it makes sense you just need to read the gulag archipelago to get it.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
Do you believe it is a radical position for people to be referred to by their correct pronouns?
It's about rolling all your boogeyman into one thing to avoid complexity.
Like when you see evangelicals going on about atheists and Muslims in the same breath.
Yeah, but I expect that from evangelicals, politicians and radio hosts. To hear it from an academic - even a very bad one like JP - is surprising because it's a dead giveaway that he's a crank, isn't it? You can't effectively maintain a veneer of thoughtfulness to even be called a pseudointellectual when you're spouting such horseshit - it's strictly demagogue territory.
Looking for the words sex, race, gender, sexual preference in your post, I found nothing. Really, what Peterson opposes most is identity politics. Identity politics as in not treating people as a person but as a member of a group identity depending on his sex, gender, race, etc... You avoided saying it, but you seem to agree with him in the target of no discrimination but you see certain problems I guess you think will have to be adressed attending to group identity.
I agree something has to be done, but I'm not sure what would that be. I would love to see a left intellectual debate Peterson on that.
Last edited:
I guess the whole world is «identity politics» since nobody exist in a vaccum and is treated as a non gendered, non racialized individual.
The critics against identity politics are usually made by people opposing specific politics to ensure everyone rights to dignity and equality. Something that Peterson oppose since he believe that society is organized by a natural hierarchy.
I don't know. How many pronouns are we talking about exactly? How will people know which pronoun they have to use with each person?
Tell me more about those specific policies that ensure everyones rights to dignity and equality. Give some examples.
A trans person asks you to use their preferred pronoun. They tell you. Is that a radical position to you, to refer to someone by their preferred pronoun?
Practically all trans people use he, she, or they. "It's inconvenient" is not a realistic complaint.
I don't see how this is an either/or thing. In fact I don't see how you can do the former without acknowledging and respecting the latter.
You can't address racism, sexisim and homophobia without identity politics. It's literally impossible.
Policies target specific problems faced by a specific group of people. That's how governments work.
Tells us how we address racism or homophobia without identity politics. They're as much identity politics as family planning and education policies are
Ask them, it's not hard.
Bill C-16. The Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
Are we done here with this JAQ'ng off session?
I see nothing wrong in political views that, in part, coalesce around a shared experience, so long as that experience actually exists. Of course it's up people to decide whether that takes priority over any of their other values. The notion of the common cause is a core part of political organization, however that might manifest. And asking people to abandon it is simply asking them to prioritize something else, which while not wrong is certainly arbitrary (and possibly rude).
Peterson would be front and centre opposing this man for identity politics
That's a pretty good encapsulation of why MLK Jr. was a socialist.
i was more concerned in that post with making the assertion that peterson's preferred organization of society does not lead to the terminal goal of "[maximizing] competence and industriousness, [creating a world where where the] most competent and industrious people [are] at the top of organizations and in positions of power" - i did not expect to convince you with appeals to the plights of oppressed groups since you already derided so-called "identity politics", so i chose not to center the post on that
but here's a random example of a systemic barrier to success i alluded to - look at the history and a map of segretated housing in baltimore that through inertia has persisted into today, and then compare that map with a map of lead concentrations in housing, and then remember what lead does to the development of children
one flaw of peterson's is the assumption that people are not treated differently based on their race, gender, or sexuality and that this treatment does not have a negative effect - this is just not true, and the implication of this is that societal factors are preventing the actual best candidates with the greatest potential from rising to the top (of course, this ignores the problem that "best" is subjective - i'm valuable to society because i'm skilled at programming, but in ye olden days i'd be fairly useless (and probably stoned to death for other reasons))
i think a particularly interesting implication here is that increased cognitive load from existential anxiety reduces working memory capacity and is a pretty simplistic reason for why someone who is not having their hierarchy of needs met will perform worse on tests which primarily measure working memory capacity - our brains significantly prioritize acquiring nourishment and safety over logic puzzle solving, and will allocate more resources to the former if it is not met
like i said, "He believes what is more important is competence and industriousness, that most competent and industrious people should be at the top of organizations and in positions of power with independence of their sex, skin color, sexual preference or gender identity." would be a wonderful sentiment if we lived in a perfectly balanced world
i care more about actually enabling invention and adapting societal paradigms to changing technological conditions than i do about adhering to some "natural order" that's just an artifact of our tendency for animism and anthropomorphism
i mean, peterson and others with similar beliefs in the natural hierarchy are free to try competing against the skill and wits of my machines - they should just heed the tragic tale of john henry first
i'd prefer them not to suffer that fate, but if they so desire i can't really stop them from pursuing it - but what i won't tolerate is them condemning others to that fate
bill c-16, which peterson raged against and for which he was catapulted into e-fame, explicitly addressed these concerns in the text of the bill and was wildly mischaracterized
here's me writing about it in this thread
I would be happy to use their preferred pronoun.
Shouldn't we just treat all human beings with the same respect independently of their sex or race?
Maybe like this:
And education. Racism and homophobia are pure ignorance.
Bill c16 will help ensure everyones rights to dignity and equality. Ok. Yes, we done.
He takes it as an obvious given that they do get treated differently.
The question was If you would consider that request a radical position, not if you'd do it. Do you believe it is a radical position for people to be referred to by their correct pronouns?
Congrats you recognized a literal hate crime, you want a cookie or something?
What does that have to do with fighting societal racism that doesn't fit under the legal standard of a hate crime that still has major effects on the lives of millions?
Or dipshits that tell women they are hypocrites for dressing and presenting themselves in the workplace because said dipshits don't actually understand anything that comes out of their mouth and just have a pre-described world view in which they try and cram everything into it with little evidence to back it up.
Peterson just hates identify politics. Of course, unless it's about the struggling young white man, then we need to talk about how they are being screwed by society.
I think that's my problem with Peterson supporters in general. When backed into a corner you either
1) Show your true colors
2) Feign ignorance under love thy neighbors shit while propping up a person who is goes out of his way to attack anyone who fights for equality that isn't a white dude or that isn't a conservative that backs his world view.
"Why don't we just treat each other well... while ignoring all the actual core issues of our society because addressing those makes me feel all uncomfortable :( :( :("
What does that have to do with fighting societal racism that doesn't fit under the legal standard of a hate crime that still has major effects on the lives of millions?
Or dipshits that tell women they are hypocrites for dressing and presenting themselves in the workplace because said dipshits don't actually understand anything that comes out of their mouth and just have a pre-described world view in which they try and cram everything into it with little evidence to back it up.
Peterson just hates identify politics. Of course, unless it's about the struggling young white man, then we need to talk about how they are being screwed by society.
I think that's my problem with Peterson supporters in general. When backed into a corner you either
1) Show your true colors
2) Feign ignorance under love thy neighbors shit while propping up a person who is goes out of his way to attack anyone who fights for equality that isn't a white dude or that isn't a conservative that backs his world view.
"Why don't we just treat each other well... while ignoring all the actual core issues of our society because addressing those makes me feel all uncomfortable :( :( :("
Last edited:
So basically the usual schtick and dogwhistles (Neo Marxists, Radical Left, etc... it's all used by the alt right to say the same thing."Those GOSH darn commies and (((globalists)))") about you: being that special snowflake whom should lead in industry and is special, yet all these lefties holding you down and thus you are poor.
Not ages of slow decline in Wellfare-state, stripping government of function and funding, attacking the poor's credibility, attacking the poor's ethics and morals, setting up a system to make sure the poor are infighting and thus divided (Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc), etc. NOPE it's all them darn lefties holding you down and promoting all these non deserving people :).
I think I begin to see why you feel you need to take advice from this "Daddy figure", he tells you it's not your fault in a way that makes you feel special. Rather than the realistic: It's partly your fault, grow up and vote for better people.
He doesn't sound like a socialist to me. Democratic socialist yes, but not a socialist. And there is a big distinction there. A democratic socialist is someone who believes in capitalistic free markets, but social solidarity in everything around that. A socialist is someone who'd oppose land ownership because it's inherently oppressive to anyone who doesn't own land. MLK argues in the interview above your post, that basically black people couldn't get their foot in America because they where denied land ownership as a means of an economic base. It subjugated them to servitude. That sounds like someone who was more of a realist about the realities of imperialistic america, than a populist socialist.
He also says that he believes in bootstraps- He believes everyone should pick themselves up. His disapproval to bootstraps is not bootstraps themselves, but the lack of understanding in that black Americans didn't start out on a even playing field due to the lack of land ownership. Basically he believes in land ownership, wanted that for his people, and he believed in the foundations of a meritocracy, but also at the same time saw and understood the horrific limitations of believing in a system based on merit. "It's a cruel jest".
It's a cruel jest not because land ownership is tyranny. No, it's a cruel jest because his people cannot partake in the economic spoils of the genocide of the people who where there before. Give his people their fair prize of the loot. I think a socialist would be morally opposed to that line of thinking. Their idealism prohibits that sort of imperial subjugation as not everyone can own land, and those who can't are fucked.
Peterson's approach to abortion is classic Peterson
https://donotlink.it/6A1V (Don't want to give Ben Shapiro's site clicks)
This is classic Peterson, hint at a bunch of things, take no deliberate position so he can't be nailed down but look... He's a Canadian Christian Conservative... look at what he hints at as what leads to abortions: sex out of wedlock, modern culture has altered the relationships of men and women and rendered them disharmonious, and of course of course the birth control pill (the second being ya know extremely counter-intuitive.)
https://donotlink.it/6A1V (Don't want to give Ben Shapiro's site clicks)
This is classic Peterson, hint at a bunch of things, take no deliberate position so he can't be nailed down but look... He's a Canadian Christian Conservative... look at what he hints at as what leads to abortions: sex out of wedlock, modern culture has altered the relationships of men and women and rendered them disharmonious, and of course of course the birth control pill (the second being ya know extremely counter-intuitive.)
I'd like Peterson fans to decide whether the lobster bit is:
A) well researched scientific hypotheis that describes human behavior using animal models.
B) a nice self help illustration that little white boys need to hear in order to clean their room.
Because y'all seem to keep switching between definitions when it's convenient.
A) well researched scientific hypotheis that describes human behavior using animal models.
B) a nice self help illustration that little white boys need to hear in order to clean their room.
Because y'all seem to keep switching between definitions when it's convenient.
Love your neighbours like thy self was taught for hundreds of years - we still had slavery and genocides, and it's a Christian teaching, one of the most homophobic religions out there. Universal love didn't pass gay marriage laws, lgbt activists and those sympathetic to the cause did. Women got the right to vote because they protested. To a fix a specific problem you need to identify it and fight it publicly.
The video you sent me was a pretty clear example of a racist being a racist, not sure what your point is. They had to use a street gang law to convict them because hate speech laws don't exist
No, I don't believe it is a radical position for people to be referred by their correct pronouns. I also don't believe it is a radical position to say please and thank you when you order a meal.
Originally petersons youtube audiences were predominantly male but, as you can see in the picture, not necesarily white. He also has reported increasing numbers of women attending his lectures. His message is not just for white males, is for people of any sex, race or gender. He also reported receiving around 30 letters from trans persons supporting him.
I think the left has the answer for people asking "what can the world do for me?" And Peterson has the answer to the question "what can I do for the world?".
I don't think the left is holding me down. I think the only one holding me down is me. That's why Petersons message resonates with me.
I feel the same way, because I'm a white guy so no one is holding me down. But Peterson's message could only resonate with me if I choose to disbelieve everything minorities say they experience, and ignore all the studies that prove the existence of systemic inequality.
I love this because even if you don't intend it to, and I'll be nice and grant you that assumption, you inherently frame the left as selfish and Peterson as noble. What can the world do for me vs what can I do for the world... as if the left doesn't have policies based around fighting climate change, fighting inequality for all (not just ourselves), etc... That's doing for the world not doing for me... Nevermind that Peterson rejects ideas like protesting (declaring it kids with paper on sticks and appalling):
Reminder 60s was the civil rights movement and anti vietnam war movement among other things.... but I guess according to Peterson fighting for the civil rights of oppressed minorities and against a brutal unjust war wouldn't count as doing something for the world.
I actually reject your idea that Peterson is about what can I do for the world... I think it's quite the opposite, he doesn't want anyone to do anything for the world... That's why he literally says clean your room before addressing society because he's deftly afraid of changing the status quo... there's a reason he always goes back to the 60s as such a a scary time because that was the end of the 1950s status quo, the same status quo so many Conservatives idealize and yearn for. The joke about clean your room before you address society is that your room can never be fully clean. At best you can say Peterson is what can I do for me.
WOW 30 trans people! That you tout this as a meaningful number is funny, given that he touted that number in his testimony in front of the Canadian Senate imploring them not to pass a bill giving us protection from discrimination.... Like this number is meaningless, believe it or not minorities are not monolithic, there are conservative ones, some of the loudest anti-suffragettes were women...
No, that is what conservatives tell themselves. That it's all themselves that made it to the end, and only themselves. Receiving no help at all, and that you're responsible for it yourself.No, I don't believe it is a radical position for people to be referred by their correct pronouns. I also don't believe it is a radical position to say please and thank you when you order a meal.
Originally petersons youtube audiences were predominantly male but, as you can see in the picture, not necesarily white. He also has reported increasing numbers of women attending his lectures. His message is not just for white males, is for people of any sex, race or gender. He also reported receiving around 30 letters from trans persons supporting him.
I think the left has the answer for people asking "what can the world do for me?" And Peterson has the answer to the question "what can I do for the world?".
I don't think the left is holding me down. I think the only one holding me down is me. That's why Petersons message resonates with me.
Which is total hogwash. You always had help, from parents to community. I mean look at your last post? That is such tripe about the Left being entitled about "what can the world do for me.", I never asked myself that. If I want something I work for it myself, but I know I've had help in life. I know others need help and support and some need it more than others. You do not need to do ANYTHING for the whole world. And if you need "help" to become you, the there are simply better people to ask advice from than a Transphobic Youtube star from Canada (As that is what he is, nothing more, nothing less). I mean look at that photo you linked? It's so... typical in why you choose it, trying to make him look like a this person under attack from everybody yet "holding steadfast" among an onslaught of "young entitled people of all creeds". It also screams: "SEE!? TOTALLY NOT RACIST!".
I mean, seriously... it's enfuriating that you think that "what can the world do for me" is why all these left wing activists are taking to the street protesting for : Equal rights for black people, Action on Climate Change and other topics like that. Often making their own lives harder just to make sure the world will get better. But hey, you are a titan of industry that "does things for the world", by proclaiming your dominance like "a male lobster would! Or any animal for that matter" (not quotes of him just references). Even though Lobsters aren't social creatures and most of the animals on this planet are actually matriarchal (Females being larger and stronger than males). It's like how objectivism makes people feel special too, as "they are the Architect in the fountainhead" :P.
Peterson is absolutely Randian, he just obscures it, like he obscures most of his actual beliefs.
Someone should tell him to speak with more precision. That actually could be a great rule for life really.
You don't have to disbelieve what minorities say they experience. Minority people follow Peterson. They just don't believe that the left is going to fix the problem.
Real trans people? Ricky Gervais was retweeting some support from trans people after his transphobic standup was criticised and they turned out to be obvious fakes.
Can we get to the real heart of the issue? Are conservative rooms cleaner than liberals or is it the opposite? Can I get a scientific study on that?
I'd like to note this is you engaging in identity politics.
He has 30 Trans letters
He has minority followers
Thus he can't be bad for those communities.
Guys, just check the posting history (after you trudge through half of David's total post count in this thread alone)
He's far down the rabbit hole, already, guys.
He's far down the rabbit hole, already, guys.
It makes sense, if someone needs Peterson for self help and life advice they are probably horrible at identifying positive life steps in the first place, hence they keep making horrible ones.
Especially after reading David Ricardo's posting history.
After all, telling someone to cowboy up is extremely novel and has never before been seen or heard!
Me thinks David is hiding ulterior motives
Especially after reading David Ricardo's posting history.
After all, telling someone to cowboy up is extremely novel and has never before been seen or heard!
Me thinks David is hiding ulterior motives
I'm a white centrist (well by Canadian standards) male and I think JP is full of horse shit. By your logic that completely makes him illegitimate.
It's not because that a minority of minorities have expressed support that he's supportive of minorities. One doesn't imply the other.
Last edited:
Isn't Monday Sheppard the person who decided to leave the left because she thinks the left refuses to acknowledge the nuances between white nationalists and white supremacists?
She's the (((oppressed))) WLU TA that was denied her free speech talks that would've only featured deeply right speakers, making it ironically, not about free speech.
Accriding to some nut jobs, that's a direct ramifications of c16 being law.
Don't they have multiple identity labels now as part of the alt right/neo Nazi mainstreaming process? It's all really the same. They use identitiarian now cause it sounds more intellectual. Innuendo Studios had a video about these labels.
This is the lazy form of egalitarianism for people who don't want to put any thought into how they treat people. Peterson is a great example with how he doesn't want to give trans people any "special" treatment by using proper pronouns.
Lol. And she was Peterson's protege, too, or something like that.
Of course David would only complain about minority identity politics and thinks leftists are selfish. Of course he thinks everyone is out to get the white Christian man. So sad.
She's mainstreaming it but by talking to nazis. She's mad at the left because she thinks there is difference between white nationalists and white supremacists and the left treats both equally as bad.
I don't know much about Jordan Peterson, but I do know intellectual dishonesty when I see it. Why is someone who is supposed to be a self-help personality feel compelled talking about the problems of others? Why does he believe he has authority to speak on the issues of people he is not?
Most certainly.
But jokes aside, I think I've come closer to agreeing with you since the start of the topic. I agree with a lot of valid critique on JP. I think were we differ is that I feel that apart from the valid critique, there are still some nast strawmens being thrown around within a general cloud of anti-JBP bias.
And more importantly, that looking at the result of JBP's actions, I think he is mostly a force for good when it comes down to it.
Hell, my favorite rule of 12 rules for life (rule 8: "assume the person you are listening to knows something you don't") is probably a strong contributor to why I came to this thread and was willing to read the "other side", so.
Whether or not he's a force for good remains to be seen. Individually, there's a chance he shakes a disaffected young male out of their mental blocks to be more self-confident, but that's only really worth it if they don't swallow the rest of Peterson's zealotry and just become lunatics instead.
I've posted this before but I had to distance myself from some friends who were on the Peterson bandwagon and were claiming they owed him their lives, and then went on to basically give sermons that would have been indistinguishable from a Milo Yiannopolous rant. They claim they're now enlightened and have turned over some new leaf, but... they haven't actually done anything except become extreme in their views of the world. They still sit around 14-16 hours a day playing games, living in their parents houses, with no clear plan for their futures.
He's essentially a gym membership for losers. They don't actually follow the regimen, but as long as they consider themselves members, they're given confidence that their life is on the right path and they can stop gaming until they shit themselves at any time. They hold the key of knowledge, the secret to life itself!
Just one more match of Overwatch...
I've honestly read every single post in this thread and I want to say thank you for the people who continue to debate these clowns. I'm not gonna sit here and say that changing your view on something is easy but after the mountain of evidence and rebuttals, I just don't see how you can continue to support JP in good faith. I don't want to be too rude, but some of the users that agree with him seem to be somewhat intelligent so it's extra frustrating when I see them not respond to a point or just flat out be disingenuous. I understand the ego and not willing to change your view but how much is it going to take?
- Status