Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
The Morality of Rich Man Fundraising: Jordan Peterson Needs Your Money
So, Jordan Peterson is seeking funds for his legal battles:
There is something in this I find distasteful.
An already wealthy man (by his own admission in previous interviews), likely getting wealthier with every day that goes by (based on a previous interview of making even more money within Shapiro's network), who chooses to pusues a legal fight instead of complying... And who asks money to fund his legal bills.
Needless to say, but just to be clear, the issue is not wealth per se, of course.
But it's to seek money from others as a wealthy person who shouldn't have any issue paying for whatever you decide to pursue.
Jordan Peterson frames it as a "battle of the good" against politically motivated censorship (of course).
So whether you believe that to be true or not, it may provide some cover and rationale for the fundraising -and especially so maybe if you believe it's right-.
However, even if I'd agree 100% with his take, I'd still see it distasteful.
I'm very curious to see if it's just me though and if you guys see it differently.
Any thoughts?
Quite a coincidence, throwing power moves in the advertising of his course, claiming it to be better than college and suggesting the stupidity of those who don't go through it. And now he asks for money to defend himself for speaking his mind, I do agree, he can do whatever he wants and may have a point with the "battle for good" frame, but, if a part of our minds feels that this is sneaky there may be a reason for it.
I do find it sneaky and distasteful too: "Using his "fanbase" need for belonging and purpose for personal gain", was the first thing that crossed through my mind.
Edit:
I get more things, it's the fact that he framed his legal battles as "supporting free speech". He could win his loyal battles but that would probably not change a thing about free speech. Why not organize himself some form of protest against the Canadian government leaving aside his legal battles? You win your battle yourself and then ask people to fundraise a protest that doesn't directly involves yourself, probably more effective, but less sneaky for sure.
I can't shake my mind off this feeling, however out there, that he's unfortunately been totally pushed and pushed and pushed to this extreme brink by some close people, possibly including Mikhaila.
There is a video of him discussing the character traits of Mikhaila where he basically says she has always been very low in "agreableness".
There are also some interviews out there where he, when discussing certain themes, gets extremely emotional.
The tendency to cry when discussing certain things, to me, is indicative of deep trauma stored inside. And trauma, in turn, makes it easy for other people to push hurt people.
The fact that he found himself rise to fame because he put himself in direct contrast with all the establishment from the start didn't help.
While initially he appeared the champion of truth in a morally twisted world, he may have forgot that you always have to pay some homage to the status quo to survive.
So he was isolated: he stopped teaching at uni, he stopped working as a psychologist, he was ordered this "re-training". And when you're isolated, you turn to whoever, even if that whoever doesn't have your best interests in mind.
But maybe I'm just justifying, and he just decided to swing to the "dark side".
Thank you for sharing, Power Duck and Bel!
And also looking at the number of likes, seems like more people agree as well.
As for JP's "devolution", I see it more like an extremization (and "uglization") of what was already there (guru-esque approach, limelight-seeking, emotional fragility, existential angst/latent depression, ideological fervor, etc.) and some of his old skills that he'd use to escape labels of hyper-religiosity and conservatism now being openly used to serve those causes -and more openly pursuing the cause of power and self-enrichment maybe- (eloquence, dramatic frames, strategic/Machiavellian way he'd dodge and reframe questions, etc.).
If anyone has anything to add on this, happy to read.
