Totes Actually I feel bad saying this but Ive been finding Jesse really annoying the la at few eps and I couldn't even explain why. Helen abd Katie were great
That was one of the best overviews of Peterson I've ever heard. I also think it's interesting that he claims he's been at death's door, his daughter has been at death's door, and his wife has been at death's door. (His wife, according to him, survived a kind of cancer that had "a near 100 percent fatality rate." I am not questioning if she was sick, just his take on it.) According to Peterson and his daughter, they all were so close to death at one point or another (for independent reasons), they should not be here to tell the tale, adding gravitas to whatever it is they are going on about. I do not believe the yarns he spins about himself. But all of this story-telling fits in nicely with his interests, natch.
Much of his preaching is New Age mumbo jumbo, with all due respect to fans. I know he sounds very convincing and some of his advice seems sound. But I think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and underneath is truly a seething contempt for women. This slips out especially when he is flustered.
I think he is very good at covering up and making presentable a foundation of belief that is regressive and dangerous, and this is why he does spark so many on the far right. They like what they see through the veneer.
The entire episode was wonderful. Looking forward to Helen's BBC doc.
I remember reading Peterson's book to see if it was as bollocks as everyone said. And I do find myself remembering and using the worthwhile bits of his advice, even while knowing that it's a mixture of well-tested but standard psych advice and Rasputinian loony mysticism.
I can see how it would appeal to someone who thinks he's too smart for therapy or self-help, but needs a serious kick up the ass to get them out of self-pity city.
I see him rather as an extraordinary professor who found himself in a rock star position, and much like the tales of the great rocks stars, elements of drugs, getting lost, riding on ego, making bad decisions, and managing your image all overwhelmed him.
I’m glad he’s here, I think the hatred towards him is hyped, and I think Helen Lewis being out of her depth intellectually helped solidify his best thinking.
It was enjoyable listening to Helen Lewis, which surprised me because despite what she says about her interview with Jordan Peterson, I thought she might be an actual rigid thinker.
I think she’s redeemed herself here for me, sounding much more relaxed, more light hearted than I previously thought.
I am hoping something is seriously breaking with the Trans Stuff and kids. I’m endlessly worried about what’s happening at a policy level. I’m a teacher, and this fall my state has decided it’s the morally right thing to do to put feminine hygiene products in the boys’ toilets and locker rooms. I can’t get behind this sort of thing, and every year it feels we’re slipping into more and more stupidity wrapped up as “saving” some group or other from a boogey man of hate and harm.
Glad to hear her voice in this episode (though I always miss Jesse when he’s gone as I have a fan-girl crush on him).
I think what is getting missed by Helen Lewis is she could be a described as a higher brow tabloid journalist. Her top goal is to be provocative, not necessarily to get to the truth or provide enlightening information on any issue.
Lewis wanted to provoke Peterson and Peterson wanted to be provoked. Each basically got what they wanted out of that interview and so so did their supporters. Everyone else got nothing of importance. The “lobster” exchange clip shows this quite well.
I've enjoyed Helen's work in the past, but she really won me over with "cringed a kidney out of my mouth" (and a close second, "what's up fuckwit? let's do the interview"). Great episode!
Eh. I'm familiar with her too. Basically a standard-issue UK radical-leaning feminist. Talk to her about issues where that group is set in their ways, like their opposition to any form of sex work or pornography, and I don't think she's very subtle, nuanced, or evidence-based at all.
I don’t think having firm, evidence-based beliefs about something constitutes “set in her ways” though. There is plenty of evidence that prostitution and pornography are inherently exploitative: the question is whether it should be allowed anyway. There are also varying views within radical feminism on policy around those subjects.
Admittedly I’ve only encountered her in more mainstream settings where those subjects haven’t come up. But there are definitely far worse members of that group which you identify.
This was terrific, great job. Really enjoyed listening to Helen. She's much funnier and more measured than I would have guessed, and is very well spoken. Would be delighted to see her appear more frequently if there was any possibility of that.
I agree with Helen and Katie that political positions are replacing religious faith as major social institutions -- both in terms of providing positive benefits to group members and drawing lines for those members about who they can interact with, marry, and who it is right to fight with in the street, etc.
One thing I think is a little overlooked in this discussion is a recognition of how much the 'political' nature of these socio-spiritual fights and group identities isn't new. It was for a very long time the case that the political party you supported was determined by your religion, rather than your position on the matters of the day -- and as a result, your religion drove your other positions to a large degree. An Anglican was a Tory and a Noncomformist was a Whig in the late 1700s in the same way that a person who calls themself nonbinary is (with one BARPod-provided exception) certainly not a Republican now. The thought that your beliefs about the correct form of Protestantism should determine your position on agricultural tariffs sounds silly now, but was as clear as a modern position on gender ideology's connection to, say, gun ownership.
The idea that religious beliefs (like wokeness) are orthogonal to political alignment may be the frame we grew up in, but that frame might itself be an unusual deviation from the historical norm.
Another obvious example is totalitiarian societies, North Korea being the most obvious current example, where you have a more-or-less theocracy in the name of a non-theistic ideology. Communist parties have played a role that's an awful lot like the Catholic or other state church in pre-Enlightenment times, with party ideology being the established dogma and the secret police being their Inquisition. That's the part of "religious" politics that's deeply scary, and I see more than a little bit of that mentality in 'woke' politics - I think some of these people really would unleash terror if they had the political power to do so.
The question is, how do you get the positive, community-building and meaning-finding aspects of religion without the dogmatism, superstition, and tribalism of religion. I don't have the answer to that.
Very true. In the late 19th century northern US (as opposed to the Solid South), one’s party correlated pretty strongly to whether one was Episcopalian, Lutheran, Catholic, etc. (as well as Irish, German, Anglo, Norwegian, etc)
I was super impressed with how charitable Helen was re: the Peterson interview. Any objective viewer could see he was unreasonably hostile in that interview. Regardless, Helen's humility is inspiring.
I disagree that we need to bring people back to religion (or vice versa). Everything that's bad about religion, plus maybe a couple of good things about it, has been replicated in our current social spaces. If people went to church instead of to Comic Con or trucker rallies or Facebook or TikTok, they'd be just as tribal, self-righteous, and spiritual as they are now, maybe more so.
Wokeness and gender ideology haven't exactly replaced godliness though. Many wokesters are religious (or "spiritual but not religious" in the case of the more progressive congregations). I used to occasionally attend services of the denomination I was raised in, but they're all totally focused now on social justice, DEI, and political activism. So I listen to BARpod instead.
As a still-religious person who's moved around a lot, I've had a hard time finding churches that aren't largely political clubs of left- or right-wing flavor. I have found exceptions, but I always want to ask the political clubs, "Why do you think people should bother to get up on a weekend morning to come to your services instead of sleeping in and doing political volunteer work on a Tuesday night?" If I could think of a less aggressive way of asking the question, I'd be genuinely interested in the answers.
Maybe for a lot of people the answer is "community." Tyler Cowen is another nonbeliever who makes a case similar to Katie's for religious observance. To which I say, sure, come for the potlucks and stay for the beautifully weird scriptures.
I love Jesse and everything but seriously… I cannot tell you how fervently I would subscribe to a Helen/Katie podcast.
Totes Actually I feel bad saying this but Ive been finding Jesse really annoying the la at few eps and I couldn't even explain why. Helen abd Katie were great
If the podcast was called Totes Actually they should sell “Actually Totes” as merchandise.
the poor guy was sick! and as the saying goes, women complain about labour because they were never a man with a cold.
That was one of the best overviews of Peterson I've ever heard. I also think it's interesting that he claims he's been at death's door, his daughter has been at death's door, and his wife has been at death's door. (His wife, according to him, survived a kind of cancer that had "a near 100 percent fatality rate." I am not questioning if she was sick, just his take on it.) According to Peterson and his daughter, they all were so close to death at one point or another (for independent reasons), they should not be here to tell the tale, adding gravitas to whatever it is they are going on about. I do not believe the yarns he spins about himself. But all of this story-telling fits in nicely with his interests, natch.
Much of his preaching is New Age mumbo jumbo, with all due respect to fans. I know he sounds very convincing and some of his advice seems sound. But I think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and underneath is truly a seething contempt for women. This slips out especially when he is flustered.
I think he is very good at covering up and making presentable a foundation of belief that is regressive and dangerous, and this is why he does spark so many on the far right. They like what they see through the veneer.
The entire episode was wonderful. Looking forward to Helen's BBC doc.
I remember reading Peterson's book to see if it was as bollocks as everyone said. And I do find myself remembering and using the worthwhile bits of his advice, even while knowing that it's a mixture of well-tested but standard psych advice and Rasputinian loony mysticism.
I can see how it would appeal to someone who thinks he's too smart for therapy or self-help, but needs a serious kick up the ass to get them out of self-pity city.
I see him rather as an extraordinary professor who found himself in a rock star position, and much like the tales of the great rocks stars, elements of drugs, getting lost, riding on ego, making bad decisions, and managing your image all overwhelmed him.
I’m glad he’s here, I think the hatred towards him is hyped, and I think Helen Lewis being out of her depth intellectually helped solidify his best thinking.
It was enjoyable listening to Helen Lewis, which surprised me because despite what she says about her interview with Jordan Peterson, I thought she might be an actual rigid thinker.
I think she’s redeemed herself here for me, sounding much more relaxed, more light hearted than I previously thought.
I am hoping something is seriously breaking with the Trans Stuff and kids. I’m endlessly worried about what’s happening at a policy level. I’m a teacher, and this fall my state has decided it’s the morally right thing to do to put feminine hygiene products in the boys’ toilets and locker rooms. I can’t get behind this sort of thing, and every year it feels we’re slipping into more and more stupidity wrapped up as “saving” some group or other from a boogey man of hate and harm.
Glad to hear her voice in this episode (though I always miss Jesse when he’s gone as I have a fan-girl crush on him).
I think what is getting missed by Helen Lewis is she could be a described as a higher brow tabloid journalist. Her top goal is to be provocative, not necessarily to get to the truth or provide enlightening information on any issue.
Lewis wanted to provoke Peterson and Peterson wanted to be provoked. Each basically got what they wanted out of that interview and so so did their supporters. Everyone else got nothing of importance. The “lobster” exchange clip shows this quite well.
I think "what's up fuckwit, let's do the interview" will be BARpod's answer to the fifth column's "wake up ya cunts".
I've enjoyed Helen's work in the past, but she really won me over with "cringed a kidney out of my mouth" (and a close second, "what's up fuckwit? let's do the interview"). Great episode!
I knew, when the title popped up with Helen’s name in it, that this would be good.
And not just because there would be a British accent on the pod.
An example to everyone that difficult, contentious issues can be discussed calmly and without resorting to insult, accusation or abuse.
More of this sort of thing please.
Eh. I'm familiar with her too. Basically a standard-issue UK radical-leaning feminist. Talk to her about issues where that group is set in their ways, like their opposition to any form of sex work or pornography, and I don't think she's very subtle, nuanced, or evidence-based at all.
I don’t think having firm, evidence-based beliefs about something constitutes “set in her ways” though. There is plenty of evidence that prostitution and pornography are inherently exploitative: the question is whether it should be allowed anyway. There are also varying views within radical feminism on policy around those subjects.
Admittedly I’ve only encountered her in more mainstream settings where those subjects haven’t come up. But there are definitely far worse members of that group which you identify.
This was terrific, great job. Really enjoyed listening to Helen. She's much funnier and more measured than I would have guessed, and is very well spoken. Would be delighted to see her appear more frequently if there was any possibility of that.
To Helen, back again!
So glad to hear Helen Lewis. She is an excellent journalist, and such clear, calm rhetoric.
BELLICOSITY? I think I am in love
Also. I do love all the Helens
100% - I'd be happy with an episode with any of the Helens - Lewis, Joyce, Steel
I agree with Helen and Katie that political positions are replacing religious faith as major social institutions -- both in terms of providing positive benefits to group members and drawing lines for those members about who they can interact with, marry, and who it is right to fight with in the street, etc.
One thing I think is a little overlooked in this discussion is a recognition of how much the 'political' nature of these socio-spiritual fights and group identities isn't new. It was for a very long time the case that the political party you supported was determined by your religion, rather than your position on the matters of the day -- and as a result, your religion drove your other positions to a large degree. An Anglican was a Tory and a Noncomformist was a Whig in the late 1700s in the same way that a person who calls themself nonbinary is (with one BARPod-provided exception) certainly not a Republican now. The thought that your beliefs about the correct form of Protestantism should determine your position on agricultural tariffs sounds silly now, but was as clear as a modern position on gender ideology's connection to, say, gun ownership.
The idea that religious beliefs (like wokeness) are orthogonal to political alignment may be the frame we grew up in, but that frame might itself be an unusual deviation from the historical norm.
Another obvious example is totalitiarian societies, North Korea being the most obvious current example, where you have a more-or-less theocracy in the name of a non-theistic ideology. Communist parties have played a role that's an awful lot like the Catholic or other state church in pre-Enlightenment times, with party ideology being the established dogma and the secret police being their Inquisition. That's the part of "religious" politics that's deeply scary, and I see more than a little bit of that mentality in 'woke' politics - I think some of these people really would unleash terror if they had the political power to do so.
The question is, how do you get the positive, community-building and meaning-finding aspects of religion without the dogmatism, superstition, and tribalism of religion. I don't have the answer to that.
Very true. In the late 19th century northern US (as opposed to the Solid South), one’s party correlated pretty strongly to whether one was Episcopalian, Lutheran, Catholic, etc. (as well as Irish, German, Anglo, Norwegian, etc)
I was super impressed with how charitable Helen was re: the Peterson interview. Any objective viewer could see he was unreasonably hostile in that interview. Regardless, Helen's humility is inspiring.
This is fantastic - more Helen soon please!
I disagree that we need to bring people back to religion (or vice versa). Everything that's bad about religion, plus maybe a couple of good things about it, has been replicated in our current social spaces. If people went to church instead of to Comic Con or trucker rallies or Facebook or TikTok, they'd be just as tribal, self-righteous, and spiritual as they are now, maybe more so.
Wokeness and gender ideology haven't exactly replaced godliness though. Many wokesters are religious (or "spiritual but not religious" in the case of the more progressive congregations). I used to occasionally attend services of the denomination I was raised in, but they're all totally focused now on social justice, DEI, and political activism. So I listen to BARpod instead.
As a still-religious person who's moved around a lot, I've had a hard time finding churches that aren't largely political clubs of left- or right-wing flavor. I have found exceptions, but I always want to ask the political clubs, "Why do you think people should bother to get up on a weekend morning to come to your services instead of sleeping in and doing political volunteer work on a Tuesday night?" If I could think of a less aggressive way of asking the question, I'd be genuinely interested in the answers.
Maybe for a lot of people the answer is "community." Tyler Cowen is another nonbeliever who makes a case similar to Katie's for religious observance. To which I say, sure, come for the potlucks and stay for the beautifully weird scriptures.
Well said!
Great point.
“You could be a goose-handler for Jesus” is the funniest thing I’ve heard all week, and also the kick in the pants I needed to embark on a new career.
As libertarian, I like dating liberal guys, so long as they're hot.
Short-term it can be really entertaining.
The trouble is--especially in California-- these so-called "liberals" always turn out to be not-so-liberal.
Most are major hypocrites; abusing their employees, total NIMBY's, using private planes etc etc.
But on the bright side, these types of guys will rarely pick fights about politics, since they know I have lots of ammo to use against them.
Using Taylor Swift's private plane on a loan, I bet
Heh. They wish. More like renting a private jet for a Vegas weekend rather than hauling themselves to the Southwest terminal like the rest of us.