Lt. Michael Byrd and Lakeland Mayor Bill Mutz showed you can beat "monsters" who demand no consequences for their warped sense of masculinity. We should look to them for positive examples of manhood.
I think this is a great indictment of MAGA thinking, but I also think you have completely misread Peterson. Peterson's thinking is highly influenced by mythic archetypes, like the myth of Marduk and Tiamat, and the notion of the subduing of chaos being the calling to which men properly aspire. His talk about "monsters" is in the context of the observation that chaos is not subdued by passivity, weakness, "niceness", but through aggression, effort, and a certain ruthlessness. It's a bit unfair to call him out for not publicly giving props to Lt. Byrd, because you will quite rarely see him make specific comments on any individuals in the news, but his action actually are directly in line with his notion that you get your dark side under control and you use those powers for good. I think that you, actually, though perhaps inadvertently, portray an excellent example of how Peterson's ideas don't just apply to physical aggression, but an overall refusal to be intimidated by the agents of chaos and to resist them through whatever means are at hand (in your case, research, questioning, and confrontation.)
I appreciate this comment. It's thoughtful; but I think it's naive. Naivety is not a crime though. First, I quoted his dishonesty in the "everyone says"... riff. Open dishonesty is one of the great tools of disorder and aggression. Second, I wrote this: "The Peterson and Rogan grift is creating tons of “monsters” — and no “control” or moral male strength. Enjoy that with your daughters, girl dad MAGA boys." Is that wrong? Do you see "control" rising among "monsters?" If not, does Jordan Peterson have any responsibility to lead in that direction, with specificity? For me, you are what you do in reality, not what you think in abstract.
I think this is a great indictment of MAGA thinking, but I also think you have completely misread Peterson. Peterson's thinking is highly influenced by mythic archetypes, like the myth of Marduk and Tiamat, and the notion of the subduing of chaos being the calling to which men properly aspire. His talk about "monsters" is in the context of the observation that chaos is not subdued by passivity, weakness, "niceness", but through aggression, effort, and a certain ruthlessness. It's a bit unfair to call him out for not publicly giving props to Lt. Byrd, because you will quite rarely see him make specific comments on any individuals in the news, but his action actually are directly in line with his notion that you get your dark side under control and you use those powers for good. I think that you, actually, though perhaps inadvertently, portray an excellent example of how Peterson's ideas don't just apply to physical aggression, but an overall refusal to be intimidated by the agents of chaos and to resist them through whatever means are at hand (in your case, research, questioning, and confrontation.)
I appreciate this comment. It's thoughtful; but I think it's naive. Naivety is not a crime though. First, I quoted his dishonesty in the "everyone says"... riff. Open dishonesty is one of the great tools of disorder and aggression. Second, I wrote this: "The Peterson and Rogan grift is creating tons of “monsters” — and no “control” or moral male strength. Enjoy that with your daughters, girl dad MAGA boys." Is that wrong? Do you see "control" rising among "monsters?" If not, does Jordan Peterson have any responsibility to lead in that direction, with specificity? For me, you are what you do in reality, not what you think in abstract.
Scott, I was very curious to hear your response to this.