTE MILES||

    It is impossible to take him seriously.

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    "The GOP Needs a Dose of Jordan Peterson"

    As does the libertarian party.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    A superstition-curious pop psychologist who can't stand all of this damned progress, reason, education, and tolerance?

    He's a natural fit for the type of libertarian who likes bigoted immigration policies, the drug war, prayer in public schools and religion in science class, gay-bashing, tariffs, government micromanagement of abortion clinics, military belligerence, and affirmative action for disaffected, downscale, socially awkward white males in no-count, can't-keep-up communities.

  • BigT||

    Wow!! That's some powerful stupid there!!

  • VOTE MILES||

    Tony seems to be the punching bag around here. But Hank and Arthur have got to be the most loathsome voices I've encountered on this site.

  • Mark22||

    He's a natural fit for the type of libertarian who likes bigoted immigration policies, the drug war, prayer in public schools and religion in science class, gay-bashing, tariffs, government micromanagement of abortion clinics, military belligerence, and affirmative action for disaffected, downscale, socially awkward white males in no-count, can't-keep-up communities.

    Well said! Allowing for your propagandistic miscuse of language, that's the type of moderately conservative libertarian I am, without apology.

    Now, crawl back into the deep dark shithole you come from, Arthur; nobody here is going to fall for your neo-Marxist, totalitarian bullshit. And increasingly, the American people are wising up as well.

  • Star1988||

    You should try actually listening to Peterson. He offers a path out from your bitterness, resentment, and uselessness.

  • ||

    So far that's two articles on Peterson at Reason.

    I'm leaning 0 for 2.

    Way to go Baltimore Orioles on him guys.

    They're not Cincinnati Reds bad yet.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Maybe another article on Milo telling those bitches to forget about their individual rights?

  • esteve7||

    JP is saying things people know inside is true, but no one can say. Or if you are young, it's never been said to you.

    At the risk of repeating myself --- my 14 yo cousin really took to Peterson when I had one of his lectures on in the car (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68tFnjkIZ1Q). I thought he'd be bored but he said this guy's amazing and started taking notes. I got him 12 Rules for Christmas and he was reading it at school when I picked him up one day.

    JP has a unique presentation style, and tells you not to be a victim and to go make something of yourself, to set yourself in order before criticizing others, to compare yourself to your past, not to other people, etc. Contrast that with all the SJW crap about victims and oppression and blah blah fucking blah. It's no wonder he is so popular with Gen Z, because they look at the failure of the SJW millennials and want none of that.

    Studies have shown Gen Z is going to be the most conservative generation (in terms of values, not politics), since the 1950s. If these victim obsessed marxist SJWs don't shape up, they are going to get leapfrogged by my cousin and everyone else his age.

  • ||

    Well said.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The Republican Party needs to seek professional help."

    Across federal and state government, the Republican Party has more electoral power than it has for a couple of decades, and perhaps my lifetime.

    "Many conservatives have spent the past couple of years making excuses for a man who cheated on his wife with a porn star "

    Reason goes prig about sex and porn. TDS can do anything!

  • Rockabilly||

    Reason goes prig about sex and porn. TDS can do anything!

    You got it there.
    I think Matt or whoever is jealous that the Trumps gets so much poon tang.

  • MSimon||

    And pussy.

  • Rockabilly||

    I'm the big fucking daddy dog.

    These are my orders to the GOP.

    The GOP needs to clean it's fucking room.

    Are they a communist fucking party like the democrats or are they really for limited fucking government ?

    Get your fucking government off my fucking back

    Cut the goobermint by say 96% - no federal taxes, no social security number, end the drug war, and all this other bull shit.

    That should not be too hard. This ain't rocket science but common fucking sense based on what our founders intended for all citizens.

    Get your shit together - ASAP!!!

  • Mark22||

    Trump derangement syndrome is apparently like herpes: once you catch it, you seem to get periodic outbreaks for life.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    As if the Little and Big "L" libertarians don't?

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Well, there you have it. The GOP doesn't need more Jesus. It needs more of a nobody's messiah. It needs more toxic masculinity. It needs to clean up its bedroom. Amen.

  • MSimon||

    Men ARE toxic. By definition.

  • swood1000||

    Some of Trump's defenders respond to lists like these by saying, "Yes, but Clinton...." Which is a tacit admission that Trump's behavior is indefensible on its own terms. How about this instead: Quit making excuses for the inexcusable. Period.

    Sounds like you needed to get that out of your system. In the meantime, we live in an imperfect world, where we had to make a choice between two imperfect people. And the fact is that federal court nominations such as Gorsuch more than compensate for all the personal shortcomings you mentioned. That alone makes Trump preferable to Clinton.

    Most of his supporters are not really justifying Trump's behavior. They are overlooking it, as I am sure you are aware. Your apparent argument is that his brand of character flaw should make any reasonable person prefer the nomination of leftist ideologues to the federal judiciary. Somehow I don't think that was your position when Bill Clinton was in office, but I'm sure you can provide a justification that you find satisfactory.

  • albeit||

    It seems Jordan Peterson's ideas appeal to many more people than answering every question with "less government" or "privatize it."

  • LifeStrategies||

    You say that President Trump "lies about that and everything else."

    Which means you allege he never tells the truth. "[E]verything else" means you insist that President Trump doesn't ever tell the truth. Ever.

    Such mendacious rhetoric says nothing but demonstrate that you are a liar. Yet, outrageously, you condemn the President for doing what you are totally willing to do.

    Which proves that you, Barton Hinkle, are a hypocrite of the highest order - and a proven liar! You don't seem to be very well educated, but have you ever heard that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

  • Kazinski||

    "To take the most obvious example first: Many conservatives have spent the past couple of years making excuses for a man who cheated on his wife with a porn star"

    So the first and most obvious example to prove your theses, on a libertarian blog yet, is that Trump nailed a porn star. How tone deaf can you be?

    First of all, the definition of a libertarian is a Republican that is trying to get laid. Why would they be upset that Trump got laid?

    And second of all, why should the Democrats have all the fun?

  • swood1000||

    Why would they be upset that Trump got laid?

    Because it involved deceiving his wife, committing adultery, and violating vows solemnly made. These are actions most people consider immoral and they don't want to see their president flouting fundamental societal mores. Most libertarians are not amoral. Rather, they believe that people are morally bound by promises they make.

  • MSimon||

    Aren't you assuming about the promises he made his wife?

  • swood1000||

    Aren't you assuming about the promises he made his wife?

    Yes. Such promises are the norm. If they had a special understanding then that would change things.

  • Mark22||

    Because it involved deceiving his wife, committing adultery, and violating vows solemnly made.

    We don't know whether he committed adultery (as opposed to, say, lapdances or private performances), we if we did don't know whether he did it without his wife's knowledge.

    These are actions most people consider immoral

    And a fundamental principle of libertarianism and small government conservatives is that morality is a private matter.

    and they don't want to see their president flouting fundamental societal mores.

    Trump hasn't been "flouting" any extramarital affairs. To the degree that he has had them, he has been trying to keep them clandestine.

    Rather, they believe that people are morally bound by promises they make.

    Conservatives and Christians also believe in forgiveness.

    Finally, I would point out that we didn't have much of a choice in the last election. Compared to a psychopathic killer, liar, and socialist, an adulterer would be the lesser evil.

    If you're going to try to concern-troll conservatives and libertarians, at least try to understand your target audience.

  • swood1000||

    We don't know whether he committed adultery (as opposed to, say, lapdances or private performances), we if we did don't know whether he did it without his wife's knowledge.

    We can only infer based on our understandings of how most marriages operate.

    And a fundamental principle of libertarianism and small government conservatives is that morality is a private matter.

    People will accept whatever arrangement a husband and wife choose for themselves. Once that arrangement has been agreed upon however, most people will find deceit on the part of one party to be immoral.

    Trump hasn't been "flouting" any extramarital affairs. To the degree that he has had them, he has been trying to keep them clandestine.

    I didn't say that he has been flouting his extramarital affairs. (I would have used the term "flaunt" if I had been referring to that.) However, extramarital affairs (without the acquiescence of his wife) would be a flouting of fundamental societal mores that people would not want to see in their president.

  • swood1000||

    Conservatives and Christians also believe in forgiveness.

    Christians believe in forgiveness when there is repentance, which is not in evidence here. Furthermore, they prefer a situation in which forgiveness is not called for.

    Finally, I would point out that we didn't have much of a choice in the last election. Compared to a psychopathic killer, liar, and socialist, an adulterer would be the lesser evil.

    If you're going to try to concern-troll conservatives and libertarians, at least try to understand your target audience.

    See my post about five entries up, dated 5.7.18 @ 8:41PM

  • Mark22||

    Christians believe in forgiveness when there is repentance, which is not in evidence here. Furthermore, they prefer a situation in which forgiveness is not called for.

    How do you know there is no repentance? How do you know forgiveness is called for? You're jumping to conclusions here. To mainstream Christians, Trump and his sins are between him, God, and his wife.

    See my post about five entries up, dated 5.7.18 @ 8:41PM

    Well, this post here suggests that you really don't understand Christians, conservatives or libertarians. It's not that we are "overlooking Trump's character flaws", it is that we don't concern ourselves with the character flaws of others, except to the degree that they impact our lives.

  • swood1000||

    How do you know there is no repentance? How do you know forgiveness is called for?

    I am assuming that he paid hush money to Stormy Daniels because there is something to hush up. However, he denies that there is anything to hush up, meaning that there is no repentance. Perhaps his wife was OK with it but normally one needs evidence in order to conclude that. Is there such evidence?

    Well, this post here suggests that you really don't understand Christians, conservatives or libertarians. It's not that we are "overlooking Trump's character flaws", it is that we don't concern ourselves with the character flaws of others, except to the degree that they impact our lives.

    So your version of Christianity is that when the Christian considers who to choose as leader he ignores character flaws or evidence of immorality in making his decision?

    1 Timothy 3 (NIRV)
    2 A leader must be free from blame. He must be faithful to his wife. In anything he does, he must not go too far. He must control himself. He must be worthy of respect.

    1 Corinthians 5 New King James Version (NKJV)
    11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

  • Mark22||

    Which part of "libertarians and most conservatives don't give care what other people do in their bedrooms" don't you understand?

    If the president wants to cheat on his wife and f*ck prostitutes, that's his private business. It's unrelated to his job of president. We don't view the president as a role model or moral leader. That's why we thought Obama and his self-righteous b.s. was ridiculous as well.

  • swood1000||

    Which part of "libertarians and most conservatives don't give care what other people do in their bedrooms" don't you understand?

    Are you saying that libertarians and most conservatives don't care about the morality of others? Whether or not a person betrays his wife, or beats her, has no impact on whether or not you would want to be a good friend of the person (without being judgmental, of course, or suggesting that he change his ways)?

    What people do consensually in their bedrooms is not the issue here. A betrayal of a spouse is not a bedroom issue.

  • Kazinski||

    Did you take a wrong turn heading for a fundamentalist blog?

    I thought we hashed out the whole "what to do when the wife doesn't care if her husband is having affairs" problem back in the Clinton administration. Did you have the same position then? Of course the situations were different because Clinton had a pattern of hitting on, raping, exposing himself to women in the workplace, willing or not. As opposed to Trump who had a professional relationship with a sex worker.

  • swood1000||

    I thought we hashed out the whole "what to do when the wife doesn't care if her husband is having affairs" problem back in the Clinton administration.

    What's your evidence that Trump's wife doesn't care if he is having affairs, or that they have an understanding that allows that?

  • Mark22||

    What's your evidence that Trump's wife doesn't care if he is having affairs, or that they have an understanding that allows that?

    Why should we care about the marital problems of our presidents? Who Trump sleeps with is his business, and whether his wife gets upset about it is hers.

    What does any of that crap have to do with the presidency?

  • swood1000||

    What does any of that crap have to do with the presidency?

    Are you saying that evidence of dishonesty or failure to keep promises solemnly made are not relevant to choosing a president?

  • Flinch||

    Interesting guy, this Peterson. He might be the right man at the right time, and a much needed antidote to some of what political correctness has birthed. But to automatically associate consetvatives with the GOP... fatal flaw. Conservatives are at the back of the bus and jellyfish are large and in charge in DC. The rinos in congress took every measure to stab Mo Brooks in the neck in Alabama - that's how Roy Moore got on the ticket in the first place. Can we have a link to the judges actual order to Arpaio please? Here's the crux of what's missing:
    "MCSO and all of its officers are hereby enjoined from detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona smuggling statute or any other state or federal law".
    You know... taking away the ability of a peace officer to act on clear knowledge or use probable cause is the same thing as taking his badge. That court order amounted to a recall election from the bench, that therefore did not comply with the laws of Arizona. If it was straightforward [and not purposely muddled] it should have read "MCSO may not act regarding an existing statute but for this court [or federal agency] directing him regarding the status of any suspect". That is no way to run a sheriffs office.

  • MSimon||

    Peterson has taken psychedelics. That disqualifies him from everything.

  • Flinch||

    And most lawyers smoked dope in college: should they be barred from service as legislators or judges? If you're looking for perfect... it ain't here on earth.

  • jahn||

    My god, reason tries.

  • TxJack 112||

    The GOP establishment needs Petersen, not the general voting population. What Petersen advocates is found throughout the middle of the country. This is why the left calls us "rednecks" and whatever they deem proper depending on the issue. The only thing Petersen is advocating is personal responsibility. The GOP leadership and establishment are fixated on winning elections not to do what is best for the country, but only for themselves. When RINOs are portrayed as conservatives, that shows you the problem in a nutshell.

  • Taileaters||

    The man has some great wisdom to share with people and says it in a way that people understand. Whats so wrong with that? https://bit.ly/2rzn6Bl

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online