The Life Of the Hive Mind
News from the world of publishing:
“I feel it was deliberately hidden and dropped on us once it was too late to change course,” said the junior employee who is a member of the LGBTQ community. The employee said workers would have otherwise considered a walkout.
A walkout. One wonders what might cause such an outpouring of agitation and distress. Was it the looming publication of How to Punch Small Black Children and Get Away With It…?
“He is an icon of hate speech and transphobia and the fact that he’s an icon of white supremacy, regardless of the content of his book, I’m not proud to work for a company that publishes him,” a junior employee who is a member of the LGBTQ community… told VICE World News. Another employee… talked about how publishing the book will negatively affect their non-binary friend.
Not imaginary, non-binary.
It turns out that the hooting and chest-puffing is being caused by – or rather, is given a longed-for excuse by – the forthcoming publication of a book by Dr Jordan Peterson, a sequel to his bestseller 12 Rules for Life.
people were crying
According to the weeping employees at Penguin Random House Canada, Dr Peterson is not only “an icon of hate speech and transphobia,” and “an icon of white supremacy,” but also “denies the existence” of “people in the LGBTQ+ community.” Like many others, this baffling claim is not expanded upon and no evidence is forthcoming. However, the implication seems to be that if you choose not to pretend certain things and would rather not lie in public, or be coerced to lie in public, this somehow constitutes a denial of the existence of “people in the LGBTQ+ community.”
“The company since June has been doing all these anti-racist and allyship things and them publishing Peterson’s book completely goes against this. It just makes all of their previous efforts seem completely performative,” the employee added.
Almost brushed against realism there, matey. Careful now.
Dr Peterson – or more specifically, the hyperventilation of his critics – has of course been mentioned here before. And while the doctor is by no means an uninteresting chap, the reactions to him are often more interesting, and quite revealing.
No argument here.
As I said at the time, I don’t think she’s a dolt. You don’t get a first from Oxford, even in English literature, unless you’ve an IQ comfortably above average. I think it’s more that her political assumptions – and the psychology to which they appeal – have made her both dogmatic and foolish. In order to be seen as ‘progressive’ – in order to fit in and be approved of – certain lines of thought must be carefully avoided. It requires a kind of imperviousness. I think that’s what we’re seeing in the video.
You don’t get a first from Oxford, even in English literature, unless you’ve an IQ comfortably above average.
Er – David, would you mind removing the ‘even’ from that sentence?
Requesting for a friend…
That’s rather a lot of words to say “a bunch of whingeing poofs who hang out with a bunch of trannies had a hissy-fit about nothing.”
You don’t get a first from Oxford, even in English literature, unless you’ve an IQ comfortably above average.
Or you can memorize real good? I still don’t buy into the IQ thing. IQ in the sense that one can figure out how to solve problems, yes. But, and again my perception is likely a Yank cultural perception, a lot of very dumb figure-things-out-for-yourself deficient beings seem to excel at climbing the academic, government, and corporate bureaucratic ladders so long as they can regurgitate what they have been told to regurgitate. My limited exposure to this woman, admittedly limited I believe entirely to watching this interview a while back, is she fits the mold of every muddle headed clown I’ve ever had the displeasure to work for.
Sorry if I’m redundant on this point but just a couple days ago got into an argument with about the biggest idiot I ever had to work for. Still denser than a black hole and half as brilliant. The discussion went similar to her interview with JP. I was getting flashback just now thinking about it. Doesn’t help a bit that I lack JP’s patience.
“a bunch of whingeing poofs who hang out with a bunch of trannies had a hissy-fit about nothing.”
Oh, I don’t know about nothing. $20 says by the end of the year, Penguin caves to them. Any takers?
$20 says by the end of the year, Penguin caves to them. Any takers?
When employees of a famous publisher use childish emotional blackmail – in their own words crying – in order to disrupt the publication of a book that they haven’t actually read, by an author about whom they appear to know bugger all – and when such behaviour is tolerated and doesn’t result in reprimands or sudden unemployment – then the term Clown World is in order.
explaining the basics of coherent thought and the need for precision, in the vain hope that Ms Newman might take some of it to heart.
On some of the gaming forums I frequent, “so what you’re saying is, I’m a lobster” briefly became the standard response to anyone egregiously misrepresenting one’s statements in an attempt to refute them.
I still don’t buy into the IQ thing
IQ is very much correlated with positive life outcomes up to a point; borderline autists score very highly on IQ tests but their difficulty interacting with people limits their success.
My own obviously anecdotal experience has been that a sure predictor of success is the extent to which someone recognizes that what people do is a better gauge of their motivations, character, reliability, etc. than what people say.
This explains the career success of people like Newman better than the Oxford/high-IQ model; Newman et al. have figured out that what organizations like Oxford, the BBC, etc. say they want and reward is very different from what they do want and reward, and so such people are acting accordingly.
As I said at the time, I don’t think she’s a dolt.
Then she’s a liar. This seems more likely.
In any case a creature eminently worth mocking the subsequently ignoring.
This explains the career success of people like Newman better than the Oxford/high-IQ model; Newman et al. have figured out that what organizations like Oxford, the BBC, etc. say they want and reward is very different from what they do want and reward, and so such people are acting accordingly.
Nah. Still not buying it. A person of sufficient IQ would never make the stupid “lobster” comment. A person who excels at memorizing things and especially one who excels at schmoozing and being with the in-crowd, whomever and whatever that may be, I definitely can see making such a comment. A high IQ person would have come up with something having much more appeal to the intellect than such childish, simplistic mockery.
a late entry into this category, “birthing bodies” (viewer discretion advised).
Christ on a pogo stick, Muldoon! That’s not enough of a warning.
Nah. Still not buying it.
We’re not actually disagreeing.
Capisco.
Then she’s a liar. This seems more likely.
She’s a play-actor, a pretender. Thus she play-acts and pretends. In this she has adapted well to her chosen environment.
Newman et al. have figured out that what organizations like Oxford, the BBC, etc. say they want and reward is very different from what they do want and reward, and so such people are acting accordingly.
This is how leftism often works. When someone is trying to cultivate the kinds of opinions and attitudes that confer in-group status and which are recognised by their peers as markers of sophistication and belonging, they’re not overly concerned with whether or not those opinions and attitudes are coherent, or realistic, or will bear much scrutiny. The social dynamic trumps any pretence of an intellectual one. I’ve seen this happen first-hand many times. I remember doing it myself. It’s not usually a matter of testing assumptions or looking up facts. It’s more like wearing a fashionable coat.
And the less load-bearing a person’s opinions and attitudes are, especially when those attitudes determine social status, the less likely that person is to appreciate any poking and disassembly. And so, reactions often have an air of bewilderment and annoyance: “Why are doing this to me? Why aren’t you pretending?”