Jordan Peterson

[NotHardUp1]

He's a lightning rod for the Social Justice Warriors simply because he stood up against the intellectual bullying about the 32 genders and all that dictating to the intelligentsia. He didn't seek out the spotlight. He had a long career as a respected professor in his field and wasn't prone to publishing.

Listening to his videos reveals he gives respect to debaters and is the focus of followers who have found in him a man of accountability and reason. He doesn't run from his views or lie about them. He doesn't promote inequality or male superiority. He simply advocates that people compete and stop wasting so much time as young people protesting instead of making change in an active way.

He doesn't hate women. He doesn't hate transgendered people. He has no history of anything like that.

Like many university professors, he gives paternal advice, and encourages students to know more before assuming they are right about the world. He rightly puts big mouths in their place instead of praising them. He does brag on real innovation and contribution by the young, though, so it's against youth.

To the contrary, his appearances are met by drones who try to drown him out or chant him down or do other unconscionable things in forums because they can't debate and not intelligent enough to hold their own.

He even theorized that his following is more male because of the medium, Youtube, and cited statistics that support that conclusion.

As for religion, he taught the entire book of Genesis, I heard, by installments, but not as religion.

So, he's an icon in the culture wars, but is not as big a thing here because we are not going as far left as Canada has, and the whole hate speech allegation isn't valid here. It's not hate speech, so I do side with him. His popularity will only increase as long as the far left uses ANTIFA like strategies against him. He's not a white supremacist or any sort of wacko. Opposing him in desperate strategies only serves to make the left look bankrupt.

I'm not a follower though. I had to listen to his videos when I was debating a more conservative friend through emails. Not surprisingly, the friend has a doctorate in Engineering, is single, straight, religious, Libertarian, and a fan of Peterson and Harris.

 

[NotHardUp1]

A thread about Jordan Peterson, who is largely a Youtube phenomenon, should include his actual videos. Here is a sampling for you to form your own opinions. These are actual lectures, so not short, and not just sound bites from the right or the left.

He has expertise in psychology in relation to myth.

He's a thinker. I would recommend the second one below, for the introduction, if you think him narrow somehow. He is asked to introduce himself to students who have not read his work and explain his significance.

 

[NotHardUp1]

In that second video above, he describes in the first 10 minutes his progress from being a clinician and psychologist to his more political role. He explains his cause as that of in favor of free speech, or more correctly, free thought, and consequently, free life.

The host reads a couple of attacks on Peterson from students in the campus paper preceding his lecture, and Peterson's response is insightful. He describes how the radical left must demonize any opposition as unreasoned, as any reasoned response would validate there being a basis for disagreement that is not born from the radical right. Peterson argues that he is not, and that there is wide latitude between the two, and there is. The tactics of protestors at his speeches proves this, that he must be opposed as if he were a White Supremacist instead of tacking the positions he takes on a range of issues. He isn't hard right, but he isn't going to be muzzled by a hard left government.

 

[PipeDream]

He's a lightning rod for the Social Justice Warriors simply because he stood up against the intellectual bullying about the 32 genders and all that dictating to the intelligentsia.

This is a Newman tier misrepresentation of why people are vocal in their opposition to the things Peterson has to say. You're doing exactly what you're criticising the 'SJWs' of doing to Peterson. You're demonising his opposition as unreasoned when there are many, many critical articles, debates, and videos online of people directly addressing the things he has to say without referring to him as a white supremacist or woman hating misogynist. Matt Dillahunty is a prime example and their debate about God, religion, and morality is online for anybody to watch, though fair warning Peterson doesn't exactly come across as a well reasoned thinker and funnily enough is called out for giving Matt the Newman treatment with "so you're saying" at about an hour in. Dillahunty also released a reflections video after the debate on how he feels it went, some of the things he regrets not debating further, things he regrets putting focus on, and more. Both of these videos are available to watch on Youtube and they were particularly illuminating for me.

Here are the links. The debate: https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8?t=1s
The reflections: https://youtu.be/4LjYovTo4uc?t=1s

Contrapoints, a leftist Youtuber with a background in academic philosophy, also released a video on Peterson wherein she primarily criticises his use of 'postmodern neo-marxism'. She acknowledges the value of Peterson and some of the things he has to say whilst also giving fair handed criticism of his more damaging ideology. She also discusses his rhetorical strategy and why it's so difficult for people to criticise him without sounding like they're demonising him. She makes a great point about his own giant straw man in the Newman interview that went largely unacknowledged because of the focus being on Newman and how poorly she handled it.

Here it is timestamped to the relevant part about his rhetorical strategy, but I'd highly recommend watching the entire 30 minutes with an open mind as it is both funny and insightful: "So much for the tolerant Jacobins" is a great line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas&feature=youtu.be&t=20m12s

As a side note, I do think it's quite interesting that the focus always seems to be on Newman or the left misrepresenting Peterson and very rarely on Peterson hugely misrepresenting bill c16 or the left himself. I find it quite difficult to believe you when you say you're not a follower of Peterson when your criticism only ever seems to go one way. It's possible to recognise his value whilst acknowledging that a lot of the things he says are very traditionalist, very conservative, and often very harmful.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Well, to be fair, I think he is a woman hating misogynist. I'll grant that he probably doesn't consider himself one but then, neither do most people who state such opinions have that view of themselves.

When he's arguing for specific heirarchies as the natural order and that saying they're the balm for mass societal failing while positioning masculinity as the 'reason' in opposition to the chaos as he insists those specifically western heirarchies (which are very much based on gender supremacy as 'opposites') are needed because he feels they're good because 'au natural' (a claim he hasn't substantiated) - I see a flaw by way of insisting something's existence equals its healthy viability as a social & cultural dynamic when its existence hasn't been the only viable (and therefore 'intrinsic') expression of such heirarchies - it's difficult to paint his work as anything but.

 

[Telstra]

I agreed most of the things Jordan said but about god,
he just going in circles and tried to avoid the question hence he do not like the question which is a shame.

 

[Telstra]

See?
He did NOT answer the question. He said he don't like that question ... blah blah blah

It took him 5 minutes to answer and the answer is "I don't know"
Why not just answer "i don't know" instead of dancing around the question.

 

[NotHardUp1]

This is a Newman tier misrepresentation of why people are vocal in their opposition to the things Peterson has to say. You're doing exactly what you're criticising the 'SJWs' of doing to Peterson. You're demonising his opposition as unreasoned when there are many, many critical articles, debates, and videos online of people directly addressing the things he has to say without referring to him as a white supremacist or woman hating misogynist.

No, I am criticizing the actual opponents who did not use rationale, but used the extreme tactics described. I disagree with those who use demonizing terms like "hate speech" to describe his positions, because I would not agree that it is hateful to take the positions he has taken. When he is allowed to actually debate rational people in a reasoned setting, like the Matt Dillahunty video, I think it works quite well, as the goal isn't the gotcha and not to belittle the opposition.

Matt Dillahunty is a prime example and their debate about God, religion, and morality is online for anybody to watch, though fair warning Peterson doesn't exactly come across as a well reasoned thinker and funnily enough is called out for giving Matt the Newman treatment with "so you're saying" at about an hour in. Dillahunty also released a reflections video after the debate on how he feels it went, some of the things he regrets not debating further, things he regrets putting focus on, and more. Both of these videos are available to watch on Youtube and they were particularly illuminating for me.

I did watch the video at your request. I wholly agree that Dillahunty was right to call Peterson out on his imputing of rationale. It was also telling that Peterson danced about so evasively when asked about his faith or lack of it. In fairness to Peterson though, when Dillahunty did reprimand him from the straw man behavior, he did get quiet and allow Dillahunty to finish. In the preceding segment, I found Peterson as annoyingly interrupting as any media host anywhere in not allowing his opposite entity to form and explain complete thoughts. By fragmenting them, I think he did damage, even if unintentional, to the debate. Peterson doesn't seem to make notes, and to listen to anyone for more than a few minutes in complex territory would pretty much require it. His staccato questioning seems too eager to peel back the onion that the rest of us need to get through.

Here are the links. The debate: https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8?t=1s
The reflections: https://youtu.be/4LjYovTo4uc?t=1s

Contrapoints, a leftist Youtuber with a background in academic philosophy, also released a video on Peterson wherein she primarily criticises his use of 'postmodern neo-marxism'. She acknowledges the value of Peterson and some of the things he has to say whilst also giving fair handed criticism of his more damaging ideology. She also discusses his rhetorical strategy and why it's so difficult for people to criticise him without sounding like they're demonising him. She makes a great point about his own giant straw man in the Newman interview that went largely unacknowledged because of the focus being on Newman and how poorly she handled it.

I thought the Newman interview was popular because it epitomized talking past the points and simply making points. It was no more an interview than the Nuremberg Trials were a debate. She merely needed him present in person for her statements to (potentially) have any more impact than just saying them in a cocktail party somewhere in an echo chamber. But, it was a one off. She has no reputation for debate, for unbiased interviewing, or for intellectualism. The talks with Dillahunty, Harris, and others are more fair exchanges, and more insightful about real differences that are supported with reason.

Here it is timestamped to the relevant part about his rhetorical strategy, but I'd highly recommend watching the entire 30 minutes with an open mind as it is both funny and insightful: "So much for the tolerant Jacobins" is a great line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas&feature=youtu.be&t=20m12s

As a side note, I do think it's quite interesting that the focus always seems to be on Newman or the left misrepresenting Peterson and very rarely on Peterson hugely misrepresenting bill c16 or the left himself. I find it quite difficult to believe you when you say you're not a follower of Peterson when your criticism only ever seems to go one way. It's possible to recognise his value whilst acknowledging that a lot of the things he says are very traditionalist, very conservative, and often very harmful.

You must be quoting some of the members I have on ignore in this thread, as I haven't mentioned Newman in this thread at all prior to your mention of her. My earlier references to SJWs were the audience members at his speeches and lectures.

I'm not a follower of Peterson means I don't seek out his videos and listen to them to inform my view according to his teachings. I have only ever viewed maybe ten or less, which includes short clips of things like the Newman interview or links given as my friend in email sent them. I had watched none of the linked videos I posted in this thread. I chose them as samples, trying to give what seemed to be representative materials. I only listened to them a few minutes in to confirm it.

As far as being a follower, I don't follow religious leaders, political leaders, musical leaders, cultural leaders, or anything of the sort. The closest thing I have come to that is being a fan of certain TV chefs that I have found both edifying and caring about their students/viewers. Due to a fairly cynical religious upbringing in a very progressive denomination of Christianity, and a decidedly rebellious streak in my mother, I aver from following anyone intellectually, and for a reason I heard Peterson describe this morning as I skimmed the videos, that 2nd hand thinking isn't very good, and that I think I have better chances of significant contribution without becoming patterned upon some celebrity leader.

As for C16, I think it tries to mandate equality in a way that is counterintuitive and sure to fail, as it ignores real world dynamics and attempts to legislate human interactions that are not inherently wrong or damaging to any significant degree. It has a horribly school marmish approach to social justice, which is why it will not become any real norm in society.

 

[luckynumbah7]

^Which isn't to state that all his opinions are nasty 'lil things, but I've never found the avoidance of describing a collective group of behaviors (in-context) by abstaining from a term (when not in an actual debate) a good idea. For its use in a debate I'm very, very particular about the phrasing of the question, at the very least it has to include examples.

I also think there's a type of integrity in debate that's being tossed aside when people present 'two sides of an argument' as if both sides began the debate on equal mental footing for the reader. An aura of legitimacy that skews how the dialogue from all sides is being interpreted before the dialogue even starts. That's not taking into account the stupidity evidenced when people insist that presenting all arguments as relevant to a discussion is how to have a fair discussion. I think part-n-parcel of that comes from not naming descriptions of belief.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I agreed most of the things Jordan said but about god,
he just going in circles and tried to avoid the question hence he do not like the question which is a shame.

Well, truth be known, at the very least, Peterson is guilty of becoming a philosopher, as he only seems able to ask more unknowable questions the more he digs. I attended philosophy discussion groups in Albuquerque for a number of years, but ultimately found them insufferable.

 

[NotHardUp1]

^Which isn't to state that all his opinions are nasty 'lil things, but I've never found the avoidance of describing a collective group of behaviors (in-context) by abstaining from a term (when not in an actual debate) a good idea. For its use in a debate I'm very, very particular about the phrasing of the question, at the very least it has to include examples.

I also think there's a type of integrity in debate that's being tossed aside when people present 'two sides of an argument' as if both sides began the debate on equal mental footing for the reader. An aura of legitimacy that skews how the dialogue from all sides is being interpreted before the dialogue even starts. That's not taking into account the stupidity evidenced when people insist that presenting all arguments as relevant to a discussion is how to have a fair discussion. I think part-n-parcel of that comes from not naming descriptions of belief.

It would be interesting to see Harris, or Peterson, or others in classical debates, with rules and times and a panel of judges. Of course, it is hard to imagine what the impartial judging panel would look like, as they surely cannot go by audiences.

I wonder if there are videos out there of college debating societies who have used material from Peterson as the basis of the pro or con side.

As for legitimizing two sides, I trust the argument to stand on its own two feet.

 

[NotHardUp1]

When he's arguing for specific heirarchies as the natural order and that saying they're the balm for mass societal failing while positioning masculinity as the 'reason' in opposition to the chaos as he insists those specifically western heirarchies (which are very much based on gender supremacy as 'opposites') are needed because he feels they're good

I don't agree that male dominated hierarchies are needed, but I don't see them as anything Western at all. There aren't any large societies out there that are female dominated, so it's been global with very few exceptions. Even in nations where women have attained the highest office, the culture remains male dominated.

And yes, I recognize that there are some models out there, but very few in population compared to most of Africa, all of the Far East, Europe, and the Americas. Oh, and Oceania would be where the exceptions would be most prevalent, I think.

 

[Telstra]

I am on the side of Jordan Peterson & Stephen Fry on this one.
Fuck the political correctness stupidity, they are talking gibberish:

 

[NotHardUp1]

Re: Voting Before Entering Prison and After Leaving

I returned to the Dillahunty video to listen to the Q&A (it's a loooong video) and Matt Dillahunty made a very good point around 1:34:00 or so about what atheists put up with due to "religious privilege" the world over. He referred with some emotion to the disdain that many face because of the preponderance of anti-atheist proclamations made from pulpits everywhere. I found particular resonance with this due to hearing similar indoctrinations about science, gays, intelligentsia, etc. I don't have any atheist in my psyche, but I have no contempt for atheism, and it rankles me that they come out to religious family members only to meet disrespect.

 

[Telstra]

post 33 video at 1.34,
i have to laugh at Stephen Fry's comment about "don't flatter yourself"
He meant in his mind thinking to that pastor "you are ugly as fuck"

 

[PipeDream]

He describes how the radical left must demonize any opposition as unreasoned, as any reasoned response would validate there being a basis for disagreement that is not born from the radical right. Peterson argues that he is not, and that there is wide latitude between the two, and there is. The tactics of protestors at his speeches proves this, that he must be opposed as if he were a White Supremacist instead of tacking the positions he takes on a range of issues.

This was also a quote I was referencing when I said you were being unfair to his opponents. You cannot make a generalised statement about 'the radical left' then state afterwards that you were referring with specificity to the students at his lectures. By his definition, and by most definitions in fact, I am the radical left. ContraPoints is the radical left. ThreeArrows is the radical left. The tactics of fringe protesters at his lectures are not a reflection of us nor does it prove his proposed narrative that the radical left are afraid to confront or legitimise his ideas. It's an unfair, generalised evaluation of the far left based on what is a very localised problem within a certain small sect of academia.

It's why I linked the videos I did. People on the right have a habit of spinning the narrative that people on the far left are afraid of their ideas, and as a means of pushing this narrative they place disproportionate emphasis on incidents of college students behaving inappropriately. The far left is incredibly diverse, as ContraPoints explains in her video that again I very strongly urge you to watch in its entirety (she also briefly addresses his use of "Western" which you might find interesting), and it is simply untrue that they're not tackling the positions he takes on a range of issues. The problem is that Peterson isn't platforming these individuals in the same way he's platforming people who misbehave, so it's the responsibility of those who wish to get a complete picture to seek them out.

As for C16, I think it tries to mandate equality in a way that is counterintuitive and sure to fail, as it ignores real world dynamics and attempts to legislate human interactions that are not inherently wrong or damaging to any significant degree. It has a horribly school marmish approach to social justice, which is why it will not become any real norm in society.

This might be true of Peterson's misinterpretation of c16 but it does not reflect the reality of it. That's what bothers me the most about his entire rise to notoriety. It's based on him misunderstanding a law and capitalising on a climate of outrage culture. To use his own words "I found a way to monetise social justice warriors". Or, more accurately, he found a way to monetise the disproportionate outrage over social justice warriors. The narrative he spread that people would be forced to say things they didn't want to say, that this bill had anything whatsoever to do with compelled speech, is a complete fabrication. In fact, the Canadian Bar Association addressed this in a letter which I urge you to read:

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

They explicitly define within what constitutes a hate crime and it's absolutely nothing even close to what Peterson was suggesting. Much like the lobster analogy that straw mans those who wish to abolish unjust hierarchies, his interpretation of c16 completely misrepresents a law that aims to protect people. Dillahunty was absolutely right in his reflections video: Peterson could make use of a healthy dose of skepticism.

It's just frustrating to me that people seem to place so much emphasis on the way fringe detractors misrepresent Peterson (without acknowledging the many, many people who criticise him in good faith) whilst completely ignoring Peterson's own tendency to completely misrepresent his perceived opponents which is how he gained notoriety in the first place.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Well, to be fair, I think he is a woman hating misogynist. I'll grant that he probably doesn't consider himself one but then, neither do most people who state such opinions have that view of themselves.

People trying to claim with a straight face that Peterson isn't sexist are outright hilarious.

The evidence is abundant and easy to find.

"Men test ideas; women test men."

"How about no makeup in the workplace?"

“The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence."

It's common in his talks, and if they can't admit there's a bias on this pretty obvious issue, it rather undermines their claims on other fronts.

 

[NotHardUp1]

The University of Toronto's campus paper seems to shed better light on exactly why the professor became the focus of such wide attention.

https://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/24/u-...n-to-respect-pronouns-stop-making-statements/

The co-opting of the entire conversation surrounding transgenderism and gender and the redefinition of discrimination to include pronoun use is very much at the core of the celebrity. Civil rights is correctly valued because it enables the population that is disadvantaged or disenfranchised to gain those rights that are necessary to live with full privilege in society, as well as in the laws of the society. Equal access has been one of the cornerstones of the fight.

Somehow, in the rarefied atmosphere of think tanks, universities, blogs, and other niches, the conversation was upended, and the result was the redefinition of respect, equality, and even right to freedom from anxiety, as evidenced by the continual accusation that alleged hate speech creates an unsafe environment for students on campus or transgendered persons in society. Unlike demonstrable discrimination that has typified gay rights and minority rights litigation and struggles in the past, the entire premise has shifted to the perception of the minority, not the perception of the people at large or even the courts.

The dictation of gender pronouns is indeed an excellent example of the points in contention, and whether subsequent legal minds may have redefined the mandate or not, Dr. Peterson did receive reprimands in 2016 by both the head of the Psychology Department and then the Dean and Vice-Provost, warning him of his violation of the law, and of the imminent consequences. Let there be no misrepresentation in hindsight, because Dr. Peterson disagreed that pronouns could be redefined for an entire population by a tiny population of activists, he was a subject of censure and threat by his administration, an arm of the State.

The letter sent after the department letter failed was clear:

The pronouns of the sort in question:

https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

The problem with the underlying assumption of discrimination is that it doesn't hold up under most UN countries' legal definitions of discrimination. I can go to a fish & chips stand in York, England, and demand to be addressed by my preferred pronouns, but when the owner fails to comply, I am not in a legally defensible position to press my case in a court.

And there's the problem for Dr. Peterson and for others who disagree that using traditional male and female and neuter language is discriminatory. The position became defined as discriminatory in a manner in which the general population would not agree with or support, hence the controversy. Unlike the disposal of Jim Crow laws or male-only hiring practices, the use of pronouns cannot be demonstrated to harm the genders it does not recognize grammatically. It cannot be demonstrated that referring to a biological male as "him" somehow prevents him from attaining full employment, attending the schools of his ability and choice, or acquiring fair and equal housing. To Dr. Peterson's point, it may offend a person who believes that gender pronouns in neutral uses can be offensive, but that cannot be included as a valid definition of harmful discrimination.

I may be offended that national morning news programs on television portray life in a bourgeoisie materialism that presupposes a large set of assumed values, but I haven't been discriminated against. I haven't been harmed. I may not have been represented, but I've not been excluded to a right.

Dr. Peterson and others do not believe it is the right of a citizen to pipe the tune in the way that the pronoun debate has evolved. And construing that position as hating transgendered people is a gross exaggeration of what the free speech aspect is about. It's not the right to say bad things about gender identities, or racist things, or hateful things of any sort. It's the right to use traditional language that is not confrontational, and to not have it redefined as hate speech.

 

[NotHardUp1]

An article in the Toronto Star provides a good overview of the rise of Peterson and his controversies: https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...-they-say-hate-the-pronoun-fight-is-back.html

 

[rareboy]

Lucky us that he is at UofT.

I am surprised that he hasn't moved on to a bigger stage.