Comments by "JLH" (@Kyarrix) on "Jordan Peterson's Fanboy's Cringy New Meat Book" video.

  1. You guys are inappropriate and gross. The book is ridiculous but the way you mock and sneer and the insinuations you make are a real turn off even to people on the left. Brooks is the worst offender and the fact that he thinks he's funny only makes it worse.
    8
  2.  @Mrlazerpoint  I'm not surprised at the two responses. The disparaging comments seem to be consistent with your preferred sense of humor, attacking anyone who disagrees even if done in a fairly mild and respectful manner. Take a step back and ask what message that sends. You watch this channel suggesting that you are ostensibly left leaning. I am too. The difference between us is that I think and try to adhere to the values you proclaim as yours. It's not okay to suggest that Peterson covets his daughter. Sexual so-called humor of this nature isn't funny, it's stupid and intentionally offensive. There is plenty about Peterson and his daughter to criticize, there is no need for the snickering sniggering innuendo. When you come across something you disagree with, why do you default to a personal attacks? With respect to your comment, I'm quite grown, grown enough to be able to make jokes about Peterson, who is utterly ridiculous and a bad faith actor, without suggesting that he wants his daughter. This kind of humor weakens the point and it makes us look ugly. Why would you assume that I wasn't grown or that I needed to grow up? Because I said something you disagreed with? Do you see the problem with this approach? When you react the way you did, you portray the left as narrow and intolerant. Anyone disagreeing is to be attacked. The other guy below you was even more direct. He simply said "f you." If I found something funny and you disagreed I might be interested in understanding why. After understanding it I would be free to reconsider or agree to disagree. It doesn't make me hopeful to encounter reactions like yours. We (correctly) view the majority of those on the right as intolerant and narrow minded, unwilling to think and grow. It's disheartening in the extreme to find the same behavior on our side.
    5
  3.  @stoneman472  The response I left for the other guy could have been written for you too. Apparently it's a very bad thing to tell internet dudes that their sense of humor is disparaging or ugly. Grow up. There is a veritable universe of things to validly attack where Peterson is concerned. There is no need to engage in sniggering innuendo with regard to his daughter. Not only is there no need to do it, it weakens the left and gives ammunition to the right. If he'd made a joke about how Peterson was exploiting his daughter by showing her in a bikini to appeal to his base and what the hell is that - it would have been stronger. And hell yes, I'm a liberal among other things. Why is that a problem for you?
    2
  4.  @stoneman472  I can be more direct. You're a condescending ass and not half as bright as you think you are. And that is probably generous. You thrive on trying to get under other's skin. You don't represent anyone or any beliefs - you're here solely to feed your need to troll. You could as easily be on the right. Grow up.
    1
  5.  @vanessamw1140  Thank you for this response. I've seen the same thing and it's chilling. It won't push me to the other side because their beliefs are antithetical to who I am but it does make me feel a lot of frustration and sadness. If you say something about it you're accused of moralizing, if you don't then you are quietly acquiescing to it.
    1
  6.  @steik6414  I wasn't reacting to the majority of the video. As a general matter Brooks frequently goes too far and that's why I said something. He panders to the uglier side of his audience by making these kinds of jokes. You called it moralizing. What should do, quietly acquiesce to it, be silent? The whole point of the left is to limit suffering, to make the world a better place for more people. Not to be snide or ugly or celebrate the death of another person. It's not that he made a joke, it's how he courts that ugliness and encourages it. He almost always goes just that bit too far. I understand that it is for the benefit of his audience but what that feeds in his audience is also what I am objecting to.
    1
  7.  @komlat253  You're right. But after being cursed at, mocked and told to f off you'll have to forgive me if I get a little acerbic. I tried to answer and explain twice and had more abuse thrown in my direction. I wrote a genuine response to the person I later became sharp with. There was no response to that only more of the "f off, hahaha, lib clutching pearls" rubbish. I agree that as a general matter it is much better to be civil and try to engage in a conversation with as open a mind as we can muster.
    1
  8.  @theelectricant98  I'm aware of how he got his money and I am as far from a fan of his as you can get. Some of his general advice has helped a certain type of mostly white, mostly millennial male. The problem is that it is often a gateway to the alt right. It would be really interesting to talk about that and from my perspective he is clearly a bad actor. He is very much for a traditional hierarchy. I've read some of his work, I've watched some of his videos, and it would be difficult to find someone with whom I disagree more. But that said, let's attack the substance. I was objecting to the unnecessarily ugly innuendo, to the smirking and sniggering. The fact that I find someone intensely dislikable doesn't mean that I would celebrate misfortune befalling them or think it right to smear dirt on their son or daughter. If this book was put out by him and he okayed his daughter being on the cover in a bikini, there is so much we can say about that but there is a line and Brooks crossed it.
    1
  9.  @theelectricant98  The grift yes, the rest of it not so much. Of course we should point out how absurd he is, the nature of the grift, all of it. I was objecting to the other part, to the suggestions that he lusts after his daughter and the smirking celebration of that masked as edgy humor. With respect to the so-called diet, apparently there is a small segment of the population who do benefit from eating this way. I read that this could be because their gut is so messed up that it functions as a reboot, an extreme elimination diet that allows their gut to heal. I wouldn't advocate it in the absence of a nutritionist suggesting it for a short period of time.
    1
  10.  @steik6414  Moralizing is by definition a negative. It is "the action of commenting on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority." There is no unfounded air of superiority here. It is worrisome that you need me to tell you why it is wrong for a comedian or presenter or whatever you want to call Brooks to engage in smirking sniggering jokes about someone lusting after their daughter. It is concerning that this is something that would now be called moralizing. There are values that should be understood to be universal. Why do you want to encourage the worst of human nature? Brooks has a platform, he is looked up to that plenty of the people who come to this channel. That gives him a responsibility. If he makes jokes people absorb that humor and it becomes part of their view of what is correct and right. It is more than a tacit acceptance, it is encouragement. I am surprised and astonished that this has to be explained. Why not ask me next why it is wrong to steal or rape or murder? It's okay to cast ugly aspersions on someone, to call that out is now, in your view, moralizing. What comes next on this slippery slope? Are you going to tell me that it is moralizing to say that it is wrong to smash someone's head in with a bat? Will you tell me that there are some situations where it is okay? Of course it hurts the left's values. We, most of us, stand for the proposition that it is better to reduce suffering and misery. To try to live our lives as thoughtful decent human beings. If someone is a bad actor, call them out on substance. To sit back and snigger over so-called edgy humor that panders to the ugliest impulses harms us. And it opens us up to the accusation of hypocrisy when we call out the other side for similar behavior.
    1
  11.  @steik6414  Your argument is disingenuous and you aren't addressing the issue - you are sidelining it and minimizing it. I wasn't sure if this was because you genuinely didn't understand but at this point I'm fairly sure that you do. Your choice of language is the giveaway and the fact that you aren't addressing any of the points I've been making. I can't help you with that but I can decide to not participate any further and I am making that decision. You are free to continue to argue that it's just fine and funny to make jokes about an individual lusting after his daughter, that there is no harm in, that it's all for the lols, and funny. You can persuade yourself, as you have already done, that this is a valid position and that you "are afraid" you don't understand the issue. You aren't being truthful. I know that and so do you. It is not a valid position to take. You also seem to think that your language is subtle - please trust me, it is not. Nor is "absurd" of me to "allow" (allow?) people to vote in elections but to prefer that they not be exposed to a constant barrage of ugly jokes that are demeaning and damaging. It's absurd that you claim to not understand the difference. I'm going to guess that you're okay with rape jokes too. Hey, why not, it's funny, right? Holocaust jokes okay with you? By your metric why would they be a problem? Everything is fair game, it's only a "joke" - it doesn't do any harm, right? Wrong. It does tremendous harm. It is beyond the scope of a comment to try to educate you on the many ways in which this does harm. And I suspect that you already know some of them but are engaging in pretense for some reason. People are formed and charged by the things they are exposed to. So called edgy humor about a man lusting after his daughter is distasteful and offensive, it isn't funny - you want to deride Peterson? There is so much about the man that is awful - take something valid and make jokes about it - do not make puerile smirking jokes about him wanting to screw his daughter. It cheapens the discourse and over time damages those who come back for more. Is one stupid offensive joke a problem? Not necessarily. A constant barrage of it is an issue. Ask yourself where the line is - where your slippery slope takes you. I don't think that you will because your comments aren't made in good faith.
    1