it makes sense you just need to read the gulag archipelago to get it.
it makes sense you just need to read the gulag archipelago to get it.
Do you believe it is a radical position for people to be referred to by their correct pronouns?Cultural marxism is not a phrase he normally uses. He 99.9% of the time talks about post modern neo marxists, radical left totalitarians, political identity radicals and so on. 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. Doesn't that sound right to you?
I never understood the Marxism = postmodernism. Marxism is absolutely, 100% about building a historical and economic narrative. That's absolutely, 100% what postmodernism is against.
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.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.
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."post modern neo marxists" is an oxymoronic phrase conjured up by concatenating two separate incompatible ideologies that peterson disagrees with, "radical left totalitarians" is really only applicable to tankies who are often mocked and notably fringe, and "political identity radicals" refers to baseless fearmongering about trans people as i described on page 44 (i worked hard on that and the person i was responding to left)
that would be really wonderful to believe in, if
- there weren't systemic barriers in the way of people realizing their potential
- there wasn't demonstrably incompetent people failing upwards as a result of favorable biases and familial inertia, undermining the claim that peterson's traditionalist views promote competence and industriousness
- the threat of starvation for them and their family and debt accumulation disincentivizing risk-taking for most people, causing most people to again fail to realize their potential
- this means that certain subsets of people are implicitly discouraged from taking risks and therefore reaping the gains of successful ventures, further concentrating wealth as most people fight to survive and lack the resources to safely mitigate risk to the degree that it is not an existential threat
- the concern for a system which optimizes cost-cutting over safety and always undervalues preventative measures being able to handle new industries such as biotech with the potential to either revolutionize the world or cause existential threat level crisis
- the majority of psychological research on self-actualization didn't instead suggest that hunger and poor living conditions are poor motivators, that most prodigies and genuine inventors are driven by intrinsic motivation, and the fact that we cannot actually focus our energy on self-actualization until we have met our survival needs
hard work is admirable! spinning one's wheels is unfortunate and a tragic waste! i think our society and traditionalist views optimize more for appearing to work hard and easy to quantify measures of so-called productivity than it they do for actually producing meaning
i do not think peterson credibly addresses these concerns, in a large part because i do not think he has experienced them and does not conceive them as "real"
This guy is really boring.For anyone looking at an alternative to Peterson, check out Dan Dolderman who is also a psychology professor at University of Toronto. More specifically, he is an environmental psychologist focusing on environmental activism and personal fulfillment. He teaches the same course as Peterson PSY230 Personality and Its Transformations and is well respected among students. He gets to the point without Peterson's word salad, believes in climate change, collective action, etc.
https://vimeo.com/15773437
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 about what. I would love to see a left intellectual debate Peterson on that.
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?Do you believe it is a radical position for people to be referred to by their correct pronouns?
Tell me more about those specific policies that ensure everyones rights to dignity and equality. Give some examples.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?
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.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.
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.
Ask them, it's not hard.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?
Bill C-16. The Charter of Rights & Freedoms.Tell me more about those specific policies that ensure everyones rights to dignity and equality. Give some examples.
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.
That's a pretty good encapsulation of why MLK Jr. was a socialist.Peterson would be fron and centre opposing this man for identity politics
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.
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.
I would be happy to use their preferred pronoun.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?
Shouldn't we just treat all human beings with the same respect independently of their sex or race?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.
Maybe like this: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
Bill c16 will help ensure everyones rights to dignity and equality. Ok. Yes, we done.Ask them, it's not hard.
Bill C-16. The Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
Are we done here with this JAQ'ng off session?
He takes it as an obvious given that they do get treated differently.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
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?
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.Cultural marxism is not a phrase he normally uses. He 99.9% of the time talks about post modern neo marxists, radical left totalitarians, political identity radicals and so on. 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. Doesn't that sound right to you?
That's a pretty good encapsulation of why MLK Jr. was a socialist.
When asked about the morality of abortion during his lecture, Peterson denounced it as a universal wrong that nobody disputes.
"I don't think anybody debates that. You wouldn't recommend that someone you love have one," he said.
Peterson admitted the practice wrong while not trying to "eliminate the complexity" of what leads to an abortion. "The first question is, 'Should everything wrong be illegal?'" he said. "That's a tough question. Everything that's wrong isn't illegal. Then there's the additional complication of the difference, let's say, in gravity … regarding the problem in relationship between men and women."
"No matter what you do, it's wrong. So then the question is, 'How did you get there?'" he said. "Well, let's say you're in a position where you're inclined to seek an abortion. The question is, 'How did you get there?'"
Part of the answer to the question is the important debate swirling around sexual morality and the relationship between men and women, which Peterson has helped to restore.
"The discussion regarding the legality of abortion is nested inside a larger discussion about the morality of abortion, and that's nested inside a larger discussion about the proper place of sexuality in human behavior," he said. "And to me that's the level at which the problem needs to be addressed."
Peterson expanded on his point by saying that Western society needs to "straighten out" out its confusion about the relationship between men and women.
"They're bent and warped and demented out of shape," he said. "One of the things I see with young people, for example, is that they will engage in sexual acts with one another that they would not talk about with one another. … It seems to me that if you are willing to engage in a sexual act with someone with whom you would not discuss that act, you probably put the cart before the horse."
Obviously, Peterson suggests that monogamy and marriage are proper remedies to this increasing problem. However, he believes that the culture will not accept this message and proponents need to tailor their rhetoric.
"You can't just say to people in the modern world, well, 'no sex till you're married' unless you're going to get married when you're very young, and perhaps you should," he said. "I don't know about that. But I don't think that we're mature enough as a culture to have a serious discussion about sexual propriety, especially in the aftermath of the birth control pill. We seriously need to do that, and we haven't."
To Peterson, the problem of abortion is a horrific symptom of a culture that has allowed men and women to fall out of sync with each other.
"We're so immaturely cynical as a culture," Peterson exclaimed. "We're not wise enough to look at an institution like marriage and to really think about what it means and what it signifies."
"It signifies a place where people can tie the ropes of their lives together so that they're stronger," he continued."It signifies a place where people can tell the truth to one another. It signifies a place where sexuality can properly be integrated into life. That's no easy task. It's a place where children, at least in principle, can be put first and foremost as they should be, once they exist."
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.
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.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?
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.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 :( :( :("
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.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.
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 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 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?".
…This happened in the 60s, as far as I can tell, that we got this misbegotten idea that the way to conduct yourself as a responsible human being was to hold placards up to protest to change the viewpoints of other people and thereby usher in the utopia. I think that's all appalling, I think it's appalling. And I think it's absolutely absurd that students are taught that that's the way to conduct themselves in the world. First of all, if you're nineteen or twenty or twenty one, you don't bloody well know anything. You haven't done anything. You don't know anything about history, you haven't read anything, you haven't supported yourself for any length of time. You've been entirely dependent on your state and on your family for the brief few years of your existence. And the idea that you have any wisdom to determine how society should be reconstructed when you're sitting in the absolute lap of luxury protected by processes you don't understand… let's call that a bad idea… The idea that what you should do to change the world is to find people you disagree with and shake paper on sticks at them, it's just…
He also reported receiving around 30 letters from trans persons supporting him.
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.
It's like how objectivism makes people feel special too, as "they are the Architect in the fountainhead" :P.
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.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.
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.He also reported receiving around 30 letters from trans persons supporting him.
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.
Politically correct:
Saying anything good about black people, women, LGTB+, Islam.
Saying anything bad about white people, men, being straight, christianism.
Politically incorrect:
Saying anything good about white people, men, being straight, christianism.
Saying anything bad about black people, women, LGTB+, Islam.
Well, you have a lot of politically correct examples. Like white people are hateful and racist, christians are dangerous fanatics, Islam is the religion of peace, etc.
Politically incorrect examples I won't dare post them, but you can imagine.
You know who Lindsay shepherd is? He was right about Bill C-16 and the consequences came faster than anybody expected.
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.
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?
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?
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.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?
Shouldn't we just treat all human beings with the same respect independently of their sex or race?
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.
Lol. And she was Peterson's protege, too, or something like that.
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.
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.
There's a good thing about this topic, we may not agree and may even a little mean but the humor is there.
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.