god nothing makes my blood boil more than this fucking nerd. this is a great write up on exactly why he's dangerous and it's done from a very novel perspective which is what kept me engaged...
god nothing makes my blood boil more than this fucking nerd. this is a great write up on exactly why he's dangerous and it's done from a very novel perspective which is what kept me engaged despite how burned out on seeing this lobster online.
I feel like one of the reasons why people dislike him so much is because he's very careful not say anything that people can use to attack and then dismiss him. It's also probably one of the...
I feel like one of the reasons why people dislike him so much is because he's very careful not say anything that people can use to attack and then dismiss him. It's also probably one of the reasons he continues to be given a platform.
I wouldn't say he's too careful, he literally said On Reddit last week. I think he's just annoying because he says some inane things and people argue over what he meant, so you can't actually shut...
I wouldn't say he's too careful, he literally said
Nazism was an atheist doctrine. So was Marxism.
On Reddit last week. I think he's just annoying because he says some inane things and people argue over what he meant, so you can't actually shut down the moving goalposts.
I'm not an expert on Hitler by any means, but I would guess that is possible. He did seem to have a hatred for Polish people, who were mostly Christian, as well. On the other hand, he stated in...
I'm not an expert on Hitler by any means, but I would guess that is possible. He did seem to have a hatred for Polish people, who were mostly Christian, as well. On the other hand, he stated in Mein Kampf that he was "Fighting for the Lord."
Hitler was explicitly (Protestant) Christian, Nazi germans established their own national protestant church and most Nazi agenda was targeted at removing Catholics, who were feared to be under the...
Hitler was explicitly (Protestant) Christian, Nazi germans established their own national protestant church and most Nazi agenda was targeted at removing Catholics, who were feared to be under the ultimate command of the Pope in Rome rather than the nation (and who were disproportionately represented in foreigners that lived in the leibenstraum that was to become where the German people colonized).
To suggest that Nazis were athiests is to be wholly unfamiliar with the history fo Nazi Germany.
The National Protestant Church was not Christian as most would understand the word. In fact, according to your source the Nazis abandoned it in the 30s after it failed to attract enough members....
The National Protestant Church was not Christian as most would understand the word. In fact, according to your source the Nazis abandoned it in the 30s after it failed to attract enough members. Not surprising, considering that
When German Christians called for rejection of the Bible as "Jewish superstition" and of the Christian calling to "love thy neighbour", the movement lost still further support
In addition,
. Nazi Positive Christianity rejected the Apostle's Creed and Divinity of Christ as the basis of Christianity, and called Hitler the herald of a new revelation.
By the late 30s, Nazism was pretty explicitly anti-Christianity, including Protestant Christianity. This is the historical consensus. Read the "historians on Hitler's religious beliefs" sections here to learn more.
People also claim that Mormons aren't Christian. I do not. What's worse, it'd be wholly disingenous to claim that because Mormons aren't Christian that they are therefore atheists (as was the...
People also claim that Mormons aren't Christian. I do not. What's worse, it'd be wholly disingenous to claim that because Mormons aren't Christian that they are therefore atheists (as was the original context in this case).
I tend to let people define themselves. It means I don't have to play stupid games like calling people atheists when those same people activity persecuted atheists. The nazis called themselves christians. End stop. They persecuted a shitton of other christians, and others, but they called themselves christians.
What's more "anti-Christianity" (meaning anti-Christian institutions, which is the historical consensus specifically) is not at all the same as "atheist." My claim, that to suggest nazis were atheists is to eb wholly unfamiliar with the history of Nazi Germany, is pretty untouched even with your added context.
You're right that the Nazi regime never declared itself atheist. I'd grant you that maybe they could be considered pagan, rather than Christian or atheist. However, here's some other quotes from...
You're right that the Nazi regime never declared itself atheist. I'd grant you that maybe they could be considered pagan, rather than Christian or atheist. However, here's some other quotes from the source.
Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, saw an "insoluble opposition" between the Christian and Nazi world views.[34] The Fuehrer angered the churches by appointing Alfred Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, as official Nazi ideologist in 1934.[35] Heinrich Himmler saw the main task of his Schutzstaffel (SS) organization to be that of acting as the vanguard in overcoming Christianity and restoring a "Germanic" way of living.[36] Hitler's chosen deputy, Martin Bormann, advised Nazi officials in 1941 that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable."[35]
Hitler himself possessed radical instincts in relation to the conflict with the Churches in Germany. Though he occasionally spoke of wanting to delay the Church struggle and was prepared to restrain his anti-clericalism out of political considerations, his "own inflammatory comments gave his immediate underlings all the license they needed to turn up the heat in the Church Struggle, confident that they were 'working towards the Fuhrer,'" according to Kershaw.[34] In public speeches, he portrayed himself and the Nazi movement as faithful Christians.[37][38] In 1928 Hitler said in a speech: "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian."[39]
He [Hitler] was not a practising Christian but had somehow succeeded in masking his own religious scepticism from millions of German voters. Though Hitler has often been portrayed as a neo-pagan, or the centrepiece of a political religion in which he played the Godhead, his views had much more in common with the revolutionary iconoclasm of the Bolshevik enemy. His few private remarks on Christianity betray a profound contempt and indifference... Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing'. The reason for the crisis was science. Hitler, like Stalin took a very modern view of the incompatibility of religious and scientific explanation.
— Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
During Hitler's dictatorship, more than 6,000 clergymen, on the charge of treasonable activity, were imprisoned or executed.[43] The same measures were taken in the occupied territories; in French Lorraine, the Nazis forbade religious youth movements, parish meetings, and scout meetings. Church assets were taken, Church schools were closed, and teachers in religious institutes were dismissed. The Episcopal seminary was closed, and the SA and SS desecrated churches and religious statues and pictures. Three hundred clergy were expelled from the Lorraine region; monks and nuns were deported or forced to renounce their vows.[44]
Remember it is the historical consensus that the important Nazi leadership was atheist (or pagan).
There was some diversity of personal views among the Nazi leadership as to the future of religion in Germany. Anti-Church radicals included Hitler's Personal Secretary Martin Bormann, Minister for Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, paganist Nazi Philosopher Alfred Rosenberg, and paganist occultist Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler. Some Nazis, such as Hans Kerrl, who served as Hitler's Minister for Church Affairs pushed for "Positive Christianity", which was a uniquely Nazi form which rejected its Jewish origins and the Old Testament, and portrayed "true" Christianity as a fight against Jews.
It seems pretty clear to me that the Nazis only tolerated Christianity insofar as they thought they could bend it to their will.
Also, your statement doesn't make sense:
It means I don't have to play stupid games like calling people atheists when those same people activity persecuted atheists. The nazis called themselves christians. End stop. They persecuted a shitton of other christians, and others, but they called themselves christians.
Disregarding that the Soviets were declared atheists, and still killed other atheists, Nazi "Positive Christianity" explicitly rejected the Bible, the foundational text of the Christian religion. Not even Mormons reject the entire Bible. Seems pretty clear to me that someone who rejects the Bible isn't a Christian, no matter what they claim to be.
That's like saying Thomas Jefferson was an atheist because he made mountains of commentary on religion and appeared in many cases skeptical of varying religious institutions. Your sources do not...
Remember it is the historical consensus that the important Nazi leadership was atheist (or pagan).
That's like saying Thomas Jefferson was an atheist because he made mountains of commentary on religion and appeared in many cases skeptical of varying religious institutions. Your sources do not prove your argument that Hitler and "the important" Nazi leadership was atheist. You prove at most that they were skeptical of Christianity, especially of christian institutions like The Catholic Church (which I've admitted from the start). I grant that some of the leadership was admitted pagans, and that makes them necessarily NOT christian. It is a wholly different thing to claim that "the important" Nazi leadership was "Atheist," which is not supported by the evidence.
I mean, there is a reason that a whole slew of people distinguish between non-practicing deists, agnostics, and atheists, right? It's because there is a quite wide range of difference between saying "I believe in some diety, but not that one," "I don't know what to believe", and "I believe there is no god." There is no historical consensus that Hitler was an Atheist and your sources don't say that, despite your best attempts to twist this wikipedia page's talking about his obvious status as at minimum a non-practicing Christian.
Seems pretty clear to me that someone who rejects the Bible isn't a Christian, no matter what they claim to be.
Now see, that's a really interesting theological position to make, considering WHO put the bible together. If you don't agree that Catholics have any right to put those texts together, you have a lot of room for bickering about what the foundational text of your particular branch is. Even Baptists and Lutherans would bicker about what books are to be considered part of "The Bible," especially if they were to compare notes with a Catholic.
This is true, but later in his life, he moved away from Christianity. Nazi-ism actually considered the Church dangerous and a potential enemy of the state.
This is true, but later in his life, he moved away from Christianity. Nazi-ism actually considered the Church dangerous and a potential enemy of the state.
It is the consensus of historians that Hitler was very anti-Christian. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
It is the consensus of historians that Hitler was very anti-Christian.
"...Christianity was ultimately as incompatible with National Socialism as it was with Soviet Communism and that "Hitler expected the end of the disease of Christianity to come about by itself once the falsehoods were self-evident. During the war he reflected that in the long run 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together."
well he says a lot of shit that is easy to use against him. his acolytes just don't care. he keeps getting a platform because certain kinds of young men feel like he's rational and well spoken and...
well he says a lot of shit that is easy to use against him. his acolytes just don't care. he keeps getting a platform because certain kinds of young men feel like he's rational and well spoken and they respond to that. he's neither but to them he is.
He's constantly interviewed by legitimate organizations etc, I would think that if he's said things that are objectively bad/wrong he wouldn't be given those platforms and would quickly become...
He's constantly interviewed by legitimate organizations etc, I would think that if he's said things that are objectively bad/wrong he wouldn't be given those platforms and would quickly become irrelevant.
Except the same can be said for President Trump. Media reports on the thing that gets most views instead of what is most important or closest to objectionably true, even if that thing is...
Except the same can be said for President Trump. Media reports on the thing that gets most views instead of what is most important or closest to objectionably true, even if that thing is destructive to the population at large. This is simultaneous to, or at least partially responsible for a rise in far-right hate rhetoric and neo-Nazism. It's why our age is said to be the Post-Truth Era.
I really don't think so. If you took a Vinn Diagram of young Trump supporters and young Jordan Peterson followers, I think it would be pretty close to a circle. How about the rise of Richard Spencer?
I really don't think so. If you took a Vinn Diagram of young Trump supporters and young Jordan Peterson followers, I think it would be pretty close to a circle.
I'm referring to media coverage, and relevance of them, Trump is mostly relevant because he's the president of the United States, on the other hand, Jordan Peterson, why would the media continue...
I'm referring to media coverage, and relevance of them, Trump is mostly relevant because he's the president of the United States, on the other hand, Jordan Peterson, why would the media continue to give him a platform if he's saying objectively harmful/hurtful things?
Because the majority of audiences, and by extension media, are indifferent and/or ignorant, and because of that they are easily exploited by Peterson's strategy and rhetoric. Majority of audiences...
Jordan Peterson, why would the media continue to give him a platform if he's saying objectively harmful/hurtful things?
Because the majority of audiences, and by extension media, are indifferent and/or ignorant, and because of that they are easily exploited by Peterson's strategy and rhetoric.
Majority of audiences don't understand or refuse to recognize how harmful being misgendered can be for trans people. A platform of "everything you're doing right now is fine, people who are telling you that you should change your behavior to help others are wrong" is extremely palatable to majority audiences, and that's by far the greatest pull for Peterson's audiences. Peterson affirms to audiences that it's the social advocates and trans people who are wrong, and that everyone else doesn't need to do anything.
Audiences also do not have a proper understanding of ideas like post-modernism. They do not have adequate knowledge of how varied and broad such an idea is, so they have no means by which to assess Peterson's claims of it being some sort of cultural/intellectual toxin.
...he's very careful not say anything that people can use to attack and then dismiss him. It's also probably one of the reasons he continues to be given a platform.
Well, I meant because one of the only reasons he became the President was the probably hundreds of millions of dollars of free media coverage during his campaign. If the media ignored him because...
Well, I meant because one of the only reasons he became the President was the probably hundreds of millions of dollars of free media coverage during his campaign. If the media ignored him because he said incorrect or racist things, he likely wouldn't have gotten out of the primaries.
They cover him because he draws outrage and vociferous defenders. The metrics look amazing. Great clickthrough rates, awesome ingagement, long read times. A ton of his coverage is negative or refutative. That's the reason they continue to cover him, I mean we're here doing it too.
I still think there's a difference between controversial and outright hateful, they don't give an interview to someone to let them just spew hatred, they interview someone who is controversial to...
I still think there's a difference between controversial and outright hateful, they don't give an interview to someone to let them just spew hatred, they interview someone who is controversial to share their views and outlook.
Why do you think so? There are plenty of legitimate organizations that thrive on populist rhetorics, and many others who benefit from sensational opinions and personas. Even the most legitimate...
Why do you think so? There are plenty of legitimate organizations that thrive on populist rhetorics, and many others who benefit from sensational opinions and personas. Even the most legitimate media organizations are bound to cover what goes on in the world, regardless of how bad/wrong they objectively are. That includes the rise of pseudo-intellectual white nationalism
From an earlier reply. They don't often interview murderers to explain how murder is ok, they don't often interview self proclaimed racists to explain how racism is a good thing.
I still think there's a difference between controversial and outright hateful, they don't give an interview to someone to let them just spew hatred, they interview someone who is controversial to share their views and outlook.
They don't often interview murderers to explain how murder is ok, they don't often interview self proclaimed racists to explain how racism is a good thing.
The meat of the article is this, IMO: This is the impression I have of him. He is, first and foremost, a talented preacher. That's a dangerous talent if used indiscriminately and it does not seem...
The meat of the article is this, IMO:
Jordan was a captivating lecturer — electric and eclectic — cherry-picking from neuroscience, mythology, psychology, philosophy, the Bible and popular culture. The class loved him. But, as reported by that one astute student, Jordan presented conjecture as statement of fact. I expressed my concern to him about this a number of times, and each time Jordan agreed. He acknowledged the danger of such practices, but then continued to do it again and again, as if he could not control himself.
He was a preacher more than a teacher.
This is the impression I have of him. He is, first and foremost, a talented preacher. That's a dangerous talent if used indiscriminately and it does not seem like he cares much for encouraging his listeners to reflect on what he says from different points of views. Concerned eyes, "listen,...", strategic pause, a quick laugh, a cherry-picked intellectual phrase... repeat. He's very good at that. You know when you catch someone contradicting himself but he plays it off so well that it doesn't sound like he's wrong? That's where most of his arguments land and it seems like he's drinking his own kool aid.
The sad thing is that I genuinely think that he means well and, maybe, even helped some poor, depressed slob to drag himself out of a spiral of discouragements. It's just that the way to get there does matter and to him it's a near-religious worship of traditional social order. The idea of finding happiness and meaning in an even slightly chaotic world seems alien to him.
I could've done without the suggestion that Peterson's depression might have something to do with his warped worldview (we don't need more stigma for mental illness). But otherwise this is an...
I could've done without the suggestion that Peterson's depression might have something to do with his warped worldview (we don't need more stigma for mental illness). But otherwise this is an interesting insight into him.
I remember hearing about Peterson's refusal to use people's pronouns, but I'd kind of forgotten him until his more recent "enforced monogamy" comments. I follow a fair amount of scientists and science communicators on Twitter, and several biologists tackled the weird lobster comparison from his book. A bunch of supporters were chiming in to explain to these biologists that it's reasonable to apply our understanding of lobster hierarchies to humans because we have a common ancestor. Sigh.
So I know nothing about this guy, but I just wanted to say this was a great article, thanks for sharing it. I think it really underlines one of the common problems we see everywhere in these days,...
So I know nothing about this guy, but I just wanted to say this was a great article, thanks for sharing it. I think it really underlines one of the common problems we see everywhere in these days, in regular and social media: if you have a big enough platform, or enough respect in a field, all of your opinions/beliefs are now worth as much (or more) as scientifically proven facts, often in the name of free speech. It's repulsive to me, both as a person who is not a complete narcissist and as a scientist who hates to see misinformation spread in the name of an agenda. This expressed it really well:
He cheapens the intellectual life with self-serving misrepresentations of important ideas and scientific findings.
Edit: the bit on Marxism hits close to home as well - I have a MSc in sociology, which included studying a lot of Marxism, and I could probably write an essay on how heavily it's being misrepresented these days.
So, as someone who is familiar with Marxism only through the lens of the Soviet Marxism-Leninism thanks to growing up in Eastern Europe, what would you say are some of the biggest...
So, as someone who is familiar with Marxism only through the lens of the Soviet Marxism-Leninism thanks to growing up in Eastern Europe, what would you say are some of the biggest misrepresentations of Marxism that are currently prevalent?
Marxism as inherently violent is probably the biggest one. The idea behind Marxism is essentially that the resources in a society are not being distributed equally, and that the workers are being...
Marxism as inherently violent is probably the biggest one. The idea behind Marxism is essentially that the resources in a society are not being distributed equally, and that the workers are being exploited, therefore it would be good to have a society where this is not the case. There was a lot in there about how you need to be aware of how capitalists are taking advantage of you, etc., in order to be able to stand up for yourself as a social class (this is super simplified btw), but not really a whole lot about violence - none that I can remember anyway.
Then there is the conflation of Marxism with communist regimes worldwide, and the other side of the coin, seeing Marxism as Marx only. The former is really weird to me because while these regimes were inspired by Marx, they weren't actually successful in realising his vision of communism at all. For example, the whole idea of communism for Marx was to create a classless society, which clearly was not the case in any of the communist regimes, so it's not like they stuck to the theory particularly well.
As for Marxism as Marx only, I don't think most Marxist philosophers and sociologists etc. even agree with Marx on all fronts, but for better or worse, they took his ideas and expanded on them. So you have a bunch of really interesting theoretical texts (I'm familiar primarily with Marxism in sociology) that deal with inequality in society and are often very spot-on regarding modern societies. I guess that's what I'd say it's the biggest misrepresentation: Marxism as an ideology of violence and oppression, instead of recognising and correcting inequality.
I had to look this up. It sounds insane, honestly. Even if you somehow accept the absolutely ridiculous idea that academics yearn for classical Marxism (... why??? it's especially not applicable...
I had to look this up. It sounds insane, honestly. Even if you somehow accept the absolutely ridiculous idea that academics yearn for classical Marxism (... why??? it's especially not applicable for academics), our average academic is way too busy with so many work-related things to bother indoctrinating students into some kind of wacko cult. Academics, especially in humanities, are overworked and underpaid; people are always shocked to hear how little people with PhDs earn. Plus, the idea that this is a multinational coordinated effort is ridiculous to anyone who's ever tried to organise anything involving academics.
What you have there is a guy who is salty that his personal values are not aligned with the direction in which the world is moving, confusing soft sciences with opinions. He's a middle aged white guy in a tenured position at a good university, something a lot of younger academics can only dream of, and he feels like because he is smart in some ways, he obviously is smart in every way (I vaguely remember an article about this fallacy). The thing is, his rules for life are not even bad ones - I checked them out and they are pretty much what I aspire to follow. It's just that he can't give advice without also broadcasting his (irrelevant and outdated) opinions.
Having read a little about how Neil DeGrasse Tyson acts, it might be Physicist's Disease. You know, Biology is just Applied Chemistry and Chemistry is just Applied Physics, so everything is...
Having read a little about how Neil DeGrasse Tyson acts, it might be Physicist's Disease. You know, Biology is just Applied Chemistry and Chemistry is just Applied Physics, so everything is Applied Physics. (apologies to Brian Greene)
Thanks for the research and input. That's a couple interesting points you've shared, especially about how unrealistic this is as a reflection of academia. If there was this influential cabal of...
Thanks for the research and input. That's a couple interesting points you've shared, especially about how unrealistic this is as a reflection of academia. If there was this influential cabal of Marxists in universities they'd have a public mailing list, t-shirts printed, and public infighting going on. They wouldn't be The Skulls, they'd be the Democratic Party. "No True Marxist!"
I tend to be critical of identity politics when it comes to privilege, because (to me) it easily goes too far. But applied to him I think you're correct. At this point he's very wealthy, very successful in his field, and has a large following. But his success can only be maintained if he's under attack and at least subconsciously he knows he has to keep saying controversial things. His most useful advice is cribbed from someone else, his political ideals are losing ground in the court of public opinion, and he's swinging for the fences. It's an interesting headspace to inhabit if that's true. I feel like he has a lot more existential dread then he lets on.
There's this theory about most conservative pundits, thinkers, and politicians. If they rail against something, really hammer it, they're privately involved in something similar. I wonder if Peterson is a part of a shadowy ultra-conservative either anarchist capitalist or proto-fascist group.
I'm surprised to see all these paragraphs on "post-modern Marxists" without noting the rather critical fact that this... isn't a thing. Marxists are very much on the side of believing the world is...
I'm surprised to see all these paragraphs on "post-modern Marxists" without noting the rather critical fact that this... isn't a thing. Marxists are very much on the side of believing the world is made of hard nosed scientific truths, which is antithetical to the post-modernist view of truth as an ephemeral concept that's always changing with context and interpretations. The idea that there's a unified ideology within academia known as marxist postmodernism is gibberish.
This is an excellent point. The main group he attacks can't exist because the two ideologies can't coexist. If that foundational piece is false, likely the rest of his tenuous arguments fail.
This is an excellent point. The main group he attacks can't exist because the two ideologies can't coexist. If that foundational piece is false, likely the rest of his tenuous arguments fail.
Jordan Peterson isn't dangerous. There's nothing special about him. He's a dime a dozen. You can find a thousand other shlocky trolls espousing the same demagogic bullshit on YouTube. He's just...
Jordan Peterson isn't dangerous. There's nothing special about him. He's a dime a dozen. You can find a thousand other shlocky trolls espousing the same demagogic bullshit on YouTube. He's just lucky because Milo is out of favor and he happened to be in the right place at the right time to become the new darling.
His following would exist without him, they'd just pick another Peterson. We should be talking about them, the danger they represent, and not lionizing this troll with more free press.
He's definitely a few cuts above pretty much an YouTuber that overlaps with his audience. At least Peterson seems to have actually read materials and participated in academia instead of insisting...
He's definitely a few cuts above pretty much an YouTuber that overlaps with his audience. At least Peterson seems to have actually read materials and participated in academia instead of insisting he's above it, like most of those infamous YouTubers.
Really, really not trying to defend him here. I don't want to give those YouTubers more credit than they deserve.
I have met my share of crank professors. In my view being involved in academia does not give someone special credentials that elevate them. The strength of his arguments might be more powerful for...
I have met my share of crank professors. In my view being involved in academia does not give someone special credentials that elevate them. The strength of his arguments might be more powerful for those that respond well to appeals to authority but that sense of authoritarian power would work as well for any daddy figure that his following would choose.
If it's not this professorial preacher act it's a "fantastic alpha negotiator" or a "transgressive anti-PC truthsayer" or your choice of the grab bag of troll archetypes. The common denominator is the figurehead gives these people justification for their feelings of betrayal and frustration. Added bonus: successfully trolls the media into awarding him their attention and ire. The mask of the figurehead might change but the play remains the same.
I'm only pointing out that he's a few cuts above the YouTubers, because it would be a mistake to elevate the YouTubers. His individual quality is not what I would call high.
I'm only pointing out that he's a few cuts above the YouTubers, because it would be a mistake to elevate the YouTubers.
His individual quality is not what I would call high.
I find it interesting that everyone here is so strongly against Jordan Peterson. He may have some opinions you don't agree with, but the hatred i'm seeing is a bit much. Like it or not, he's been...
I find it interesting that everyone here is so strongly against Jordan Peterson.
He may have some opinions you don't agree with, but the hatred i'm seeing is a bit much.
Like it or not, he's been articulating things that so many people have struggled saying. He's been great with helping people get out of depressive episodes and rise out. To be honest, I think a lot of people see him as a sort of father figure that they never had, which is pretty powerful.
he started a campaign to fight against a bill to give trans people protections that they sorely needed. he lost, thankfully, but his primary tactic was misinformation under the guise of logic and...
He may have some opinions you don't agree with, but the hatred I'm seeing is a bit much.
he started a campaign to fight against a bill to give trans people protections that they sorely needed. he lost, thankfully, but his primary tactic was misinformation under the guise of logic and the damage that did is still being felt.
You misunderstood his campaign. He made it perfectly clear that he himself would call someone by their chosen name in his classroom. But, he doesn't want the government mandating speech.
You misunderstood his campaign.
He made it perfectly clear that he himself would call someone by their chosen name in his classroom. But, he doesn't want the government mandating speech.
I have yet to see a proper distinction between what he considers restricted speech and compelled speech. Every argument he has made in the case of gender idenity can be made in the case of race....
I have yet to see a proper distinction between what he considers restricted speech and compelled speech. Every argument he has made in the case of gender idenity can be made in the case of race.
If he was truly against what he said he is, and not simply skeptical of trans people's identity, his objections would not be about C16, but rather preexisting laws that have already been in place.
Also personal actions are not necessarily an excuse. If I were to not personally participate in murder, but condone and facilitate somone else to murder, I'm not off the hook.
oh no, that was extremely clear to me. that's the misinformation. he was told by experts that his interpretation was wrong and he still sold the misinformation
oh no, that was extremely clear to me. that's the misinformation. he was told by experts that his interpretation was wrong and he still sold the misinformation
I'm neither a supporter or antagonist, but I tend to be critical of most demogogues that acquire such a rabid following. So the following might be wrong. The common criticism I've seen is that he...
I'm neither a supporter or antagonist, but I tend to be critical of most demogogues that acquire such a rabid following. So the following might be wrong.
The common criticism I've seen is that he starts with rather vapid and simplistic self-help advice (clean your room, stand up straight, etc) which is helpful but not groundbreaking in any way. But then once his listeners see a bit of benefit from his cribbed advice he hits them with a ClifsNotes version (if not outright inaccurate) of conservative boogeymen to blame for their lot in life. Having done that, he leaves no concrete action plan or societal method to correct the issues he espouses. He points out an issue he thinks is bad, but dances around trying not to get pinned down while he hits back against any proposed progessive solution. ("I'm not sure what the answer is, but the Left don't have one!") This then tends to push disillusioned young men into the arms of the nearest alt-right radicalization scheme.
Basically, he gets the credit for some simple psychological fixes and pushes that modicum of success to push waves of impressionable young men into the arms of fanatics. He claims to disavow racists and their ilk while doing no such thing substantially.
I think his spin is more like "yes the world needs changing, but not by people who don't understand how it's currently working, because it's better now in the West than it ever has been, anywhere...
I think his spin is more like "yes the world needs changing, but not by people who don't understand how it's currently working, because it's better now in the West than it ever has been, anywhere on Earth. So don't run around protesting, spend your time working on yourself. Make yourself the sort of person who's educated and together enough to make a real difference in a positive direction."
I find his spin on things positive, hopeful and practical.
I see his point, but to me it falls flat. Every group is wrong at least a little, so the argument seems both overly reductionist and obviously self-serving. "The Left is wrong about this one...
I see his point, but to me it falls flat. Every group is wrong at least a little, so the argument seems both overly reductionist and obviously self-serving. "The Left is wrong about this one thing, so they're wrong about all things!" I have no problem with his simple advice, they're moderately useful suggestions. And I agree that most people would do better to focus on internal change over outward outrage. But he offers no real answers to the institutional failures and I think its very telling that there's little internal criticism or difference of opinion.
The counterpoint is that while things have never been better in the West (for various definitions of 'better'), it doesn't follow that this is the end of the line. Native Americans were better off on reservations than being rounded up and killed, but it doesn't mean it was a good time. Why is now good enough? Creature comforts are high, but societal pressures are also at an all time high. Income inequality is higher now than any time except the roaring 20s or right before the French revolution, climate change is causing havoc with the weather, and political polarization is making discourse almost impossible. Things aren't great everywhere.
He never says the left is wrong about everything. Indeed, I've heard him say the left and right need each other - one for renewal when things go off course, the other to run things prosperously...
He never says the left is wrong about everything. Indeed, I've heard him say the left and right need each other - one for renewal when things go off course, the other to run things prosperously when things are going well. Instead he says the radical left is pulling that side of politics way off course. As somebody who would never consider voting Republican, but is also a Cis White Male, it rings true to me.
And you might be wrong about things not being great everywhere. Globally and locally, extreme poverty is lower than ever; despite the massive and growing inequality, everyone's boats do seem to be rising: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
Things could always be better, for sure, and I don't think Peterson's pushing for people to stop caring. Quite the opposite, he's pushing for people to replace the mindset of complaining with one of tooling up and getting to work on your pet problem in the most effective way you can.
And it's easy to look at inequality figures and think "that's not fair" - I think the same thing, giant wealth sickens me and I always assume people have built it by preying on others - but when living standards at the very bottom are rising faster than ever before it's worth stepping back and wondering whether you're really caring about the poor, or just hating on the rich? There's some mighty punchable faces in the 0.0001%, but if what you really care about is living standards in the third world, the statistics might argue they're doing a better job than you think.
I guess I can understand why people on the far left hate this guy, he's forceful and dismissive. But when people call him alt-right, it says to me they've either glossed over him and only read the headlines, or they somehow entirely missed a very well-stated message.
There's a growing body of evidence to suggest I am not a member of this "far left" group, but tend to be rather center-left. So with that in mind, let me tell you why I think Jordan Peterson is a...
I guess I can understand why people on the far left hate this guy, he's forceful and dismissive.
There's a growing body of evidence to suggest I am not a member of this "far left" group, but tend to be rather center-left. So with that in mind, let me tell you why I think Jordan Peterson is a piece of trash that people should stop caring about immediately.
When he debates, he operates in bad faith, even when he is supposedly supposed to be in a good faith debate. The tactics are obvious. He will latch on to the easiest point to dismiss and accuse his opponents of not addressing matters that they have addressed, but not in a way that he has found to be sufficient, as though he is the sole arbiter of whether something is addressed. This is similar to your point about him being forceful and dismissive, but more devastating in that it is saying that he is never even operating under any intellectual good faith in the first place. He is not there to interact with ideas. He is there to preach. That is not something that a wise listener should spend time interacting with.
Preaching is problematic for a number of reasons, the biggest reason is the tendency of preachers to have a conclusion first and then go out and search for reasons that support that conclusion rather than the intellectually honest approach of letting evidence guide the way to a reasoned conclusion. This distinction can be a little hard to grapple with for some people, so let me break it down.
In ideal academic circumstances, you have your research question (this is what I want to find information about, whatever information I can find). Then you find your research, and after analyzing that research you make a conclusion, usually using someone else's technique to analyzing the research because most of the good ones have already been committed to writing at some point. The point is, the evidence drives the conclusion. When you're a hack, you start with your conclusion and look for evidence to back that conclusion up. Evidence that undermines your conclusion is discarded or dismissed, because you want to support your conclusion.
I am suggesting that Jordan Peterson, especially because of the debate tactics he engages in, is often a hack when it comes to any political philosophy he espouses. It is not his area of formal expertise, and it is inappropriate to assume that because he is a professor (of psychology) he is necessarily more qualified to talk about political history than anyone else. No appeals to authority work for this man, and worse, it's clear that he is wholly willing to get huge material facts wrong in his overviews of political history. Now he doesn't get everything wrong, no good hack does. But he gets just enough wrong that an untrained audience might not see the wool he is intentionally pulling over their eyes using some of the psychological techniques that he himself published for how demagogues gain fervent followers.
I am not saying you're duped by his techniques (nor am I saying he is an uncritical opponent of any particular political philosophy), but these reasons are enough to add a mountain of salt to anything he ever says outside of the domain of psychology alone, enough that for me listening to him is basically worthless.
Basically, if you're looking for a well-spoken, intellectually sharp critic of all sides of American politics, you should probably read and listen to more Ben Shapiro instead of this guy.
I'm genuinely curious how far Peterson can push the Christian apologetics and "Judeo-Christian" ideals before his largely atheistic audience reacts in either a transformative way in which they...
I'm genuinely curious how far Peterson can push the Christian apologetics and "Judeo-Christian" ideals before his largely atheistic audience reacts in either a transformative way in which they become a profoundly dangerous new bloc of social conservatives or whether they ultimately turn on Peterson and find a new posterboy.
This reminds me a lot of how internet libertarians got co-opted into the alt-right, which, in substance, is a completely different ideology than libertarianism. For whatever social reasons,...
This reminds me a lot of how internet libertarians got co-opted into the alt-right, which, in substance, is a completely different ideology than libertarianism. For whatever social reasons, libertarians were a vulnerable internet constituency ready to drop their principles and be drafted into a different movement.
And I wonder if JP is the right person to draft internet atheists into whatever his belief system is by speaking to their underlying pathologies in a similar way.
I read his latest book and watched a lot of his youtube content. My issue with him isn't so much what he is saying out loud but it's what he implies when he doesn't expand and clarify. A certain...
I read his latest book and watched a lot of his youtube content. My issue with him isn't so much what he is saying out loud but it's what he implies when he doesn't expand and clarify. A certain type of person could take what he hands out and run very far down a dark hole with it. The damage he does in this way is more indirect and difficult to measure but it's definitely there. I found myself throwing positive spins into incomplete thoughts and then I watched the same content with someone else and they had a completely different message delivered that changed my opinion. That's the magic trick of the entire thing. Subjective interpretation, and I'm beginning to worry if it's a tool he's using on purpose now.
Yeah, honestly his bible lecture series breathed a lot of life back into those old stories for me, in a way that never made me feel like I had to take a position of faith. I'd written them off as...
Yeah, honestly his bible lecture series breathed a lot of life back into those old stories for me, in a way that never made me feel like I had to take a position of faith. I'd written them off as dusty old superstitious stories like most atheists would, but those lectures repositioned the bible as kind of a historical record of mankind coming to grips with its new cognitive powers after descending from the apes.
And whaddya know, if you use some lateral thinking to strip out the need to fight against the supernatural bits it turns out there's some really interesting stuff stored in these ancient books. You'd hope so, too, given how much work it would've taken to get it from oral tradition into written form and then down through the millennia.
Wow... what a pile of garbage. I've been a fan of Jordan Peterson in the past - I still appreciate his work tremendously, and though i have found myself disagreeing with some of the things he has...
Wow... what a pile of garbage.
I've been a fan of Jordan Peterson in the past - I still appreciate his work tremendously, and though i have found myself disagreeing with some of the things he has said I still think he's doing good work overall.
The biggest point this author gets completely wrong is the notion that Jordan Peterson is loved by the "alt-right". He is not. He is hated and mocked by the people on what is called the "alt-right" (the term is ambiguous, but i assume more left-wing sources use it to mean white supremacists/white nationalists rather than maga populists like myself). The alt-right hate peterson for promoting the concept of the individual over the group, the notion that pride in one's group is bad, for refusing to "name the jew" at least in the context of the bolsheviks in Russia, for being associated with the UN's aim of a global government, etc. etc. etc. The Alt-Right does not love Peterson, and his fans are not Alt-Right by any stretch of the imagination.
The author does get one thing right - Peterson is driven by a fear of the end of the world. He says this in his lectures, he says this in interviews, it is what motivates him to do what he does - the idea he expresses is that humans today are no different from humans that created the horrors of nazi germany or the gulags in the soviet union, or the massacres in mao's china, or any of the other atrocities of the 20th century. He recognizes that right now in particular there are tensions that are rising, and he sees them reaching a head - and he wants to prevent conflict using weapons far more destructive than any we've previously had, which might end up killing everyone.
Peterson talks about nuclear war, but there are worse things than this now, and will be more in the near future. It is plausible that at some point in the distant future, we may not be able to exist unless every individual decides that it is appropriate that we do so.
Peterson has been attempting to win over the young men on the fringes because he believes they are at risk of being radicalized into what he perceives as a dangerous group identity.
and of course the C-16 stuff is twisted to barely resemble reality in this article.
This article is pure propaganda with sprinkles of truth. I may have my issues with Jordan Peterson (I share one or two of the criticisms the Alt-Right have of him regarding his UN involvement, and his comments about pride in one's group/collective), but this article is so incredibly distorted that it would be laughable if it were not so serious.
I completely agree. I didn't know anything about Peterson until this witch hunt started showing up in my various feeds. The more I delve into what Peterson actually said the more I see that there...
I completely agree. I didn't know anything about Peterson until this witch hunt started showing up in my various feeds. The more I delve into what Peterson actually said the more I see that there is a concerted effort being made to discredit him. The other posts in this thread really show how people are just believing what they want to believe irrespective of what is actually happening or what he actually says.
Jesus christ, for a guy who collects Soviet art, is fascinated by the cold war and has spoken to great lengths about how dictators and other demagogues do what they do.... he sure seems to be...
Jordan, our “free speech warrior,” decided to launch a website that listed “postmodern neo-Marxist” professors and “corrupt” academic disciplines, warning students and their parents to avoid them. Those disciplines, postmodern or not, included women’s, ethnic and racial studies. Those “left-wing” professors were trying to “indoctrinate their students into a cult” and, worse, create “anarchical social revolutionaries.”
Jesus christ, for a guy who collects Soviet art, is fascinated by the cold war and has spoken to great lengths about how dictators and other demagogues do what they do.... he sure seems to be leading this somewhere!
Did you actually read the article, or are you just replying to the title? The author basically got him hired as a professor, repeatedly helped progress his career, and even let the whole Peterson...
Did you actually read the article, or are you just replying to the title?
The author basically got him hired as a professor, repeatedly helped progress his career, and even let the whole Peterson family live in his house for 5 months. This isn't some random guy.
god nothing makes my blood boil more than this fucking nerd. this is a great write up on exactly why he's dangerous and it's done from a very novel perspective which is what kept me engaged despite how burned out on seeing this lobster online.
I feel like one of the reasons why people dislike him so much is because he's very careful not say anything that people can use to attack and then dismiss him. It's also probably one of the reasons he continues to be given a platform.
I wouldn't say he's too careful, he literally said
On Reddit last week. I think he's just annoying because he says some inane things and people argue over what he meant, so you can't actually shut down the moving goalposts.
How can he hold that opinion? Hitler himself said he was Christian in Mein Kampf.
Could Hitler have been Christian in his personal life without it affecting Nazism?
I'm not an expert on Hitler by any means, but I would guess that is possible. He did seem to have a hatred for Polish people, who were mostly Christian, as well. On the other hand, he stated in Mein Kampf that he was "Fighting for the Lord."
Hitler was explicitly (Protestant) Christian, Nazi germans established their own national protestant church and most Nazi agenda was targeted at removing Catholics, who were feared to be under the ultimate command of the Pope in Rome rather than the nation (and who were disproportionately represented in foreigners that lived in the leibenstraum that was to become where the German people colonized).
To suggest that Nazis were athiests is to be wholly unfamiliar with the history fo Nazi Germany.
The National Protestant Church was not Christian as most would understand the word. In fact, according to your source the Nazis abandoned it in the 30s after it failed to attract enough members. Not surprising, considering that
In addition,
By the late 30s, Nazism was pretty explicitly anti-Christianity, including Protestant Christianity. This is the historical consensus. Read the "historians on Hitler's religious beliefs" sections here to learn more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
People also claim that Mormons aren't Christian. I do not. What's worse, it'd be wholly disingenous to claim that because Mormons aren't Christian that they are therefore atheists (as was the original context in this case).
I tend to let people define themselves. It means I don't have to play stupid games like calling people atheists when those same people activity persecuted atheists. The nazis called themselves christians. End stop. They persecuted a shitton of other christians, and others, but they called themselves christians.
What's more "anti-Christianity" (meaning anti-Christian institutions, which is the historical consensus specifically) is not at all the same as "atheist." My claim, that to suggest nazis were atheists is to eb wholly unfamiliar with the history of Nazi Germany, is pretty untouched even with your added context.
You're right that the Nazi regime never declared itself atheist. I'd grant you that maybe they could be considered pagan, rather than Christian or atheist. However, here's some other quotes from the source.
Remember it is the historical consensus that the important Nazi leadership was atheist (or pagan).
It seems pretty clear to me that the Nazis only tolerated Christianity insofar as they thought they could bend it to their will.
Also, your statement doesn't make sense:
Disregarding that the Soviets were declared atheists, and still killed other atheists, Nazi "Positive Christianity" explicitly rejected the Bible, the foundational text of the Christian religion. Not even Mormons reject the entire Bible. Seems pretty clear to me that someone who rejects the Bible isn't a Christian, no matter what they claim to be.
That's like saying Thomas Jefferson was an atheist because he made mountains of commentary on religion and appeared in many cases skeptical of varying religious institutions. Your sources do not prove your argument that Hitler and "the important" Nazi leadership was atheist. You prove at most that they were skeptical of Christianity, especially of christian institutions like The Catholic Church (which I've admitted from the start). I grant that some of the leadership was admitted pagans, and that makes them necessarily NOT christian. It is a wholly different thing to claim that "the important" Nazi leadership was "Atheist," which is not supported by the evidence.
I mean, there is a reason that a whole slew of people distinguish between non-practicing deists, agnostics, and atheists, right? It's because there is a quite wide range of difference between saying "I believe in some diety, but not that one," "I don't know what to believe", and "I believe there is no god." There is no historical consensus that Hitler was an Atheist and your sources don't say that, despite your best attempts to twist this wikipedia page's talking about his obvious status as at minimum a non-practicing Christian.
Now see, that's a really interesting theological position to make, considering WHO put the bible together. If you don't agree that Catholics have any right to put those texts together, you have a lot of room for bickering about what the foundational text of your particular branch is. Even Baptists and Lutherans would bicker about what books are to be considered part of "The Bible," especially if they were to compare notes with a Catholic.
This is true, but later in his life, he moved away from Christianity. Nazi-ism actually considered the Church dangerous and a potential enemy of the state.
It is the consensus of historians that Hitler was very anti-Christian.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
He did? That's hilarious
It's like middle schoolers debate club on formal logic - A => B, therefore B => A
well he says a lot of shit that is easy to use against him. his acolytes just don't care. he keeps getting a platform because certain kinds of young men feel like he's rational and well spoken and they respond to that. he's neither but to them he is.
He's constantly interviewed by legitimate organizations etc, I would think that if he's said things that are objectively bad/wrong he wouldn't be given those platforms and would quickly become irrelevant.
unfortunately that's not how anything works
It's kind of difficult to respond to that.
Except the same can be said for President Trump. Media reports on the thing that gets most views instead of what is most important or closest to objectionably true, even if that thing is destructive to the population at large. This is simultaneous to, or at least partially responsible for a rise in far-right hate rhetoric and neo-Nazism. It's why our age is said to be the Post-Truth Era.
There's obviously a large difference, he's the president of the United States. Give me another example.
I really don't think so. If you took a Vinn Diagram of young Trump supporters and young Jordan Peterson followers, I think it would be pretty close to a circle.
How about the rise of Richard Spencer?
I'm referring to media coverage, and relevance of them, Trump is mostly relevant because he's the president of the United States, on the other hand, Jordan Peterson, why would the media continue to give him a platform if he's saying objectively harmful/hurtful things?
Because the majority of audiences, and by extension media, are indifferent and/or ignorant, and because of that they are easily exploited by Peterson's strategy and rhetoric.
Majority of audiences don't understand or refuse to recognize how harmful being misgendered can be for trans people. A platform of "everything you're doing right now is fine, people who are telling you that you should change your behavior to help others are wrong" is extremely palatable to majority audiences, and that's by far the greatest pull for Peterson's audiences. Peterson affirms to audiences that it's the social advocates and trans people who are wrong, and that everyone else doesn't need to do anything.
Audiences also do not have a proper understanding of ideas like post-modernism. They do not have adequate knowledge of how varied and broad such an idea is, so they have no means by which to assess Peterson's claims of it being some sort of cultural/intellectual toxin.
This brings us back to my initial comment
Well, I meant because one of the only reasons he became the President was the probably hundreds of millions of dollars of free media coverage during his campaign. If the media ignored him because he said incorrect or racist things, he likely wouldn't have gotten out of the primaries.
They cover him because he draws outrage and vociferous defenders. The metrics look amazing. Great clickthrough rates, awesome ingagement, long read times. A ton of his coverage is negative or refutative. That's the reason they continue to cover him, I mean we're here doing it too.
I still think there's a difference between controversial and outright hateful, they don't give an interview to someone to let them just spew hatred, they interview someone who is controversial to share their views and outlook.
Why do you think so? There are plenty of legitimate organizations that thrive on populist rhetorics, and many others who benefit from sensational opinions and personas. Even the most legitimate media organizations are bound to cover what goes on in the world, regardless of how bad/wrong they objectively are. That includes the rise of pseudo-intellectual white nationalism
Covering bad/wrong things, yes. Interviewing and giving a platform to express those things, not as much.
But isn't this what good free media does? Interview people of interest about their agenda without editorializing them and letting the reader decide?
From an earlier reply.
They don't often interview murderers to explain how murder is ok, they don't often interview self proclaimed racists to explain how racism is a good thing.
Sun Tzu would be proud. The man's as formless as formless can be.
Can I get a short summary of Sun Tau's philosophy? I'm not yet familiar with him.
I'm afraid I only read The Art of War one casual time. It's a lengthy but interesting read. I would have opted for a summary of I knew one.
Isn't Art of War a short book? Most copies are about 100 pages long.
Short but vague on a level that most one-liners need about three paragraphs of supplementary material to begin to understand.
The meat of the article is this, IMO:
This is the impression I have of him. He is, first and foremost, a talented preacher. That's a dangerous talent if used indiscriminately and it does not seem like he cares much for encouraging his listeners to reflect on what he says from different points of views. Concerned eyes, "listen,...", strategic pause, a quick laugh, a cherry-picked intellectual phrase... repeat. He's very good at that. You know when you catch someone contradicting himself but he plays it off so well that it doesn't sound like he's wrong? That's where most of his arguments land and it seems like he's drinking his own kool aid.
The sad thing is that I genuinely think that he means well and, maybe, even helped some poor, depressed slob to drag himself out of a spiral of discouragements. It's just that the way to get there does matter and to him it's a near-religious worship of traditional social order. The idea of finding happiness and meaning in an even slightly chaotic world seems alien to him.
Well Jordan Peterson doesn't think I am real AND thinks I'm delusional for being trans.. I've thought he's been dangerous since the beginning.
I could've done without the suggestion that Peterson's depression might have something to do with his warped worldview (we don't need more stigma for mental illness). But otherwise this is an interesting insight into him.
I remember hearing about Peterson's refusal to use people's pronouns, but I'd kind of forgotten him until his more recent "enforced monogamy" comments. I follow a fair amount of scientists and science communicators on Twitter, and several biologists tackled the weird lobster comparison from his book. A bunch of supporters were chiming in to explain to these biologists that it's reasonable to apply our understanding of lobster hierarchies to humans because we have a common ancestor. Sigh.
So I know nothing about this guy, but I just wanted to say this was a great article, thanks for sharing it. I think it really underlines one of the common problems we see everywhere in these days, in regular and social media: if you have a big enough platform, or enough respect in a field, all of your opinions/beliefs are now worth as much (or more) as scientifically proven facts, often in the name of free speech. It's repulsive to me, both as a person who is not a complete narcissist and as a scientist who hates to see misinformation spread in the name of an agenda. This expressed it really well:
Edit: the bit on Marxism hits close to home as well - I have a MSc in sociology, which included studying a lot of Marxism, and I could probably write an essay on how heavily it's being misrepresented these days.
So, as someone who is familiar with Marxism only through the lens of the Soviet Marxism-Leninism thanks to growing up in Eastern Europe, what would you say are some of the biggest misrepresentations of Marxism that are currently prevalent?
Marxism as inherently violent is probably the biggest one. The idea behind Marxism is essentially that the resources in a society are not being distributed equally, and that the workers are being exploited, therefore it would be good to have a society where this is not the case. There was a lot in there about how you need to be aware of how capitalists are taking advantage of you, etc., in order to be able to stand up for yourself as a social class (this is super simplified btw), but not really a whole lot about violence - none that I can remember anyway.
Then there is the conflation of Marxism with communist regimes worldwide, and the other side of the coin, seeing Marxism as Marx only. The former is really weird to me because while these regimes were inspired by Marx, they weren't actually successful in realising his vision of communism at all. For example, the whole idea of communism for Marx was to create a classless society, which clearly was not the case in any of the communist regimes, so it's not like they stuck to the theory particularly well.
As for Marxism as Marx only, I don't think most Marxist philosophers and sociologists etc. even agree with Marx on all fronts, but for better or worse, they took his ideas and expanded on them. So you have a bunch of really interesting theoretical texts (I'm familiar primarily with Marxism in sociology) that deal with inequality in society and are often very spot-on regarding modern societies. I guess that's what I'd say it's the biggest misrepresentation: Marxism as an ideology of violence and oppression, instead of recognising and correcting inequality.
I would read this essay.
Since you're much more educated in the matter than I am, how do his claims of a cabal of "post-modern Marxists" strike you?
I had to look this up. It sounds insane, honestly. Even if you somehow accept the absolutely ridiculous idea that academics yearn for classical Marxism (... why??? it's especially not applicable for academics), our average academic is way too busy with so many work-related things to bother indoctrinating students into some kind of wacko cult. Academics, especially in humanities, are overworked and underpaid; people are always shocked to hear how little people with PhDs earn. Plus, the idea that this is a multinational coordinated effort is ridiculous to anyone who's ever tried to organise anything involving academics.
What you have there is a guy who is salty that his personal values are not aligned with the direction in which the world is moving, confusing soft sciences with opinions. He's a middle aged white guy in a tenured position at a good university, something a lot of younger academics can only dream of, and he feels like because he is smart in some ways, he obviously is smart in every way (I vaguely remember an article about this fallacy). The thing is, his rules for life are not even bad ones - I checked them out and they are pretty much what I aspire to follow. It's just that he can't give advice without also broadcasting his (irrelevant and outdated) opinions.
I've seem it called the Engineer's disease.
Having read a little about how Neil DeGrasse Tyson acts, it might be Physicist's Disease. You know, Biology is just Applied Chemistry and Chemistry is just Applied Physics, so everything is Applied Physics. (apologies to Brian Greene)
Thanks for the research and input. That's a couple interesting points you've shared, especially about how unrealistic this is as a reflection of academia. If there was this influential cabal of Marxists in universities they'd have a public mailing list, t-shirts printed, and public infighting going on. They wouldn't be The Skulls, they'd be the Democratic Party. "No True Marxist!"
I tend to be critical of identity politics when it comes to privilege, because (to me) it easily goes too far. But applied to him I think you're correct. At this point he's very wealthy, very successful in his field, and has a large following. But his success can only be maintained if he's under attack and at least subconsciously he knows he has to keep saying controversial things. His most useful advice is cribbed from someone else, his political ideals are losing ground in the court of public opinion, and he's swinging for the fences. It's an interesting headspace to inhabit if that's true. I feel like he has a lot more existential dread then he lets on.
There's this theory about most conservative pundits, thinkers, and politicians. If they rail against something, really hammer it, they're privately involved in something similar. I wonder if Peterson is a part of a shadowy ultra-conservative either anarchist capitalist or proto-fascist group.
I'm surprised to see all these paragraphs on "post-modern Marxists" without noting the rather critical fact that this... isn't a thing. Marxists are very much on the side of believing the world is made of hard nosed scientific truths, which is antithetical to the post-modernist view of truth as an ephemeral concept that's always changing with context and interpretations. The idea that there's a unified ideology within academia known as marxist postmodernism is gibberish.
This is an excellent point. The main group he attacks can't exist because the two ideologies can't coexist. If that foundational piece is false, likely the rest of his tenuous arguments fail.
Thank you for summarizing my thoughts so succinctly and clearly!
Jordan Peterson isn't dangerous. There's nothing special about him. He's a dime a dozen. You can find a thousand other shlocky trolls espousing the same demagogic bullshit on YouTube. He's just lucky because Milo is out of favor and he happened to be in the right place at the right time to become the new darling.
His following would exist without him, they'd just pick another Peterson. We should be talking about them, the danger they represent, and not lionizing this troll with more free press.
He's definitely a few cuts above pretty much an YouTuber that overlaps with his audience. At least Peterson seems to have actually read materials and participated in academia instead of insisting he's above it, like most of those infamous YouTubers.
Really, really not trying to defend him here. I don't want to give those YouTubers more credit than they deserve.
I have met my share of crank professors. In my view being involved in academia does not give someone special credentials that elevate them. The strength of his arguments might be more powerful for those that respond well to appeals to authority but that sense of authoritarian power would work as well for any daddy figure that his following would choose.
If it's not this professorial preacher act it's a "fantastic alpha negotiator" or a "transgressive anti-PC truthsayer" or your choice of the grab bag of troll archetypes. The common denominator is the figurehead gives these people justification for their feelings of betrayal and frustration. Added bonus: successfully trolls the media into awarding him their attention and ire. The mask of the figurehead might change but the play remains the same.
I'm only pointing out that he's a few cuts above the YouTubers, because it would be a mistake to elevate the YouTubers.
His individual quality is not what I would call high.
I find it interesting that everyone here is so strongly against Jordan Peterson.
He may have some opinions you don't agree with, but the hatred i'm seeing is a bit much.
Like it or not, he's been articulating things that so many people have struggled saying. He's been great with helping people get out of depressive episodes and rise out. To be honest, I think a lot of people see him as a sort of father figure that they never had, which is pretty powerful.
he started a campaign to fight against a bill to give trans people protections that they sorely needed. he lost, thankfully, but his primary tactic was misinformation under the guise of logic and the damage that did is still being felt.
You misunderstood his campaign.
He made it perfectly clear that he himself would call someone by their chosen name in his classroom. But, he doesn't want the government mandating speech.
I have yet to see a proper distinction between what he considers restricted speech and compelled speech. Every argument he has made in the case of gender idenity can be made in the case of race.
If he was truly against what he said he is, and not simply skeptical of trans people's identity, his objections would not be about C16, but rather preexisting laws that have already been in place.
Also personal actions are not necessarily an excuse. If I were to not personally participate in murder, but condone and facilitate somone else to murder, I'm not off the hook.
oh no, that was extremely clear to me. that's the misinformation. he was told by experts that his interpretation was wrong and he still sold the misinformation
I'm neither a supporter or antagonist, but I tend to be critical of most demogogues that acquire such a rabid following. So the following might be wrong.
The common criticism I've seen is that he starts with rather vapid and simplistic self-help advice (clean your room, stand up straight, etc) which is helpful but not groundbreaking in any way. But then once his listeners see a bit of benefit from his cribbed advice he hits them with a ClifsNotes version (if not outright inaccurate) of conservative boogeymen to blame for their lot in life. Having done that, he leaves no concrete action plan or societal method to correct the issues he espouses. He points out an issue he thinks is bad, but dances around trying not to get pinned down while he hits back against any proposed progessive solution. ("I'm not sure what the answer is, but the Left don't have one!") This then tends to push disillusioned young men into the arms of the nearest alt-right radicalization scheme.
Basically, he gets the credit for some simple psychological fixes and pushes that modicum of success to push waves of impressionable young men into the arms of fanatics. He claims to disavow racists and their ilk while doing no such thing substantially.
What are your thoughts?
I think his spin is more like "yes the world needs changing, but not by people who don't understand how it's currently working, because it's better now in the West than it ever has been, anywhere on Earth. So don't run around protesting, spend your time working on yourself. Make yourself the sort of person who's educated and together enough to make a real difference in a positive direction."
I find his spin on things positive, hopeful and practical.
I see his point, but to me it falls flat. Every group is wrong at least a little, so the argument seems both overly reductionist and obviously self-serving. "The Left is wrong about this one thing, so they're wrong about all things!" I have no problem with his simple advice, they're moderately useful suggestions. And I agree that most people would do better to focus on internal change over outward outrage. But he offers no real answers to the institutional failures and I think its very telling that there's little internal criticism or difference of opinion.
The counterpoint is that while things have never been better in the West (for various definitions of 'better'), it doesn't follow that this is the end of the line. Native Americans were better off on reservations than being rounded up and killed, but it doesn't mean it was a good time. Why is now good enough? Creature comforts are high, but societal pressures are also at an all time high. Income inequality is higher now than any time except the roaring 20s or right before the French revolution, climate change is causing havoc with the weather, and political polarization is making discourse almost impossible. Things aren't great everywhere.
He never says the left is wrong about everything. Indeed, I've heard him say the left and right need each other - one for renewal when things go off course, the other to run things prosperously when things are going well. Instead he says the radical left is pulling that side of politics way off course. As somebody who would never consider voting Republican, but is also a Cis White Male, it rings true to me.
And you might be wrong about things not being great everywhere. Globally and locally, extreme poverty is lower than ever; despite the massive and growing inequality, everyone's boats do seem to be rising: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
Things could always be better, for sure, and I don't think Peterson's pushing for people to stop caring. Quite the opposite, he's pushing for people to replace the mindset of complaining with one of tooling up and getting to work on your pet problem in the most effective way you can.
And it's easy to look at inequality figures and think "that's not fair" - I think the same thing, giant wealth sickens me and I always assume people have built it by preying on others - but when living standards at the very bottom are rising faster than ever before it's worth stepping back and wondering whether you're really caring about the poor, or just hating on the rich? There's some mighty punchable faces in the 0.0001%, but if what you really care about is living standards in the third world, the statistics might argue they're doing a better job than you think.
I guess I can understand why people on the far left hate this guy, he's forceful and dismissive. But when people call him alt-right, it says to me they've either glossed over him and only read the headlines, or they somehow entirely missed a very well-stated message.
There's a growing body of evidence to suggest I am not a member of this "far left" group, but tend to be rather center-left. So with that in mind, let me tell you why I think Jordan Peterson is a piece of trash that people should stop caring about immediately.
When he debates, he operates in bad faith, even when he is supposedly supposed to be in a good faith debate. The tactics are obvious. He will latch on to the easiest point to dismiss and accuse his opponents of not addressing matters that they have addressed, but not in a way that he has found to be sufficient, as though he is the sole arbiter of whether something is addressed. This is similar to your point about him being forceful and dismissive, but more devastating in that it is saying that he is never even operating under any intellectual good faith in the first place. He is not there to interact with ideas. He is there to preach. That is not something that a wise listener should spend time interacting with.
Preaching is problematic for a number of reasons, the biggest reason is the tendency of preachers to have a conclusion first and then go out and search for reasons that support that conclusion rather than the intellectually honest approach of letting evidence guide the way to a reasoned conclusion. This distinction can be a little hard to grapple with for some people, so let me break it down.
In ideal academic circumstances, you have your research question (this is what I want to find information about, whatever information I can find). Then you find your research, and after analyzing that research you make a conclusion, usually using someone else's technique to analyzing the research because most of the good ones have already been committed to writing at some point. The point is, the evidence drives the conclusion. When you're a hack, you start with your conclusion and look for evidence to back that conclusion up. Evidence that undermines your conclusion is discarded or dismissed, because you want to support your conclusion.
I am suggesting that Jordan Peterson, especially because of the debate tactics he engages in, is often a hack when it comes to any political philosophy he espouses. It is not his area of formal expertise, and it is inappropriate to assume that because he is a professor (of psychology) he is necessarily more qualified to talk about political history than anyone else. No appeals to authority work for this man, and worse, it's clear that he is wholly willing to get huge material facts wrong in his overviews of political history. Now he doesn't get everything wrong, no good hack does. But he gets just enough wrong that an untrained audience might not see the wool he is intentionally pulling over their eyes using some of the psychological techniques that he himself published for how demagogues gain fervent followers.
I am not saying you're duped by his techniques (nor am I saying he is an uncritical opponent of any particular political philosophy), but these reasons are enough to add a mountain of salt to anything he ever says outside of the domain of psychology alone, enough that for me listening to him is basically worthless.
Basically, if you're looking for a well-spoken, intellectually sharp critic of all sides of American politics, you should probably read and listen to more Ben Shapiro instead of this guy.
I'm genuinely curious how far Peterson can push the Christian apologetics and "Judeo-Christian" ideals before his largely atheistic audience reacts in either a transformative way in which they become a profoundly dangerous new bloc of social conservatives or whether they ultimately turn on Peterson and find a new posterboy.
This reminds me a lot of how internet libertarians got co-opted into the alt-right, which, in substance, is a completely different ideology than libertarianism. For whatever social reasons, libertarians were a vulnerable internet constituency ready to drop their principles and be drafted into a different movement.
And I wonder if JP is the right person to draft internet atheists into whatever his belief system is by speaking to their underlying pathologies in a similar way.
This guy has an interesting perspective on JP, if you guys aren't already tired of reading all the JP takes on the internet 🙄
Here is hilarious YouTuber Contrapoints’s take on Mr Peterson. It’s worth a watch. Funny but very detailed.
I read his latest book and watched a lot of his youtube content. My issue with him isn't so much what he is saying out loud but it's what he implies when he doesn't expand and clarify. A certain type of person could take what he hands out and run very far down a dark hole with it. The damage he does in this way is more indirect and difficult to measure but it's definitely there. I found myself throwing positive spins into incomplete thoughts and then I watched the same content with someone else and they had a completely different message delivered that changed my opinion. That's the magic trick of the entire thing. Subjective interpretation, and I'm beginning to worry if it's a tool he's using on purpose now.
He's becoming more and more known as a Christian apologist than whatever else he claims to be, at least in atheist circles.
Yeah, honestly his bible lecture series breathed a lot of life back into those old stories for me, in a way that never made me feel like I had to take a position of faith. I'd written them off as dusty old superstitious stories like most atheists would, but those lectures repositioned the bible as kind of a historical record of mankind coming to grips with its new cognitive powers after descending from the apes.
And whaddya know, if you use some lateral thinking to strip out the need to fight against the supernatural bits it turns out there's some really interesting stuff stored in these ancient books. You'd hope so, too, given how much work it would've taken to get it from oral tradition into written form and then down through the millennia.
Wow... what a pile of garbage.
I've been a fan of Jordan Peterson in the past - I still appreciate his work tremendously, and though i have found myself disagreeing with some of the things he has said I still think he's doing good work overall.
The biggest point this author gets completely wrong is the notion that Jordan Peterson is loved by the "alt-right". He is not. He is hated and mocked by the people on what is called the "alt-right" (the term is ambiguous, but i assume more left-wing sources use it to mean white supremacists/white nationalists rather than maga populists like myself). The alt-right hate peterson for promoting the concept of the individual over the group, the notion that pride in one's group is bad, for refusing to "name the jew" at least in the context of the bolsheviks in Russia, for being associated with the UN's aim of a global government, etc. etc. etc. The Alt-Right does not love Peterson, and his fans are not Alt-Right by any stretch of the imagination.
The author does get one thing right - Peterson is driven by a fear of the end of the world. He says this in his lectures, he says this in interviews, it is what motivates him to do what he does - the idea he expresses is that humans today are no different from humans that created the horrors of nazi germany or the gulags in the soviet union, or the massacres in mao's china, or any of the other atrocities of the 20th century. He recognizes that right now in particular there are tensions that are rising, and he sees them reaching a head - and he wants to prevent conflict using weapons far more destructive than any we've previously had, which might end up killing everyone.
Peterson talks about nuclear war, but there are worse things than this now, and will be more in the near future. It is plausible that at some point in the distant future, we may not be able to exist unless every individual decides that it is appropriate that we do so.
Peterson has been attempting to win over the young men on the fringes because he believes they are at risk of being radicalized into what he perceives as a dangerous group identity.
and of course the C-16 stuff is twisted to barely resemble reality in this article.
This article is pure propaganda with sprinkles of truth. I may have my issues with Jordan Peterson (I share one or two of the criticisms the Alt-Right have of him regarding his UN involvement, and his comments about pride in one's group/collective), but this article is so incredibly distorted that it would be laughable if it were not so serious.
I completely agree. I didn't know anything about Peterson until this witch hunt started showing up in my various feeds. The more I delve into what Peterson actually said the more I see that there is a concerted effort being made to discredit him. The other posts in this thread really show how people are just believing what they want to believe irrespective of what is actually happening or what he actually says.
Jesus christ, for a guy who collects Soviet art, is fascinated by the cold war and has spoken to great lengths about how dictators and other demagogues do what they do.... he sure seems to be leading this somewhere!
You probably weren't his strongest supporter than, doesn't he have a cult like following? Don't see them changing their minds any time soon.
Did you actually read the article, or are you just replying to the title?
The author basically got him hired as a professor, repeatedly helped progress his career, and even let the whole Peterson family live in his house for 5 months. This isn't some random guy.
I wasn't being 100% serious, more of a play on how both sides would say that he wasn't the strongest supporter if he turned against him.