If you're fighting for equality and as a side effect you're increasing hostility towards those groups you're fighting for then you're not really fighting for equality.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
If you're fighting for equality and as a side effect you're increasing hostility towards those groups you're fighting for then you're not really fighting for equality.
Sure you are. The fault lies with the assholes who are increasing the hostlity. What you are arguing is akin to blaming BLM for attacks on black churches. Which is a well known altright tactic btw. But you know this.
Yea but in my estimation feminism is demonized today for 2 reasons. Either the person demonizing is a sexist piece of shit or it's due to the percieved political correctness surrounding feminism.
I would argue that the latter is a lot more prominent today.
Is it? I do not know. In Hungary, most people know feminism only from the show called Married with Children, and that one contained a strawman-version, yet that is the implementation we got out of it. Heck, in mainstream political discussions, the "there are multiple big, conflicting branches of feminism" does not even come up.
I mean you also said that peterson's ideas presented in the debate had merit and deserve respectful engagement. I don't think that public intellectuals should be able to get away with skimming the texts a night before like they're in a fucking 2nd year intro course so we're gonna have some disagreement on that one.
this is why people are accusing you of victim blaming
because its victim blaming
this is why people are accusing you of victim blaming
because its victim blaming
You guys are really going to argue with a Peterson fan in here? If so, I hate to do this, but I have some air tight arguments against Peterson that can't be debated.
- His dick is small
- His room looks like shit
- He's afraid of cider
- His dick is small
- He only eats beef jerky
What a bunch of bullshit. How do you think any progress was made in the US? It was through fighting, bloodshed, organization, mass protests. The idea that fighting for these people is tantamount to increasing hostility is absurd. Sociological literature has shown quite aptly that those in power structures will always be resistant towards those who seek to gain equal power (in this case white males). That doesn't mean you sit back and let the status quo carry on or hope that in time things will change. This is entirely an unsurprising argument coming from a peterson train of thought tho. All social progress has required fighting for it, otherwise the hierarchies would always remain unchanged.
Like literally read any history book. Ever.
I should be more clear here that statement was too vacuous. What I meant was the overall effects of fighting for equality. Even though during the civil rights movement individual cases of racial attacks probably increased due to hostility against the movement, the needle was still moving towards the right direction overall
I'm not really seeing those benefits today it feels like the needle is moving backwards we get all the aggression towards these groups without the benefit of more acceptance in the long run.
[/QUOTE]
it might seem like that but the question is, is that how politics ultimately works? Again, why Peterson is so dangerous is he gives people a lot of pleasant sounding vacuous answers as to why materialism isn't a valid way to look at political development.
If he was interested in doing a good faith critique of Marx he's already had plenty of chances.
ie. the reason bad things are happening isn't PC culture but instead economic insecurity combined with the hyper individualistic nature of neoliberlaism and the atomization we experience in the digital age.
Sis...we don't shame men for their dick sizes anymore.
I mean, if someone likes their lower intestine being rearranged, I aint judging. But we know the important thing is a man's
I mean your subjective read on whether or not the needle is moving one way or the other is moot. All accounts of social progress show that a fight with a push back is inevitable. Blaming those fighting that fight for the continued and, in your depiction, worsening of discrimination against those groups is one of the silliest things Ive read in a long time. We just had our first black president, we legalized gay marriage within the last 4 years, weve overturned and continue to shut down attempts at stopping immigration and muslim bans-the two latter examples wouldn't be possible without mass protests and organization that fight back against the right. Its just such a baseless argument and the logic of it doesn't follow either as under the paradigm I could essentially blame the left for literally any misdeed thats happened and they would need to bare the fault for it, regardless of whether or not theyre responsible for it (and in the case of "making things worse", they absolutely aren't).
I agree that the left has achieved miracles in the 20th century all culminating in a black president.
But I can't help feeling that the unprecedented rise of white nationalism that we've seen in the west over the past 5 years, probably worst since Hitler, has something to do with the recent missteps of the progressive cause. This was supposed to be all smooth sailing and now seems to be backfiring spectacularly. You have to ask yourself was this dormant this whole time and reached a tipping point for whatever reason or does it have something to do with fringes feeding fringes on each side?
Then again it could be as easy as racist white people freaking out because of a black president. But if that's the case how come the backlash didn't happen in between his 2 terms?
You should consider first whether stability and order are even to be as highly valued as Peterson puts forth. Instability is indicative of fighting for progress, even when it includes aggression. This contradiction you think you see in movements begins to make sense and go away if you read and try to understand Marxist dialectics.
When dealing with a retrograde gender role enforcing asshole like Peterson. I feel no qualms with jokingly accusing him of dick size, because it's his turf of bullshit and might affect him or his fragile followers to be accused of such; even if personally, I don't actually care about what's in peoples pants. Peterson built his career on caring about it though by attacking trans people.
Backlash did happen during Obama's two terms. What do you think the Tea Party movement is? Birth certificate? All the bullshit about Kenyan Muslim?
Its not a miracle. Thats the point. Its a collective effort.
What missteps of the progressive cause are you talking about here? I need specifics.
I'm not sure anyone thought or said it was all going to be smooth sailing and if they did they were incredibly naive. Racism didn't go away after the civil rights, white nationalism didn't go away after WW2. They were still always there all along.
The backlash isn't merely due to having a black president. Weve been seeing this backlash post civil rights this entire time. Again any history book worth a damn will have this documented well. The war on drugs was a continued affront on African Americans, Clinton's Crime bill was a war on African Americans, Bush's Iraq wars was a a continued march of Western Imperialism on brown people, Obama continued that war with an entirely different means (drones), etc etc. Its always been there. That doesn't negate progress, nor does it lay blame on those fighting back against those injustices. That logic doesn't follow at all.
America electing a black man to be President was a glitch in the programming, not the inevitable culmination of some steady march towards progress. What we're seeing is honestly a correction back to the norm. Given the continued disenfranchisement of minorities and the casual hatred that flows everyday Obama should not have happened at all.
Liberals want equality.
Conservatives want a hierarchical society.
The terms thrown about change over the years but the root cause of the fight remains.
It's like people think reactionaries are a new thing or something, or that it's a justifiable response to progress.
Whilst I get your point, and the context in which it's used, the clash between liberty and equality is at the heart of much struggle within and about liberalism, vis a vis 'the left', imo.
I once stumbled across the weirdest Xbox Live Club ever. It was a fedora hangout, called something like 'Real Debate for Intelligent Gamers' and the most prominent thing on the 'message board' kinda feature was some dude posting zingers like:
'If races were kept separate, wouldn't that solve racism?'
'If there were no black people, there wouldn't be any racism, so it's kinda their fault if there is...'
Trying to argue with that logic is like trying to hold water. Wait, not water. Cold piss.
Yea but he did happen and more than half the country has supported him. And he probably would get elected again.
Well they can't have a racially hierarchical society. Hopefully that's not what they truly want.
You can't dismiss all reactionaries in the came category though
Progress has always riled up the fringes. Today it seems like it's riling up moderates as well.
1) On reactionaries: well, yes, they're reactionary. That's the point. It's a 'justifiable' (read: consequential) response to progress in that it's contingent on 'progress' being perceived, and in that sense you can absolutely put them in the same category.
2) Progress: This is waaaaay too general. I get the idea - 'oh those damn university / PC types / SJW / Feminazis (delete as approp.) and their weird words and causes' - but it's only part of the story, one that is persistently focused on at the expense of so much else (other aspects of culture, let alone economics, demographics et al), let alone the weird scenario where people advocating equality and wider access to justice are deemed to be morally at fault, and those who reject this are somehow innocently responding (even as these are often the same types screaming about 'personal responsibility': take responsibility for your position then, and examine it, and wonder why you're so angry...).
Last edited:
You say in hindsight the needle moved in the right direction during the civil rights movement- do you have any idea how long that movement's fight was and what it looked as on the ground - how messy and violent it was?
When you say we are today moving the needle backwards what year is your point of departure? 2016? This is not a fight of instant gratification.,,
Trump also happened too, and on top of that we have a much longer lineage of racist Republicans as Presidents than black Democrats, so forgive my cynicism.
That's not new at all.
Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail. form 1963. includes those part where he calls out White moderates. So Moderates getting riled up because of activism isn't some new concept.
The same was true for the suffragette movement... the fight for public support for it was a long one and the anti-suffragette movement was not a fringe movement but established at the centre of political life...
Last edited:
We also have a long lineage of racist democrats as well in the past, things change pretty quickly. Look at how homosexuality went from taboo for 2 centuries to completely accepted in the US over the course of less than a decade.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...orities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
80% of Americans dislike political correctness.
Now let's look at the definition of political correctness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
Every time progressive causes dipped into the above definition of political correctness it can be considered a misstep, when 80% of your population is against it. That's when things tend to backfire.
Last edited:
This is insanely reductive. What bothers me the most is this co-opts Peterson's mindless jawing regarding equality of outcome.
And I'm sure they also disliked black people using the same fountains, bathrooms and buses initially. But fighting for those rights was still the right thing to do.
This isn't a call for comformity, but I don't think there's ever a perfect way to fight for what's right. There will always be kinks.
Note how this still isnt an actual example of progressives doing something, just that people dont like the term
If that were the case, reactionary movements would be a footnote in history. They always use populist messaging and conspiracy theories to rile up the political center and end up gaining much more support than they should.
I don't think that's a fair equivalence. Black slavery and the institutional racism that followed it was and still is a uniquely evil cultural phenomenon. You can't argue that people against political correctness operate under a similar evil spell
Black to white male incarceration rates during that era was 3:1. That number is now 7.5:1. So yes we fucking can. Just because people are ignorant to how bad it is in this country doesn't mean that these issues aren't as profound or that its unfair to fight back against those who are upset that someone takes a knee during the national anthem. I wish I understood what drives someone to make an account here to solely focus on defending Peterson and promote the idea that progressives seeking justice for marginal groups of people is somehow a negative thing thats antithetical to their cause. Actually no I don't wonder.
Still waiting for something thats actually been done that counts as a progressive misstep other than showing some studies that show people don't like PC culture and its definition btw.
You are literally using the same arguments that 'moderates' told black people during the civil rights movement.
The fact that you have labeled the ENTIRE MOVEMENT FOR EQUALITY as equal to political correctness shows your true position.
User Banned (Permanent): Repeatedly minimizing modern civil right’s efforts over a series of posts and dismissing concerns surrounding intolerance; account still in junior phase
This is the third time someone made an equivalence to the civil rights movement.
I don't understand how any progressive cause today can even remotely compare to the moral emergency of the civil rights movement.
so its oppression Olympics now? you only get get to fight for progress if someone is suffering enough? You dont think that the treatment of LGBT people in this country should change?
No but there should be a difference in the verasity and tactics used to fight it no?
Of course the LGBT treatment should change but we're not enslaving gay and trans people and using them as economic commodities are we?
So you beleive you are the gatekeeper for how progress should be fought? You aren't fooling anyone, you are just infintely changing your argument about how 'progress' today is too extreme somehow and thus needs to be slowed down.
Excuse me, I JUST explained to you how you could equate the two. Incarceration and the locking up of black men has gotten WORSE than the era prior to civil rights with jim crow laws that explicitly stated they were attempting to lock african americans up. Just because you want to be ignorant for how bad things are and how apt comparisons between the two are doesn't make today's issues any better or less real. The same rhetoric youre using now is the same rhetoric that was used to fight against the civil rights.
You heard it here first folks: The Muslim ban, the transgender military ban, throwing children into concentration camps, and the continued police harassment of black people aren't "important" enough to be considered moral emergencies.
Dude, just say that you want minorities to be quiet already
It's not that progress is too extreme it's that it's percieved as regress by too many people. People who vote.
I guess you're ok with being stuck with progressively authoritarian white nationalist leaders.
Social progress should never be held up to a popular vote. what is this shit.
That's not what I said.
Social progress in a democracy needs to be concious of dipping into massively unpopular tactics like political correctness because it turns into net regress very quickly. Reactionary vengeful politics like Brexit and Trump quickly follow.
- Status