Speaker 1: Cody. It's part two of this latest journey into the
Speaker 1: world of Jordan Peterson. But first let's talk about that
Speaker 1: Mighty Mighty Boss released in twenty twenty two about the
Speaker 1: murder of George Floyd and then the protests that followed.
Speaker 1: I can't believe you were not aware of this. I
Speaker 1: had no I had no idea. Um, it is stunning,
Speaker 1: it is I mean, just the fact that it exists
Speaker 1: is just so beautiful and funny. Yeah, the fact that
Speaker 1: I think we can say the Mighty Mighty Boss Tones
Speaker 1: are the whitest band has ever been without being explicitly
Speaker 1: a neo Nazi band, Like it can't it can't be
Speaker 1: whiter than the Mighty They're like they're a goose step
Speaker 1: and a shuffle away from Yeah, not that they're Nazis,
Speaker 1: but but but that it does not get more Caucasian,
Speaker 1: and it's I would say, if that is your if
Speaker 1: you are the Mighty Mighty boss Tones watching the murder
Speaker 1: of this man and the protests that gripped the nation,
Speaker 1: perhaps the thing you should say is nothing like maybe
Speaker 1: you know obviously like well we'll make a statement that
Speaker 1: like we support the protests or this was terrible, but
Speaker 1: you certainly shouldn't write an entire album about George Floyd.
Speaker 1: That's just not a thing the world needs from the
Speaker 1: Mighty Mighty Bostons just or even you know, yeah, you
Speaker 1: know an album um that, if you like looked really hard,
Speaker 1: you'd be like, is this about George Floyd May? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Maybe if you're like you're doing a song, you know,
Speaker 1: on your sky album about how the police are bad,
Speaker 1: you could reference that. That would be fine. So it
Speaker 1: has a long history of being anti authoritarian, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, like if you know and then process some
Speaker 1: proceeds to charity or something like that some cause. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but this is wild. Um. I listened to Uh. Also,
Speaker 1: the song is called the Killing of Georgie, UM, which
Speaker 1: I would say is not a great title. Um, it's
Speaker 1: so weird. I listened to part three. I haven't I
Speaker 1: can't find part one or two anywhere and I'm not
Speaker 1: buying that album. Um. Even some of these lyrics George
Speaker 1: Georgie please stay they took your breath away? Yeah? What
Speaker 1: the That is an insane thing to write? That? Is that? That?
Speaker 1: Because because again the Mighty Mighty bost Tones a lot
Speaker 1: of musicians to band a bunch of people were in
Speaker 1: a room when they handed those lyrics out, and all
Speaker 1: of them had to be like, Yes, this is a
Speaker 1: song we're all going to take part in. They're gonna
Speaker 1: make it. They made it. They made that into a
Speaker 1: music and they just let it happen to the world
Speaker 1: and no one stopped them. And one assumes they did
Speaker 1: that twelve times to get a whole album out of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah is you know, well, so let's let's play a
Speaker 1: clip from this song for the listeners at home. Give
Speaker 1: the thirty seconds a tight thirty Yeah. I was gonna
Speaker 1: say that the actual song just sounds like that one song.
Speaker 1: They all mighty mighty Bosstone songs sound the same. They
Speaker 1: don't have the ability to make multiple SKA sounds that
Speaker 1: sound different. They're not real big fish. It even has
Speaker 1: that scream that the guy does in that other song.
Speaker 1: By the way, real big fish. You know how many
Speaker 1: albums they wrote about George Floyd, Not a single one,
Speaker 1: because real big Fish understands that's not what American needs.
Speaker 1: They don't need real big Fish weighing in on this.
Speaker 1: You know, God speed Real but Fish. Uh accredit to them.
Speaker 1: But also I would probably answer none to any band
Speaker 1: that you asked me about. Very There are very few
Speaker 1: musicians whose specific take on this I need in the
Speaker 1: form of an album, right you know, Five Iron Frenzy
Speaker 1: Wonderful Ska band made a lot of statements about how
Speaker 1: the police are Tara in social media. They didn't cut
Speaker 1: an album an album about it because they knew. They knew,
Speaker 1: we don't need that. Nobody needs that. At least at
Speaker 1: least one of them knew. Maybe some of them were
Speaker 1: on board and had the idea, but one of them
Speaker 1: was like, you got to hit the chorus. You gotta
Speaker 1: get it there, there we go, skip ahead, or no,
Speaker 1: a little bit, give us some chorus. Yeah we can,
Speaker 1: Here we go, there we go laughing. That's really Let
Speaker 1: the bird go forth this time from this place. These
Speaker 1: three okay, awful anymore. I listened to it back like
Speaker 1: in twenties whenever it came out, and was like, this
Speaker 1: is the worst thing I've ever heard. Um, it's it
Speaker 1: is so it is the most cringe worthy thing. Like
Speaker 1: I it's it's one of the worst things I've ever heard.
Speaker 1: It's people so bad. Um even like not like I
Speaker 1: have listened to Cody, I have listened to an entire
Speaker 1: discography of Blink one eight two covers turned into Nazi anthems.
Speaker 1: Dozens of Johnson's I have like seventy of them on
Speaker 1: my fucking hard drive, dozens of them, and it was bad,
Speaker 1: but it didn't make me cringe like this just like yeah,
Speaker 1: like every even if you ignore the fact that this
Speaker 1: about George Floyd and they call him Georgie the entire time,
Speaker 1: but did anyone call him Georgie? Was ever his fint
Speaker 1: a nickname for a murder victim, and then make an
Speaker 1: album about it? Also if like if you're doing like
Speaker 1: if you need two syllables because like melodically you need
Speaker 1: that's syllable. George Floyd is his name. Yeah, that's too
Speaker 1: You got too right there, um, But maybe they wanted
Speaker 1: it to be a little more you know, discreet, little
Speaker 1: under the radar, like, oh, it's not definitely about George
Speaker 1: Floyd when it clearly it is. But even if you
Speaker 1: if you remove it from that, from the context of
Speaker 1: what it's about, like it's so awkward, like we do
Speaker 1: you hold do we hold these truths to be self evident?
Speaker 1: It's like a child's song. It's like it's just his
Speaker 1: schoolhouse rock like Cadence, which like, I'm sorry for insulting
Speaker 1: schoolhouse Rock right now, I didn't mean schoolhouse rock. Those
Speaker 1: songs generally worked. Many of them are stuck in my
Speaker 1: head periodically self evident like this, I'm I'm going to
Speaker 1: pour back teen in my ears to try to get
Speaker 1: this out of my brain once we finish the course.
Speaker 1: So if you play it back listeners, the course is
Speaker 1: literally just I've never had to knock on wood. It's
Speaker 1: just that it's that's the only song they the exact
Speaker 1: same tune um god by variations because of the uh
Speaker 1: syllables and lyrics, the beautiful lyricism that they've introduced. Yes,
Speaker 1: be the perfect art that is god. I can't this
Speaker 1: is it's it's absolutely stunning, um that that this would
Speaker 1: happen and that no one would stop it. Like morally,
Speaker 1: if you, if you, if you are ever around and
Speaker 1: your friends have a ska band and they attempt to
Speaker 1: make an album about the murder of a black man
Speaker 1: by the police, it is your moral responsibility to mace
Speaker 1: them until they stop you. You have an ethical duty.
Speaker 1: Or it's just like if you failed to do that,
Speaker 1: it's the same as like watching someone get to death
Speaker 1: in the street and refuse him to intervene anyway, Cody,
Speaker 1: whatever it takes. This is Behind the Bastards, a show
Speaker 1: about the mighty mighty Bosstones, History's greatest monsters. Do you
Speaker 1: think Jordan Peterson has ever been able to enjoy a
Speaker 1: ska song? Could you imagine him skanking? I can, um,
Speaker 1: because I've seen him cry about a bluegrass band he
Speaker 1: saw in Tennessee. Then I saw a video of him
Speaker 1: dancing to it, um and it's actually it was good
Speaker 1: like there was. They were a good band and like
Speaker 1: a blue blue grass country ska yeah country, um like,
Speaker 1: I got no issue with that kind of music. It
Speaker 1: was a good band. They did a good job. But
Speaker 1: I think that any like any music I think moves him,
Speaker 1: which is you know, fine, the most human thing exactly. Um.
Speaker 1: So I think I think he would scank it. I
Speaker 1: think he would scank it. I think he could really.
Speaker 1: I think he could really get down to you know,
Speaker 1: that real big fish song beer. What if you rewrote
Speaker 1: it to be about having a single sip of cider
Speaker 1: and then not not sleeping for thirty days and then
Speaker 1: saying you didn't sleep, Like, let's be clear, Well, this
Speaker 1: has been nine minutes of Cody and Robert talking about
Speaker 1: there are solid eleven people in our audience who were
Speaker 1: waiting for this for years, and those eleven people having
Speaker 1: the best day of their lives. Everyone else has deleted
Speaker 1: us from their phones. You're welcome to those people, sorry
Speaker 1: to everybody. Yeah, so, Cody, when we last left off
Speaker 1: with Jordan Peterson in this episode, Jordy George, he was
Speaker 1: talking about how women are incapable of looking at relationships
Speaker 1: in anything other than like a cold, transactional way. Um. Now,
Speaker 1: the next thing Peterson does in this episode is stick
Speaker 1: his brains dick into the problem of mass shootings. Did
Speaker 1: you like that sent It's Cody go about how I
Speaker 1: wrote that sentence. I don't hate it. Did it take
Speaker 1: your breath away? Oh? God, here's Jordan's. I think Warren
Speaker 1: Ferrell wrote a book called The Boy Crisis. Told me
Speaker 1: yesterday when I was talking to them, every single high
Speaker 1: school shooter was fatherless. I mean, you know, that's a
Speaker 1: small sample of people, but uh huh, society seems to be,
Speaker 1: let's say, degenerating into a more and more woke direction.
Speaker 1: Oh so, Cody, I'm not going to look up as
Speaker 1: buddy Warren like I did his other friend, because the
Speaker 1: claim that he's made there that mass shooters are always
Speaker 1: fatherless is complete horseshit, And it's the easiest thing in
Speaker 1: the world to dek he was gonna look at like,
Speaker 1: and this is a thing that if you're if you're
Speaker 1: a listener of this show, and you're like, I actually
Speaker 1: like Jordan Peterson, I don't know what you're doing here,
Speaker 1: but thanks for coming. Um. Anything he ever says, just
Speaker 1: be like what it's always what sounds of the time,
Speaker 1: it's at least a little wrong. Um, and this is
Speaker 1: a lot wrong. Uh. Snopes has covered this, which makes
Speaker 1: it very easy to debunk. There is a year's long
Speaker 1: right wing media claim that mass shootings are committed by
Speaker 1: fatherless children. This is to demonize single mothers. It's just
Speaker 1: to demonize the fact that like the breakdown of the
Speaker 1: family and not I don't know the fact that like, look,
Speaker 1: i'm a I'm as pro gun as they get. But
Speaker 1: it's the fact that any angry young person can purchase
Speaker 1: whatever a gun do they want, even if they have
Speaker 1: a history of domestic violence, with sixty percent of them
Speaker 1: do if you want to look at the thing that
Speaker 1: actually most mass shooters have in common. Most of them
Speaker 1: have a history of violence towards women. That doesn't stop
Speaker 1: them from acquiring a firearm anyway. Yes, and police, Yes, um,
Speaker 1: who killed twice as many people as mass shooters in
Speaker 1: the United States. We should also know anyway, the point
Speaker 1: of origin of this, like right wing sort of thing
Speaker 1: that like this is the problem is single mothers and
Speaker 1: not anything to do with guns or patriarchal violence or whatever.
Speaker 1: The point of origin for this is an article in
Speaker 1: The Federalist in two thousand fifteen, which was later picked
Speaker 1: up to act as evidence for a Fox News column.
Speaker 1: It did not claim. This Federalist article does not claim,
Speaker 1: as Peterson does that every mass shooter is fatherless. Quote.
Speaker 1: On CNN's list of the twenty seven deadliest mass shootings
Speaker 1: in US history, seven of those shootings were committed by
Speaker 1: young under thirty male Since two thousand five, of the seven,
Speaker 1: only one Virginia Tech shooters young Hope who So I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna try to pronounce the Virginia Tech shooter who
Speaker 1: had been mentally unstable since childhood, was raised by his
Speaker 1: biological father throughout childhood. Now, this is also extremely out
Speaker 1: of date and wrong quote. For the purposes of this article,
Speaker 1: we researched contemporaneous news reports to see if any of
Speaker 1: the shooters originally listed in CNNs twenty seven deadliest mass
Speaker 1: shootings in US history grew up in households without a father.
Speaker 1: We found with a father. We found that several of
Speaker 1: them did. The Virginia Tech shooter, who killed thirty two
Speaker 1: people in Virginia Tech into thus and seven, was raised
Speaker 1: by both the father and a mother. So was George Hennard,
Speaker 1: who killed twenty three people in Colleen, Texas in nineteen one.
Speaker 1: Charles Whitman, who killed seventeen people at the University of
Speaker 1: Texas at Austin in nineteen sixties, six, Nadal Malikasan, who
Speaker 1: fatally shot thirteen people in four hood in two thousand nine,
Speaker 1: Jaffery Wong who killed thirteen and two thousand nine in Binghamton,
Speaker 1: New York. And Aaron Alexis, who fatally shot twelve people
Speaker 1: at the Washington Navy Yard in two thousand and thirteen.
Speaker 1: James Huberty, who killed twenty one people at McDonald's in
Speaker 1: the Sandy Cedro neighborhood of San Diego, California, was made
Speaker 1: by a single father. And later a father and a
Speaker 1: stepmother after his biological mother, a band of the family.
Speaker 1: So again these are not And by the way, this
Speaker 1: is not a comprehensive list of all of the mass
Speaker 1: shooters parents. Many of them have. It is complete horseship
Speaker 1: to say that they do not have, Like mass shooters
Speaker 1: aren't tend to be fatherless, that's nonsense. Yes, so Jordan's
Speaker 1: doesn't have an editor for content here. Again, he's just
Speaker 1: kind of talking in a nice room. So he starts
Speaker 1: off on a rant next about how woke universities are
Speaker 1: and and he winds up repeating at length his arguments
Speaker 1: from episode one about not saying anything you don't a
Speaker 1: percent believe, and again because there's no editor here and
Speaker 1: no one can tell him, hey, Jordan, you win over
Speaker 1: all this already. Um, And so for the next couple
Speaker 1: of minutes he's just kind of describing things people do
Speaker 1: without explaining anything of meaning. It's it's like weirdly pointless.
Speaker 1: And here's an example. Everybody gets rejected at the time.
Speaker 1: You only have to succeed once and then maybe you're
Speaker 1: not good at interviews, and and maybe you try hard
Speaker 1: and you don't find another job and not sucks because
Speaker 1: he actually tried hard and you failed. And so often
Speaker 1: people pull their punches so that if they failed, they
Speaker 1: can always say, well, I didn't really try that hard. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just like okay. He does a very stream of consciousness. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's very strecer consciousness. But also it's like, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: It's like there's like he's got it sucks when you
Speaker 1: don't get a job that you interview for. Absolutely Jordan's
Speaker 1: he doesn't. That's why I think part of why is
Speaker 1: so effective and uh connective for some people, um and
Speaker 1: why a lot of his critics will often be like,
Speaker 1: but he's a good at this and good at this
Speaker 1: because he'll say like really basic almost but now like
Speaker 1: like therapist stuff. Yea, like this idea of like, yeah,
Speaker 1: sometimes people pull their punches so that like when they fail,
Speaker 1: they can say like, oh, I don't really try very hard,
Speaker 1: so it's fine, that's the thing people do. He's absolutely correct,
Speaker 1: but like what I do that often exactly, but like okay,
Speaker 1: and so you can go on like this, Yeah, this
Speaker 1: episode is a mix of like these things. He's just
Speaker 1: kind of like laying out things that happen in the
Speaker 1: world and then he's mixing it in with these like
Speaker 1: factual statements that are always wrong that he half remembers
Speaker 1: from friends of his, all of who are right ring
Speaker 1: propagandists like set in articles they work for, wrote for
Speaker 1: Quilette or Heritage or whatever. And as the episode goes on,
Speaker 1: he makes repeated reference to his private clinical practice as
Speaker 1: a therapist, talking about how he laborously helped people rebuild
Speaker 1: their lives or fixing tractable mental health problems. And this
Speaker 1: is where things get really messed up. Lots of people
Speaker 1: would come into my office and they're terrified to be there.
Speaker 1: They didn't want to be there. It took them like
Speaker 1: two years to get up the courage to go to
Speaker 1: a therapist. And so part of my job was to
Speaker 1: make them as comfortable as I possibly could instantly. And
Speaker 1: a huge part of that was paying attention to them
Speaker 1: and not to me. And you can get really good
Speaker 1: at that. Sorry, brave, brave, do you be about them
Speaker 1: and not you? Jordan? What are you talking about? Yeah,
Speaker 1: nobody goes to a therapist to learn about the therapist.
Speaker 1: I just want to get a therapist to pay a
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty bucks a session so I can get
Speaker 1: to know. Ah, dude, we're gonna get into what he's
Speaker 1: talking about, Cody, But first, you know, what is the
Speaker 1: only real kind of therapy spending money? Yeah? Well it is.
Speaker 1: It is in fact, Scott, Look, you go to a
Speaker 1: fucking street Light Manifesto concert and tell me that you
Speaker 1: didn't just have a religious experience. I will, I dare
Speaker 1: you to, Cody, They're accepted. Uh, okay, so we're back.
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson has just talked about how you he became
Speaker 1: friends and get gets all of his patients to trust him,
Speaker 1: right about how like that's a real struggle as a
Speaker 1: therapist getting these people to trust them, about how good
Speaker 1: he is at it um And the fact that he's
Speaker 1: talking about like how important was to gain the trust
Speaker 1: of these troubled people who came to him looking for
Speaker 1: mental health advice. Um, that made me want to look up,
Speaker 1: like what happened with his actual patients because he's no
Speaker 1: longer in clinical practice And I kind of thought maybe
Speaker 1: there's a story there, And boy, howdy I came across, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I came across an article in the magazine Canada Land
Speaker 1: about the end of Jordan Peterson's clinical practice. Now this
Speaker 1: occurred as he became a media figure, and he went
Speaker 1: from obscure academic to wealthy celebrity. And one of the
Speaker 1: first things Jordan did when this happened is abandoned the
Speaker 1: patients that he had built a rapport with. Quote shortly
Speaker 1: before Peterson decided he couldn't both be a media personnality
Speaker 1: and a practicing psychologist at the same time. He canceled
Speaker 1: sessions with patients, later claiming illness while maintaining an appointment
Speaker 1: to appear on television. He responded to messages from patients
Speaker 1: with auto reply emails, which brought up the challenges of
Speaker 1: his burgeoning fame, directing recipients to send argumentative emails to
Speaker 1: his ideological opponents. He employed his wife to sort through
Speaker 1: emails from patients without first asking for their consent. He
Speaker 1: shared potentially identifying information about patients with other patients. That's
Speaker 1: really bad, that's horrible, that's deeply unethical and kind of evil,
Speaker 1: not just yeah, that's really evil and selfish and cruel,
Speaker 1: um deeply like potentially potentially something that could even have
Speaker 1: a body count. Because being a therapist is a thing,
Speaker 1: Like a number of people who are attending therapy are
Speaker 1: doing it because suicide is a thing they consider regularly.
Speaker 1: And if they let you in and trust you and
Speaker 1: then you like both abandoned them because you get famous
Speaker 1: and also tell them, hey, send the emails harassing people
Speaker 1: I don't like, Like yeah, so okay, yeah, okay, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're trusting this person and they cancel and then you
Speaker 1: see them on TV. That's fucked up? What like, could
Speaker 1: you repeat the part about the emails to his opponents,
Speaker 1: like this long list of just like direct recipients to
Speaker 1: send argumentative emails to his ideological opponents. So wait, so
Speaker 1: you emailed his patients to Yeah, yeah, this was I
Speaker 1: think this is the thing. And let me let me
Speaker 1: pull up the art. It's been a while since I
Speaker 1: read it. Let me pull up the article again and
Speaker 1: find that's just so many for you. What the funk
Speaker 1: is wrong with this guy? Well, I think we know
Speaker 1: what's wrong with sucking narcissists who wanted money. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: is like, that's all I wish I had found this
Speaker 1: article when you and I were doing the Peterson episodes
Speaker 1: that we did, because this is legitimately like the worst
Speaker 1: thing I've heard about him. That's all you need to
Speaker 1: know about him, Like, yeah, that's oh my god. All right. Well,
Speaker 1: so basically this article, a lot of it focuses on
Speaker 1: one of his patients, Samantha, who like he cancels an
Speaker 1: appointment with her saying that he's sick, and then he
Speaker 1: shows up on TV the next night. This is like,
Speaker 1: right when all that stuff breaks with that Canadian like
Speaker 1: change to hate laws and stuff. Um quote. When Samantha
Speaker 1: responded to an email that offered new dates to meet,
Speaker 1: she received what appeared to be an auto reply aimed
Speaker 1: at his growing number of supporters, attempting to mobilize a
Speaker 1: letter writing campaign, and his battle against political correctness at
Speaker 1: the university. Hi, thank you for writing. At the moment,
Speaker 1: I am unable to keep up with my email correspondents,
Speaker 1: although I will try at some point in the future
Speaker 1: to respond personally. If you are emailing me about current
Speaker 1: PC related issues, you should consider sending your comments to
Speaker 1: the following individuals. Remember that the only way that any
Speaker 1: of this can be straightened out is through carefully articulated
Speaker 1: in reasonable arguments. I would say that the vast majority
Speaker 1: of letters I have received have been exactly that, and
Speaker 1: it's just what has needed. Assume rationality and the part
Speaker 1: of the recipients and make a careful case we want
Speaker 1: to play in the court of reason. C see a
Speaker 1: copy to me if you wish. And then the message
Speaker 1: gave email addresses for like seven University of Toronto officials
Speaker 1: who had gone after him for his refusal to refer
Speaker 1: to pay students by their preferred gender pronounce. So that's
Speaker 1: what's happening, is this woman, he builds a rapport with her,
Speaker 1: she's like comes to rely on him for her mental
Speaker 1: health care, and then he like ghosts her and all
Speaker 1: she gets his auto replies telling her to harass people
Speaker 1: at the university on his behalf. That's that's literally what
Speaker 1: happens there, which is profoundly abusive. Is that's the most
Speaker 1: disgusting thing I've ever heard about Jordan Peterson. Yeah, um,
Speaker 1: that is in the top three, at least, there's a
Speaker 1: long list. I have to sort through it. But that's
Speaker 1: like really fucked up, that's really deeply fun up to.
Speaker 1: It just speaks so much to who he is and
Speaker 1: what he's all about. Yeah, And there's a number of
Speaker 1: ethics complaints they get filed against Peterson by patients who
Speaker 1: found themselves discarded by him in his rush to capitalize
Speaker 1: on fame. Um. Obviously he doesn't talk about any of
Speaker 1: this on the show, right, he just talks about how
Speaker 1: good he is it building a rapport with people and
Speaker 1: getting them to trust him and um talking about himself
Speaker 1: or whatever and not talking about himself focusing on them. God,
Speaker 1: what a fucking creep. What a piece of ship. So
Speaker 1: he spent several minutes talking about his friends in school
Speaker 1: who were all again this is now He's gone back
Speaker 1: to like talking about his own childhood, about people he
Speaker 1: used to know as a kid, and all of his
Speaker 1: friends were super like or while all of his friends
Speaker 1: in like high school were like super tough, cool kids
Speaker 1: who worked on oil rigs. Uh. He starts talk telling
Speaker 1: the story about how one of his friends got into
Speaker 1: a fight with their swimming coach and they were both cool,
Speaker 1: like super cool, and then Jordan forgets to tell us
Speaker 1: the end of the story and talks about how Jocko
Speaker 1: Willink is cool too, what he's just like he's just
Speaker 1: like talking about his cool friends and oil rigs and
Speaker 1: how they got into a fight with the coach and
Speaker 1: they're so manly. Knew who else is manly is the
Speaker 1: Navy's seal with a podcast Jocko Willink, who again, I'm
Speaker 1: not I have no particular opinions on Jocko. I'm not
Speaker 1: attacking him. Jordan Peterson just goes into a rant about
Speaker 1: how cool he is because he's like Jordan's friends who
Speaker 1: got into fights with their swimming coach. For the record,
Speaker 1: I don't think Jacko will Link ever got into a
Speaker 1: fight with a swimming coach that I would. I would
Speaker 1: believe you. Here, here's the clip. You're gonna want to
Speaker 1: do it on your own terms. And our school systems
Speaker 1: very bad at facilitating that. In fact, it does everything.
Speaker 1: It was even designed at the beginning to not facilitate that,
Speaker 1: because our school system was based on the Prussian military model,
Speaker 1: and the Prussians, who also trained the Japanese to establish
Speaker 1: their school systems by the way, they wanted to produce
Speaker 1: obedient factory workers. And so first off, this is what
Speaker 1: after he's randomly talking about how his friends were super
Speaker 1: cool oil rig workers who got into fist fights with
Speaker 1: their coach, this is what leads to him talking about
Speaker 1: like modern education and how broken it is, like the
Speaker 1: idea that it was better back when kids would just
Speaker 1: work in oil rigs and get into fist fights with coaches,
Speaker 1: and now it's they're all Prussian school modeled in terrible
Speaker 1: and like everybody's being trained to be obedient drones. Wait
Speaker 1: the second he likes that though, well, no he doesn't,
Speaker 1: because that's that's a great point, Cody, But he doesn't. Now,
Speaker 1: So what's important is that he's made another falsifiable statement here,
Speaker 1: right that Japan based their schooling on the Prussian model. Now,
Speaker 1: the Prussian but like we're taught by them, like trained
Speaker 1: by them to do the Prussian model is a thing.
Speaker 1: Japan did not base their schooling system on Prussian learning alone,
Speaker 1: nor did the Prussians just like teach them how to
Speaker 1: do schooling. From eighteen seventy three to eighteen ninety, Japan
Speaker 1: reformed their educational system, and they didn't do it just
Speaker 1: like by bringing in people to teach them how to
Speaker 1: do it. They didn't base their their new education system
Speaker 1: on any one nation's methods, and what they did was
Speaker 1: the very reasonable thing. They adopted a number of different
Speaker 1: methods from several countries and then tested a bunch of
Speaker 1: them out at the same time so they could learn
Speaker 1: through trial and error what seemed to work best. They
Speaker 1: did in fact study and test aspects of the Prussian system.
Speaker 1: They also tested and studied aspects of the American and
Speaker 1: French education systems. Um almost like they didn't just want
Speaker 1: to create robotic drones, but we're really just like trying
Speaker 1: to solve the difficult problem of what works for an
Speaker 1: educational system. Prussia the late eighteen hundreds very successful countries.
Speaker 1: So is the United States, and so is France, and
Speaker 1: so they're kind of like being like, well, these three
Speaker 1: countries are succeeding in ways we want to succeed. Let
Speaker 1: us test aspects of their educational systems to see what
Speaker 1: works for us, Which is not what Peterson said, because
Speaker 1: he's wrong about everything. He said the Prussians trained them
Speaker 1: how to do the school, which was based on he does.
Speaker 1: It is interesting. Yeah, He's like it's so managing because
Speaker 1: like clearly he re a lot. He's a reader. He
Speaker 1: reads a lot, and he half remembers, like most of
Speaker 1: us do, bits and pieces of what I read. He
Speaker 1: like he like kind of absorbs a little bit or
Speaker 1: like these things that that he like moves around so
Speaker 1: that they align with whatever he is thinking at the time,
Speaker 1: and like just says like, as fact, this thing is like,
Speaker 1: well ten percent of that was right, Like, you're right,
Speaker 1: the Japanese did test out aspects of the Prussian education system. Um,
Speaker 1: but you're missing what actually happened in Japan in that period, Right,
Speaker 1: there's like okay, subject and object or right, the verbs
Speaker 1: are all wrong. Yeah. I think the thing that is
Speaker 1: kind of worth highlighting here is the denial of agency
Speaker 1: of Japanese people. Like the way he frames it, the
Speaker 1: Prussians came in and taught them how to build an
Speaker 1: education system that would train their children into like little robots,
Speaker 1: and that that's what happened as opposed to the Empire
Speaker 1: of Japan exercise and considerable agency going out and testing
Speaker 1: different methods to right and reform their system in a
Speaker 1: way that would allow them to achieve their goals, which
Speaker 1: is what happened, right, Yeah, because Japan is famously a
Speaker 1: country that exercises quite a bit of agency. But like yeah,
Speaker 1: and like they did the thing that he would support,
Speaker 1: like you test this, you test this, you test this,
Speaker 1: and you can find the best result. And like is
Speaker 1: he trying to make a connection to what he was
Speaker 1: talking about earlier with like Japanese men, Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1: I think he is, like, that's yeah, even though like
Speaker 1: there are you might argue a significant thing that happens
Speaker 1: about sixty years after Japan reforms this educational system that
Speaker 1: leads to kind of some social breaks that might be
Speaker 1: more relevant for looking at things that are happening to
Speaker 1: young Japanese men in two. Not that his not that
Speaker 1: what he said earlier about Japanese men two was accurate either, right, yeah, is,
Speaker 1: but I don't know, Joan. I think something happened in
Speaker 1: the mid forties that might have caused a break in
Speaker 1: the way Japanese society handled stuff like education, I mean
Speaker 1: anything that's entire Yeah, okay, okay, Dr Peterson. So anyway,
Speaker 1: he's just this doesn't have a huge thing to do
Speaker 1: with his other clips. It's just like he's always wrong. Anyway.
Speaker 1: Here's another clip. Don't sell yourself short and don't let
Speaker 1: the people who demand slavish obedience, you know, that puppy
Speaker 1: dog style of living. Don't let them short circuit your
Speaker 1: future because you know you're not inclined towards that kind
Speaker 1: of obedience. That's actually a virtue, not a vice, even
Speaker 1: though it's punished in well, certainly in schools, especially by
Speaker 1: edible female teachers, although there's no shortage of men who
Speaker 1: are participating in that is. Yeah, my man, like the
Speaker 1: like coolest split screen thing, this cool that it's just
Speaker 1: yea so great visually. Um that he was gonna say
Speaker 1: some fun shit. I love whenever because you have these
Speaker 1: moments where like there's this little slip he loses a
Speaker 1: little bit of composure and it's like, ah, you hate women, right,
Speaker 1: Like that's yeah, you're really deeply angry at women. Um yeah,
Speaker 1: that's I mean the couple were like, yeah, like all
Speaker 1: the stuff he's been saying like this that like dating
Speaker 1: above their status and like the fatherless it's like single
Speaker 1: mothers and mass shooters like all this stuff. It's like, man,
Speaker 1: you're just so deeply angry at the concept of women. Um,
Speaker 1: that's pretty cool, I think. But also but also like
Speaker 1: it's only what he's talking about too is just like
Speaker 1: you know, obedience is like you know, don't because it's
Speaker 1: a slave to blah blah blah. It is like, but
Speaker 1: you would disagree with that if it was about something
Speaker 1: you agree with, you would be like, well, no, you
Speaker 1: like you you follow orders, you like you do this,
Speaker 1: you do this, you find your place, and you like
Speaker 1: you follow the steps in your hierarchy to do X
Speaker 1: and y. Um. It's just so just his it's like
Speaker 1: context ideology dependent, and it's just fun to see him
Speaker 1: pretend that he doesn't he doesn't think that way. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know what else is fun to pretend? Cody, Uh,
Speaker 1: some edible mother. It's fun to pretend that we could
Speaker 1: ever live in a world without the products and services
Speaker 1: that support this podcast. But of course we couldn't. There
Speaker 1: is no life without these products and services. Existence itself
Speaker 1: is meaningless without whatever comes up next. As soon as
Speaker 1: my stopped talking, Ah, we're back, and I hope that
Speaker 1: your lives have been filled with meaning. Um, the only
Speaker 1: meaning you will ever experience. Family means nothing, Your own
Speaker 1: children mean nothing. Love is but a vapor in the air.
Speaker 1: But the products and services that support this podcast our
Speaker 1: God in a very real way. Cody. Yeah, yeah, that's good.
Speaker 1: No disagreement. M cool. So the very next thing that
Speaker 1: happens in the Jordan Peterson TV Show is this very
Speaker 1: this really weirdly sharp cut, followed by the title text
Speaker 1: Can men be controllable monsters? Yeah? It's a question, and
Speaker 1: only psychopaths ask themselves. Um, so you gotta accept the
Speaker 1: monster's aspects of you and be a monster in order
Speaker 1: to be uh whatever, he'll say it. It's fine exactly.
Speaker 1: He talks about young in Nietzsche a lot, and it's honestly,
Speaker 1: it's not very interesting. There's a long kind of rambling
Speaker 1: rant here, but I want to play where it leads
Speaker 1: him to. This is him kind of like reaching his conclusions.
Speaker 1: You might have fantasies of revenge, sometimes very violent. If
Speaker 1: you're extremely sexually deprived, or maybe not even that extremely,
Speaker 1: you'll have sexual fantasy. And if you're revengeful and look
Speaker 1: up bro and feeling oppressed, and then you might have
Speaker 1: violent sexual fantasies. That's a part of you. So let's
Speaker 1: say that's the shadow. I just want to point out
Speaker 1: that he only looked into the camera and when he
Speaker 1: was like violence, sexual fantasies. Yeah, God, it's it's all
Speaker 1: like this. And there's a cut coming up in which
Speaker 1: the screen splits in three, focusing on focusing on Jordan's hands,
Speaker 1: then a close shot of his face, and then the
Speaker 1: wide shot of him sitting in a chair. Nothing interesting
Speaker 1: happens during this. He does not make any points. There
Speaker 1: is no like big conclusion he builds too. I just
Speaker 1: the editing decisions in this video text on screen, just
Speaker 1: then scroll back. Why don't we just play that segment.
Speaker 1: Let's let's give it. Oh it's a head yeah okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's yeah. Yeah. The text is women want a tamable beast.
Speaker 1: There we go. Yeah, yeah, it's amazing. So his train
Speaker 1: of thought, as that might key you went on, leads
Speaker 1: him to another Disney movie, thank God, And here's him
Speaker 1: talking about that story of Beauty and the Beast, and
Speaker 1: so in the Disney version, which does a very nice
Speaker 1: job of laying this out, Beauty is an entirely commendable female.
Speaker 1: She's attractive and wise, intelligent, ethical, devoted to her father,
Speaker 1: but not in the pathological way. Independent. She has everything
Speaker 1: going for her. She's the target of the advances of
Speaker 1: a narcissistic Macavellian Gaston, who's like a parody of masculinity.
Speaker 1: He's sort of you might think about him as the
Speaker 1: as the feminine patriarchal nightmare and animated form said no one, ever,
Speaker 1: what what are you doing? Well, he's not a nightmare
Speaker 1: so much as a caricature, Like it's a movie, and
Speaker 1: he's Gaston is the bad guy because he's everything Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson wants a man to be. He's deeply concerned with hierarchy.
Speaker 1: He is unable to consider like the validity of other
Speaker 1: people's experiences. He is deeply anti woke. He is he is.
Speaker 1: He extracts unthinking lye from the world around him in
Speaker 1: order to increase his own uh like power and his
Speaker 1: own like relative level of wealth in society. Like he
Speaker 1: has everything. Jordan Peterson thinks it's good for a man
Speaker 1: to be, which is what He's a caricature. He's a
Speaker 1: caricature of you. Jordan's right, yeah, and like the movement
Speaker 1: you're supporting, it's so weird to also it's funny. He
Speaker 1: and like you know, the shapires of the world. World,
Speaker 1: they just can't like whenever they see something like that,
Speaker 1: they can't. They like short circuit in a way because
Speaker 1: he wants to talk about beauty and the beast in
Speaker 1: a way that's like, oh, it's meaningful and it means
Speaker 1: this and it demonstrates this, and like here's what it
Speaker 1: says about life and it's good. But there's this character
Speaker 1: who reminds me of me. So he's bad, Like the
Speaker 1: idea that they're like, he's scoffing at this, He's what
Speaker 1: he's saying is that, like, rather than Beauty and the
Speaker 1: Beast was even in the fucking whenever that movie was made,
Speaker 1: like the sixties, right, even in this less this less
Speaker 1: woke era, the people who made Beauty and the Beast
Speaker 1: were specifically saying, like, masculinity, toxic masculinity of the sort
Speaker 1: that Peterson embodies is something to be mocked and derided. Um,
Speaker 1: which is like what they hate the most, Which is
Speaker 1: what they hate the most, because the message of that
Speaker 1: is that like things get better for this like like monstrous,
Speaker 1: aggressive individual because he's fundamentally capable of change and like
Speaker 1: listening to others and learning from them, and everything good
Speaker 1: that happens to him and happens in the story is
Speaker 1: because he's capable of listening to and learning from a
Speaker 1: woman's ramping up to critique like feminist movements like me too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's kind of where we're Let's let's let's
Speaker 1: continue from where we left a bluster. And although he's attractive,
Speaker 1: it's a superficial attractiveness that often characterizes narcissists, and Beauty
Speaker 1: is wise enough to actually prefer the beast, who's a
Speaker 1: beast but also capable of standing up to Gaston and
Speaker 1: also prevailing, which is the advantage of the beast like elements,
Speaker 1: but also capable of being enticed by beauty and maybe
Speaker 1: literally so into a first of all a productive orientation
Speaker 1: for his proclivity for aggression, and also into a productive
Speaker 1: and generous relationship and beauty being a wise woman and
Speaker 1: oriented towards the good and characterized by a positive relationship
Speaker 1: with her father, which is stressed by the way in
Speaker 1: that movie wants a tamable beast. And first off, we'll
Speaker 1: continue in a second. It's been a minute since I've
Speaker 1: seen that. Isn't one of the points of it that
Speaker 1: he's actually like not super violent, Like he he makes
Speaker 1: like big threats and he blusters, but he never hurts her.
Speaker 1: Nor is he a violent threat to the rest of
Speaker 1: the village. No, he's only a violent threat to guests
Speaker 1: on briefly at the end, because uh, he's like bringing
Speaker 1: a mob of people. Um, that was so interesting to
Speaker 1: see him be like, yeah, it's like he's having to
Speaker 1: control his beastliness in order to defeat this narcissist And like,
Speaker 1: I actually think the point of it is that he's
Speaker 1: not really a beast. He just looks scary because of
Speaker 1: a curse, but it's actually kind of a decent man
Speaker 1: with some emotional trouble who needs to work through his problems,
Speaker 1: like he becomes That not the actual point of the
Speaker 1: story that he's not gentle by the end. Um, it's
Speaker 1: so weird that he lead with that. I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: update to dating profile must be four years older than
Speaker 1: me and be a hashtag tam moable beasts be at
Speaker 1: tamable beamable beast because I feel anyway guys would be like,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, finally, finally, why don't you keep playing for
Speaker 1: a little bit longer. We did that, We did the
Speaker 1: rest of the thing that you No, no, no, I
Speaker 1: want to get to the point where he talks about
Speaker 1: how women like erotic literature. Yes, yes, yes, I've seen
Speaker 1: before before sorry, before we before we play this, I
Speaker 1: have seen again. All this stuff is stuff he's talked
Speaker 1: about like ninety million times on other podcasts and flogs
Speaker 1: and stuff. I've seen him talk about what he's about
Speaker 1: to talk about with his daughter. Productive and competent, but
Speaker 1: so capable of enough aggression to keep the real monsters
Speaker 1: at bay. And that's a very narrow needle I for
Speaker 1: women to threat because you need a man who is
Speaker 1: aggressive enough to keep the real monsters away, but simultaneously
Speaker 1: agreeable enough, empathic enough, generous enough to be good with kids,
Speaker 1: to be good with her, and to share. And so
Speaker 1: that's a very fine line. And the taming of the
Speaker 1: beast is in some sense the negotiated establishment of that line.
Speaker 1: So there's a book called A Billion Wicked Thoughts that
Speaker 1: was written by Google engineers, who are quite reliable social
Speaker 1: scientists when they put their minds to it, engineer types
Speaker 1: because they tend to follow the data independent of any
Speaker 1: political inclination. And they looked at patterns of pornography use
Speaker 1: among men and women, drawing on literally billions of data
Speaker 1: points a Billion Wicked Thoughts, and they found was something
Speaker 1: that had been reported previously, but this was on a
Speaker 1: very large scale. That men use visual pornography. I don't
Speaker 1: think that comes as a shock to anyone, but that
Speaker 1: women's preferred pornographic art form is literary. The women like stories,
Speaker 1: and they analyze the canonical female pornographic fantasy and it's
Speaker 1: basically surprise, surprise, fifty shades of gray, and so the
Speaker 1: Google engineers identified five categories of men that were often
Speaker 1: the feature target for the romantic and erotic adventures of
Speaker 1: the female protagonist in the pornographic stories Pirate, vampire, surgeon, billionaire,
Speaker 1: and one I can never remember, but you get the
Speaker 1: ideas it's werewolf. The one he cannot remember is werewolf.
Speaker 1: You remember here you put a werewolf in there, and like,
Speaker 1: there's so much that's wrong here. Number one, I don't know. Obviously,
Speaker 1: a number of women find it attractive when a man
Speaker 1: is like muscular or strong, or like large. There's something comfortable,
Speaker 1: especially if you're smaller about that. That is like a
Speaker 1: thing that occurs in the world. Um, But it's not
Speaker 1: because those men are tamable beasts. And in fact, I
Speaker 1: would argue that as in my experience, UM, it tends
Speaker 1: to be deeply off putting. If you feel like somebody
Speaker 1: is barely holding and check their aggressiveness, like, it's nice
Speaker 1: to be with someone if you're who like you feel like, oh,
Speaker 1: if something bad happens, this person will react well and
Speaker 1: can help me stay safe and can protect people around me.
Speaker 1: That is an attractive trait. It's like if a fire
Speaker 1: breaks out and you happen to have someone there who
Speaker 1: has experienced fighting fires and they put the fire out.
Speaker 1: That is attractive. It is attractive to know, oh, that
Speaker 1: person can handle themselves in a dangerous situation. Right. All
Speaker 1: people find that attractive, men and women. It's always an
Speaker 1: attractive trait for very obvious reasons. What very few people
Speaker 1: find attractive is feeling, wow, this person could fly off
Speaker 1: the handle and become a dangerous, violent person at any second.
Speaker 1: Right because what he's talking about our fantasies. He's used
Speaker 1: that word many times, what he's talking about, and in
Speaker 1: these fantasies, they're not like pirate. It's not a violent,
Speaker 1: angry pirate with a short fuse who could. It's the
Speaker 1: charming erudit who's you know, he's violent, he's doing a
Speaker 1: violent job, but he's not inherently a violent man. And
Speaker 1: when you get to know it's the there's a reason
Speaker 1: why an entire generation of women in the West fell
Speaker 1: in love with Carrie always in uh fucking um the
Speaker 1: Princess because he's, yeah, he's this pirate, but fundamentally, the
Speaker 1: instant you talk to him, he doesn't. He's not this unchecked,
Speaker 1: violent madman. He's a deeply urbane, erudit charming individual and
Speaker 1: that's incredibly attractive. Yeah, I mean looking for a man
Speaker 1: four years older hashtag te beast but also literal werewolf.
Speaker 1: Not the two deeply handsome men in who have a
Speaker 1: generation men and women fell in love with in the
Speaker 1: Princess Diary and to Go Montolia and Carrie is the
Speaker 1: dread pilot. Princess Bride is the dread pirate. Roberts are
Speaker 1: both like deeply thoughtful and emotionally connective, gentle yeah yeah, gentle,
Speaker 1: very gentle, and merciful as a general rule. Yeah, they
Speaker 1: treat Buttercup wonderfully the entire time, uh pheasant, like they're all,
Speaker 1: it's just what a fucking It's incredible. But also like
Speaker 1: even his is the thing he's citing. He's like a surprise, surprise.
Speaker 1: It's fifty shades of Gray um, and I'm not I
Speaker 1: have not read fifas of Gray um. I've like read
Speaker 1: funny reviews of it a little bit, but like I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure the gray character who but the main character's
Speaker 1: name is Christian Gray, which yeah, yeah, the billy, but
Speaker 1: like he's not like a violent, vicious man. It's an
Speaker 1: arrangement that they have made consual sexual arrangement. It's a
Speaker 1: sexual arrangement where she feels safe in that relationship to
Speaker 1: open herself up and feel and be vulnerable in that scenario.
Speaker 1: It's not like, Oh, he's like a fucking violent, like
Speaker 1: sadist and I'm gonna but I'm gonna tame him. Like,
Speaker 1: that's not what it's about. Right, there's this there's this thing,
Speaker 1: and we're we're going to tread into some dicey territory.
Speaker 1: You can find a number of men who wrote, particularly
Speaker 1: back in the seventies, really bad essays about the fact
Speaker 1: that rape is a really common sexual fantasy, right, that
Speaker 1: a lot of sexual fantasies involve assault and domination in
Speaker 1: that san Bernie Sanders wrote a terrible essay. Hunter Thompson
Speaker 1: wrote a terrible essay. And as somebody who has repeatedly
Speaker 1: interviewed like people who professionally, sometimes in a clinical sense,
Speaker 1: help people engage with fantasy, is like that part of
Speaker 1: the reason why those are so common is they allow
Speaker 1: people who have been victimized to take power and agency
Speaker 1: in a situation that was deeply traumatic to them and
Speaker 1: kind of recreate and explore that that that experience while
Speaker 1: being able to take agency and control this time, and
Speaker 1: that is a that is a reason why that is
Speaker 1: a thing that people. But I don't think a guy
Speaker 1: like Jordan is capable of understanding that. Instead he interprets
Speaker 1: it as women actually want this a diversion of this
Speaker 1: to happen to them, rather than like, well, people who
Speaker 1: are traumatized may seek to explore the thing that traumatized
Speaker 1: them in a way in which they have more agency. Yeah. Um,
Speaker 1: it's kind of fucked up that he's a psychologist. It's
Speaker 1: really fucked up that he's a psychologist. This is a
Speaker 1: deeply stead of studied, like piece of like sexual psychology.
Speaker 1: A lot has been written by clinicians about why people
Speaker 1: do the things in some of this role playing that
Speaker 1: they do, Like this is a thing people study academically
Speaker 1: that I don't think he's ever read about, because it
Speaker 1: would it would make him uncomfortable versus a little bubble um.
Speaker 1: I feel like he said these had like tweets about this,
Speaker 1: like uh, like about I feel like it was about Muslims, yeah,
Speaker 1: and like desiring like I don't even want to find it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter, No, it's not it's just again he's
Speaker 1: he's he's wrong about everything. Um, just like he's wrong
Speaker 1: about were wolves because he forgot them, which is funny
Speaker 1: because that's like, look, if you're gonna, if you're gonna,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna list things that are common in erotic fiction,
Speaker 1: like werewolf is going to be the top of everybody's
Speaker 1: were wolf in pirates, right, were wolves and pirates like like,
Speaker 1: I wonder like because there's like he's like and then
Speaker 1: there's a fourth one and I can't remember it and
Speaker 1: then text on screens that werewolf. I wonder if they
Speaker 1: didn't know, Like part of me feels like because he
Speaker 1: I think he just like probably talks and then leaves
Speaker 1: and isn't like privy to like what it turns out
Speaker 1: as he's not like in the editing room, you know,
Speaker 1: being like, oh d text here is just some fucking
Speaker 1: person got I watched this and cut to a shot
Speaker 1: of his hands or whatever. So I feel like the
Speaker 1: editor like guests like, oh, pirates vampire werewolves too, And
Speaker 1: that's why it says werewolves, not because that's what he
Speaker 1: couldn't think of, but because the editor had to fill
Speaker 1: it in. Yeah, it's, um, you know what I would
Speaker 1: like to do with Jordan Peterson if I could, I
Speaker 1: would like to sit him downward, and I would like
Speaker 1: to make him watch the movie Wolf Cop, and I
Speaker 1: would like him to interpret the film Wolf Cop, particularly
Speaker 1: the scene in which the main character bursts Dick Frost
Speaker 1: first into a werewolf. It's the most incredible scene in
Speaker 1: cinematic history. Nothing has ever compared to it. God, I
Speaker 1: love wolf I I'm just now hearing of it. Have
Speaker 1: you not seen wolf Coffee turns cock first into a
Speaker 1: werewolf Cody and you see it all? What it is
Speaker 1: amazing everything you see everything Wolf Cop. Watch it. I'm
Speaker 1: checking out the trailer right now. It is heard he's
Speaker 1: a very drunk cop. The main character is a drunk cop. Yes,
Speaker 1: because he's wasted. He is like he is like the
Speaker 1: Sheriff and Jaws level alcoholic. It's awesome. Um. And then
Speaker 1: the best thing about it is after he becomes a werewolf,
Speaker 1: he doesn't stop being a cop. He's both a hundred
Speaker 1: percent werewolf and a hundred percent cop at the same time,
Speaker 1: which is groundbreaking. I mean that's why he's the wolf
Speaker 1: cop right, Yes, exactly. Anyway, anyway, lampire and wolf cop
Speaker 1: and wolf cop so um, it's very funny. H So
Speaker 1: he goes into this misunderstanding of this Google study to
Speaker 1: say that it's really important that all of these preferred
Speaker 1: female fantasy men um were like these these fantasies remained
Speaker 1: in place during Me Too. Like that's that he thought,
Speaker 1: you think that's a big deal. I knew it. Anyway,
Speaker 1: here's how he describes the Me too movement, just taking
Speaker 1: a deep sigh. All male will is potentially corrupted by
Speaker 1: power and to be regarded with suspicion and legal regulation. Well,
Speaker 1: that's far too extreme and preposterous. And so what you
Speaker 1: have as a compensatory fantasy emerge. That's highlighting the value
Speaker 1: that's not being properly attended to by the culture, and
Speaker 1: it possesses people in an unconscious manner, you might say, uh,
Speaker 1: in an attempt to bring them back to the middle.
Speaker 1: And anyways, that's all part of the tamable monster and
Speaker 1: is it is it also hand motions during that exact
Speaker 1: part or just spectacularly distracting. It's his need to like
Speaker 1: make these things complex and deeper than Like, it was
Speaker 1: easy for men to get away with assaulting women and
Speaker 1: they didn't like that, and they're frustrating, Like listening to
Speaker 1: them talk about this stuff, it's like, no, man, just
Speaker 1: like people don't like to be assaulted. Jordan's like the
Speaker 1: like why me too happen is extremely simple. It was
Speaker 1: easy for powerful men to get away with abusing women,
Speaker 1: and the women didn't like it, like it, and also
Speaker 1: a lot of men didn't like it because it's fucked
Speaker 1: up and horrible, like people did. People don't like that.
Speaker 1: It's bad. Some people did and those people are bad. Yeah,
Speaker 1: those people are terrible, and we wanted them out of
Speaker 1: our society. There the tamable beasts. You can even phrase
Speaker 1: that in like a stupid mythic term, where like fundamentally
Speaker 1: society is all sheep and wolves, and the wolves were
Speaker 1: preying on the sheep, but dressing as the wolf. It's
Speaker 1: the evil uncle and the crowd own and I don't
Speaker 1: know whatever, I'm not going to try to do that,
Speaker 1: like you can do a man job of this than
Speaker 1: because um yeah. So after this, he restates for like
Speaker 1: the fifth fucking time that a man who can be
Speaker 1: aggressive but also knows how not to be aggressive is
Speaker 1: the most useful kind of man, which is like pointless. Yes,
Speaker 1: aggression is sometimes necessary so it is it is good
Speaker 1: to be capable of aggression and also know when that's
Speaker 1: not appropriate. Like obviously, that's the thing of saying, like,
Speaker 1: it's good to know when you should use a kitchen
Speaker 1: knife as opposed to putting the kitchen knife away so
Speaker 1: you don't accidentally cut somebody. Well, yes, Jordan's it is
Speaker 1: good to not just swing a kitchen knife around. There's
Speaker 1: a time and a place for that knife. Everyone knows this, um. Also,
Speaker 1: the same is true of women, where it's you need
Speaker 1: to be aggressive sometimes and other times it's inappropriate to
Speaker 1: be aggressive. That is true of all human beings, like
Speaker 1: sometimes human beings will need to be aggressive, but most
Speaker 1: of the time they won't need to be, and knowing
Speaker 1: the difference is critical. Obviously, Jordan um, I don't know.
Speaker 1: His episode peters out to a completely nonsensical closing statement.
Speaker 1: Control is that way more useful man than one who
Speaker 1: cannot do that for lack of ability or because he's
Speaker 1: imposed or incorporated arbitrary moral constraints on his perceptions and
Speaker 1: behavior that stop him from well from from from being
Speaker 1: able to say no, for example, because saying no is
Speaker 1: an act of aggression, as what no means no means
Speaker 1: stop doing that, or something you do not like will
Speaker 1: absolutely happened to you. And so without that, there's no
Speaker 1: capacities say no. And well, if you can't say no,
Speaker 1: you can't negotiate, you can't you can't move forward, you
Speaker 1: can't you can't live your own life. You can't put
Speaker 1: limits on Machiavellian's, you can't oppose narcissists, you can't emerge
Speaker 1: scathed from people use empathy in a manipulative way. You
Speaker 1: can't put constraints on a bad, badly behaving two year old.
Speaker 1: Oh good, get the song. No in aggression, those are
Speaker 1: an integrated aggression. Those are pretty much exactly the same thing.
Speaker 1: What what what? The same thing is inherently enactive violence. Impressively,
Speaker 1: he's saying that because like, you can't say no without
Speaker 1: the threat of force. But for example, the other night,
Speaker 1: my friends were going out to dance and they asked
Speaker 1: if I wanted to go, and I said no, And
Speaker 1: you know what I didn't was not present at all
Speaker 1: was the fact that I might harm them physically if
Speaker 1: they asked me again. Right, there was no threat. It
Speaker 1: was just I was asked if I wanted to do
Speaker 1: a thing, and I stated that I did not right,
Speaker 1: because like what he's like assuming that, like it's not
Speaker 1: just like the no is violence, it's the initial question
Speaker 1: is violence. Yeah, everything is violence. It's just meeting violence violence,
Speaker 1: and so rejecting that is also implicit violence. And also
Speaker 1: like as a general even in the because he's obviously
Speaker 1: means a lot of this is like a in a
Speaker 1: like in a sexual way, like if a man asks
Speaker 1: something of a woman and she says no, that's a
Speaker 1: violence on her part too, because obviously she can only
Speaker 1: back up the fact that, like she doesn't want him
Speaker 1: to do something if she's willing to use force, which
Speaker 1: is nonsense, because I think it is for the most
Speaker 1: part in human society when like people ask do you
Speaker 1: want to do like hey, do you want to make
Speaker 1: out or whatever or have some sort of like physical
Speaker 1: arrangement and the other person says no, As a general rule,
Speaker 1: most people are like, oh okay, and there's not a
Speaker 1: threat of violence because most people don't want to be rapists.
Speaker 1: I do feel like that's probably someone that is somewhat
Speaker 1: of a statement of faith on my part. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean according to Jordan, that's not true. Sort of
Speaker 1: the Jordan that's not true. It's the threat of violence
Speaker 1: on both sides period. Also like just what a weird
Speaker 1: way to end um. But like it's just again, it's
Speaker 1: one of those things where he's like he's talking these
Speaker 1: grandiose terms and in some ways just misrepresenting things and
Speaker 1: just saying fucked up, like uh, like hard lined rules
Speaker 1: about how everybody is and how everybody should act. But
Speaker 1: what he's talking about like almost it's like, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: good to set boundaries and be able to say no,
Speaker 1: which which okay, yeah, But also saying no is inherently
Speaker 1: not an act of violence, right, No, Like it's it's
Speaker 1: like it's like packaged and all this other stuff is
Speaker 1: like it would be it would be fair to say that,
Speaker 1: like sometimes because of because of the fact that many
Speaker 1: men have bad boundaries and are aggressive in an unhinged way,
Speaker 1: women may need to know how to say no in
Speaker 1: a in a way that is aggressive and that implies
Speaker 1: a degree of threat because they may be in a
Speaker 1: situation where they are themselves threatened. That's a fair statement,
Speaker 1: but also number one, that's not ever going to be
Speaker 1: generally true. And number two, we should be moving as
Speaker 1: a society to a situation which people don't have to
Speaker 1: say no as a with the threat of aggression behind it,
Speaker 1: like because that's bad. That's always a bad thing when
Speaker 1: that happens. Anyway, Jordan Peterson, I mean he's talked about
Speaker 1: this before in terms of like how you can't like
Speaker 1: is it like you can't, uh, you can't control crazy
Speaker 1: women because you can't be violent with Um you're a man,
Speaker 1: I can the threat of violence is there, but if
Speaker 1: you're a woman, it's not, so you can't do anything.
Speaker 1: So there's nothing to control women. Yes, it's just a
Speaker 1: weird guy. Yeah. I I don't know. I Uh, I
Speaker 1: feel like he's not a good person, Cody. I think maybe, um,
Speaker 1: maybe that's true. I think that those email and how
Speaker 1: he treated his patients is pretty indicative that he's not
Speaker 1: a very good person, aside from everything else he's ever said. Um,
Speaker 1: and how we've used the world. Not a fan, not
Speaker 1: a fan, Not a fan, Cody, you know what? I
Speaker 1: am a fan of? What's that is you? Oh? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Two times? Where where? Because I've never met you before,
Speaker 1: this is the first time we're talking. If I wanted
Speaker 1: to find things that you make and or create on
Speaker 1: the internet, where would I find those uh so many
Speaker 1: places or just a few, uh YouTube. I have a
Speaker 1: show called some More News where all the podcasts are
Speaker 1: a show called even more News Wow. And you can
Speaker 1: support either of those Patreon, dot com, slash some more
Speaker 1: News and I've got the websites social media with my
Speaker 1: name Cody Johnston is there? Your name is Cody Amazing,
Speaker 1: Twitter and Instagram and my band the Hot Shapes will
Speaker 1: be available quite soon for all listeners to hear our
Speaker 1: album about. I'm not gonna joke about it, Cody, I
Speaker 1: am as excited now is The Mighty Mighty boss Tones
Speaker 1: were when they realized that there was a cultural tragedy
Speaker 1: to exploit in order to sell an album, an entire
Speaker 1: album about an entire an entire album, my god, my god,
Speaker 1: not even like one song, not even a whole album.
Speaker 1: Like if there's been one song, I'd be like, well,
Speaker 1: you know it was whatever, misguided, but I get it,
Speaker 1: like you you you felt the need to express yourself. Okay,
Speaker 1: whole album, my god. Anyway, find the guys from the
Speaker 1: Mighty Mighty boss Tones and and hit them hm or
Speaker 1: like or I go up and say, no, you know
Speaker 1: who didn't do ship like this is drop Kick Murphy's
Speaker 1: They just beat the funk out of Nazis on stage
Speaker 1: because they're right. They're okay, all right. Behind the Bastards
Speaker 1: is a production of cool Zone Media. For more from
Speaker 1: cool Zone Media, visit our website cool zone media dot com,
Speaker 1: or check us out on the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.