Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

heinrich said:
how about giving the title of the tweet?
Click to expand...
I suppose that you use an English translator to be able to read and the description attached to the Tweets is not translated, so if there is only the link of the Tweet in the post, for people who do not speak English it is not possible to understand what it is about .

It happens all the time and people will keep doing it because they don't think about that problem.

One thing you can do is highlight the English text of the Tweet and then paste it into a translation page, so you will have the description of the Tweet translated and you will know if you are interested in seeing it or not.
 
Had read Helen Dale's substack the other day titled What is a Woman?, and she has a few things to say - opening on Walsh, yet not all disagreeably per se (somewhat sympathetic), although did he fail, and the why is what she explores. Now some may not like this, yet the focus that caught my attention (and Helen knows a lot about Roman times) was the following theme, satire and "How, then, do we mock?"

A little ways down she writes:

FWIW, part of me suspects that the only fix for trans lunacy (and a lot of other nonsense, like the “obesity is healthy” movement) is to mock it. A reasonable response to ugly or unhealthy people who think they’re beautiful or healthy is mockery: for them to be held up to ridicule and contempt. It’s one thing that will assuredly put them back in their box. And I do think “human deepfake” has definite comedic potential.

So in that sense, I have some sympathy for Matt Walsh, even though he failed.

Why did he fail?

Walsh failed because he’s a Christian, and Christianity is a weak shield against Wokery. Wokery is a Christian heresy. Christians need to own the extent to which Big Victim Inc in the modern world has roots in what Australians would call the religion’s “sookiness”.

Whole books have now been written about this historical and theological reality. The most famous is classicist’s Tom Holland’s Dominion. Holland piles up so much evidence over 600 + pages printed on Bible paper as to be overwhelming.

Equality in the eyes of God is a core tenet of the Christian tradition. It’s something that marks Christian societies off from the great civilisations that came before them. To a pagan Roman, if you were beautiful, or clever, or brave, you were a better person. And if any of those traits happened to be coupled with Roman citizenship, even finer. But they need not be. As political scientist Samuel Goldman observes, for the ancients, “the majority of human beings were born to serve.”
Click to expand...

Had not thought about this, and now that she writes it there could be some sense to it - I mean, I know some people similar who fell hook, line and sinker for "Wokery" - the "Big Victim Inc." It amazed me how fast the churches filled with Rainbows and odd speaking words coming from the pulpits that played right into Wokery. The congregation fell all over themselves for equality (all things being equal and not unreasonable), which then leaped to diversity, inclusion and the sour E for equity that became a mask for the woke racist who wants it all at any cost. What a combined mess.

One of the things that came out of the UK’s National Conservatism conference when I covered it was how many Christians now realise the extent to which their religion opened the door to Big Victim Inc. Half a dozen clearly deeply religious people admitted to me that they didn’t even have the vocabulary to resist Wokery when it presents them with a victim.
Click to expand...

Lastly, she ends with the following on mocking and the Romans (lest I wonder about how Greek Stoics would handle wokery):

1686893076820.png
To mock is going to be difficult; our satirists are going to have to reach back through two thousand years of Christianity to a mindset very different from our own. We may need to bring some pagan writer back from the dead to pull it off.

If you want a writer to do a sustained and funny mockery of someone’s physical appearance and entitled sookiness, I nominate Juvenal.

No-one has written like Juvenal for the best part of two thousand years. It wasn’t that when the Romans made him, they threw away the mould. It’s that only Romans could make someone like that. There were other vicious Roman satirists; he’s simply the most famous. His oeuvre is also well preserved.

I talk about Juvenal quite a bit in a forthcoming episode of Louise Perry’s Maiden Mother Patriarch podcast. The interview was pre-recorded to coincide with the publication of one of Louise’s features, so rather than translate a Juvenal highlights reel here, I’ll hold off and write a dedicated Substack when my interview with Louise airs.

Until then, my point is simple. If Matt Walsh wanted to do a Juvenal, he’d have to lose his religion. That doesn’t mean become an atheist, although the most Juvenal-like writer our post-Christian world has produced was an atheist—I’m referring, of course, to Voltaire. Juvenal wasn’t an atheist—few Romans were—although their religious sensibilities could be very thin.

A Juvenal-like writer has the ability to be distant from the human deepfake, to not be like it, because similarity and fellow-feeling draws the Evil Eye towards oneself. Walsh, by stepping back and commenting, is doing what Juvenal did when he mocked people for their appearance. He’s saying “I am not that and I have no sympathy with that”. He’s half-way there, half-way to paganism and pagan humour about sad, ugly weirdos.

Like Juvenal, Matt Walsh took a trip to the Uncanny Valley. Unlike Juvenal, he only opened the door and didn’t step through it. He didn’t look long enough to make the rest of us laugh about it on his return.

As I discuss with Louise, however, we have to decide as a culture whether we want to step through that door and explore the valley beyond. Ancient Rome was an awesome civilisation in an older sense of the word: great, and terrible, and cruel.
Click to expand...
 
heinrich said:
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR ALL THIS NONSENSE.
Click to expand...
Well, obviously there is no need. But it is so extremely insane and universal, it has to be intentional. So the question becomes, why? And you can look at your own reaction for the answer: confusion, destabilization, doubt and everyone around is putting their heads in the sand thinking and hoping and praying it goes away without an actual fight. It is a test too. At what point will people react with violence?

We are in a Petrie dish and the scientists are truly mad and do not have the interests of the common man/woman at heart. Is there another possible conclusion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom