I made a bet with Sir Hamster that a Jordan Peterson lookalike would be among the pedophile antagonists of Alt-Q within the first five comics. Regarding this, some (heavily edited) copypasta of sperging from the Discord.
Vox seems dead-set on destroying Peterson for whatever reason.
The reasoning is pretty straightforward. I only disagree with Vox on two major points: 1) that Peterson is a pedophile, and 2) that Peterson is an evil manipulator with well-defined motivations comparable to George Soros. If I also agreed that Peterson is a pedophile and a malevolent influence, then I would have no disagreement with Vox’s mission or methods whatsoever. But in terms of influence, I believe Peterson is a well-intentioned mixed bag with huge weaknesses in key areas (you might recall it was this quote that originally triggered me). And I don’t believe he’s a pedophile or a supporter of pedophiles, and would be surprised if he’s a willfully blind denier or codependent enabler.
The main problem, as I was discussing with Patrick earlier, is that he’s bridging Jungian paganism and neoliberal ideology to create a viable civil religion for a legitimately post-materialist Western population. He conceives of himself as a genius for doing this, but this is due to mistaking the shift to an endogenous personality with genius proper, and likely also due to the Winner Effect producing a megalomania which he’s never had to manage before (unlike e.g. Vox or Sam Vaknin, who are familiar with the symptoms and how to manage them).
Luckily, a recent post provides good pullquotes to illustrate the reasoning behind Vox’s campaign.
I believe that if one knows someone is committing fraud, then one has a moral responsibility to alert those being defrauded.
A failure to finish
It’s a good post and not very long, so I’d recommend clicking through and reading it. (I think there’s a subtle distinction which renders the criticism of William Lane Craig’s civility moot, but that’s another topic.) Vox uses the analogy of destroying Bernie Madoff and his institution to protect the innocent and avenge the victims. If a similar campaign had been executed against L. Ron Hubbard thousands of vulnerable people could have been saved from misery and enslavement.
Jordan Peterson actually explains this concept quite well in the video below. The obligation of vengeance for victims falls on those who are responsible for them:
The example he uses is a husband whose wife has been raped—because the man’s Christian duty is to love his wife, he is responsible to exact vengeance for wrongs done against her (similar to a king’s duty to avenge his subjects who have been wronged).
Christian morality gives me the right to offer mercy to those who have wronged me. It gives me no right to offer mercy to those who have wronged innocents I’m responsible for protecting.”
This is a very concise expression of the concept I was alluding to when I said “For my next trick, I will demonstrate how Christians set clear boundaries,” which is just another post that never graduated from my drafts folder. But I’ve illustrated the underlying logic with the example of screening out pedophiles as potential babysitters as part of an attack on radical nonjudgmentalism in liberal protestantism.
Peterson distinguishes between justice and vengeance as outsourcing the obligation to an abstract authority, because people enjoy the carte blanche to hurt each other in righteous anger and will take any excuse to escalate. This tends to mitigate the damage of feuds, gang wars, etc. But since there is no legal sanction against what Peterson is doing, and Vox sees real harm in it, Vox concludes he is obligated to take vengeance for the people Peterson has influenced and destroy Peterson’s reputation to protect those he might influence in the future.
The best way to mitigate fraud, absent legal avenues, is to publicly reveal the nature of the scam, shame the fraudster, and destroy the credibility of their institution.
I think William Lane Craig performs a real disservice to the followers of his opponents by failing to fully expose the arguments of his opponents or complete the unmasking of the charlatans he encounters.
Now, I think Vox’s motives are far from noble but this is his moral sanction to give reign to his natural sadism. And I expect he would agree with this assessment. This leads to the reasoning behind his methods. As Vox has made us aware, rhetoric is a far better persuasion tool than dialectic for as close to all audiences as makes no difference. Since the beginning of Vox’s campaign, Peterson’s credibility among the Alt-West and Alt-White has gone from significant acceptance to this meme:
So you can’t criticize Vox for ineffective rhetoric. Adding to this, painting someone as a pedophile is excellent ad hominem, and I believe Vox also genuinely believes Peterson is a pedophile (due to that damned heuristic which, in combination with Cville, caused me to fall out with Vox Popoli). This belief both allows and compels him to prosecute this accusation in the court of public opinion (the West now being a land of men and not laws).
This ties directly into my prediction about Alt-Q, which comes down to massive consilience. Given what Vox believes, and his moral imperative to use the best possible rhetoric to destroy Jordan Peterson, the fact that Alt-Q will almost certainly be about pedophilia, and the opportunity to get some free controversy out of it, it would be more surprising to me if Peterson does not appear in it. I expect this would only happen if someone else involved in the production opposed it strongly.