I have taken to trying to real articles from the sites that the intellectuals here read, to see if I can understand anything, and maybe bash out something mildly amusing for my fans who eagerly await my hilarious articles, or at least, hilarious in my mind. It was pointed out to me by a little bird that I mangled to contradict myself in my very first sentence, which is, I think, a record for me. Keep up the good work, Uncle Len. Now what is a loser? The following article rips into Jordan Paterson, Peterson, Petersen, whatever, however it is spelt, whom I know little about, not being even able to spell his name, except one minute he was loved, and now that he is rich and famous, he has heaps of critics. I know the feeling, but from the other end of reality, like not being rich or famous, but unknown and poor, but still being kicked in the guts like a dog waiting for its abusive master outside of an 1880 pub. I would even have settled for infamous, but alas. And that brings me right back to the issue of being a loser. Here are some gems of insights that I pulled out of an otherwise critical article that may not get a lot of readings, but it is the most interesting part:

“First, let’s have a look at who those boys are. By Peterson’s own words in the Introduction to 12 Rules for Life, they are “the low status lobster.” We can call them – with the bluntness characteristic of the radical Right – simply losers. That’s a loaded term if there ever was one, so it bears recapitulating what “loser” really means, what it meant historically, and what it means today. A loser, I’d wager, is not someone who tries and loses (fails), but who shows a consistent pattern of not winning, be it from constant loss or a lack of trying with no sign of improvement; i.e., no antifragility to defeat. Personally, I’ve a long litany of failures and unvictories behind me, but each loss makes me tougher, meaner, and hurts less than the previous one. A guy who gets beaten down time and time again only to get up bigger and badder is not a loser, even if he consistently loses. A loser, rather, would seem to be someone who gets weaker with every defeat – who loses heart, courage, vim, and vigor every time the blows land upon him. And God be praised, the blows do land, each more terrible than the last. I guess the difference between a loser and a not-loser is how one leaves the arena in defeat: whimpering like a whipped cur or with spiteful defiance, vowing vengeance between gritted and broken teeth.”

     It is all a question of mental attitude. In the end we all lose, in a way, but during the game of life and death, it is how one plays the game that matters. Is one defiant against a cruel fate, pressing on regardless, or does one lurk in a dirty old tool shed of the mind, not that we know anyone doing that, failing to come to grips with a grim fate, but a victim nonetheless?