Even this headline exposes part of why I dislike Peterson and the broader "intellectual dark web" movement. I'm left of center. I'm not afraid of Peterson. I just think he's wrong (as in factually...
Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson
Even this headline exposes part of why I dislike Peterson and the broader "intellectual dark web" movement.
I'm left of center. I'm not afraid of Peterson. I just think he's wrong (as in factually incorrect, not as in morally wrong). The framing of the headline is part of a definite trend of argumentative style I've noticed among Peterson and his fellow travelers. In general it looks like:
Claiming X is factually incorrect. Here's why.
What, are you offended by discussion of X? You shouldn't be. Just because saying X is politically incorrect doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.
For the clearest example of this, Ezra Klein from Vox had a debate with Sam Harris, part of the "intellectual dark web". It was about the ideas in Charles Murray's The Bell Curve, that race genetically determines your IQ and therefore blacks are stupid and therefore we shouldn't bother with welfare.
If you listen to that podcast or read the transcript, the bulk of Sam Harris' defense of Murray is "we shouldn't be afraid to discuss these ideas"...during a debate in which they were discussing those ideas. Very little of it was about the factual accuracy of Murray's claims. Instead Harris tried very hard to frame the discussion in terms of ideas being politically incorrect and the left wanting to suppress debate of them because of fear of what the results might be.
That's a very dishonest account of the ideas of Charles Murray as expressed in The Bell Curve. Race (as in heredity) genetically determines only a part (even if significant) of your IQ. They are...
It was about the ideas in Charles Murray's The Bell Curve, that race genetically determines your IQ and therefore blacks are stupid and therefore we shouldn't bother with welfare.
That's a very dishonest account of the ideas of Charles Murray as expressed in The Bell Curve. Race (as in heredity) genetically determines only a part (even if significant) of your IQ. They are many environmental factors.
Very little of it was about the factual accuracy of Murray's claims.
Because pretty much everything Murray is saying on intelligence and heredity is a reflection of the state of the art in the field. He's not doing the meta-analysis, he's citing the meta-analysis.
Instead Harris tried very hard to frame the discussion in terms of ideas being politically incorrect and the left wanting to suppress debate of them because of fear of what the results might be.
That's exactly what is happening, but he's not talking about the left but only a small chunk of the left, the radical ideology driven activist left that is obsessed with identity politics and don't care about facts and reason.
I'm going to repost a comment the last time this argument came up:
I'm going to repost a comment the last time this argument came up:
At risk of stepping into this firestorm, I think there's a couple things going on here that we would do well to recognize:
This is obviously a sensitive topic, scientific attempts to say any group of people, race or ethnicity is more or less intelligent than any other raises concerns, because this is the exact sort of thing that makes a white-supremacist's proverbial panties wet. The motives of those who study such things are therefore not above question (particularly when it comes to the question of what the hell you actually plan to do with this information, and why you were so interested in the first place, vis. Charles Murray).
We are not intelligence researchers. Vox is not an intelligence research publication, nor is the SPLC. It is difficult, given the odious ends that bigots would like to use this information to, and the vociferousness (and generally more noble goal) of those who wish to argue the equality of all humanity, for your average reader to be able to distinguish between what is, or is not scientific consensus. Further, some intelligence researchers (notably, those without Murray's cross-burning past) do disagree with Turkheimer et al.'s response in Vox. You can read a few here and here, but again, how are we to judge their work v.s., Turkheimer's?
So much of the bandwidth of this argument is spent on proving whether these arguments are, or are not scientific consensus, or even whether race exists, etc.. One must ask, what is the point of this information in the first place? Say it is true that different races have different mean intelligence's, what do we do with that information? Why even study this in the first place, if to do so is to kick the hornets nest and to have your name equated with racism personified in the 21st century?
Restating of old social darwinist stories, long debunked. Here we go again. A new round of of the same old opportunistic grab. It's a quick way for a pseudo-intellectual (actually seem very...
Restating of old social darwinist stories, long debunked. Here we go again. A new round of of the same old opportunistic grab. It's a quick way for a pseudo-intellectual (actually seem very anti-intellectual) group to get some quick attention and boost sales (books and tours etc etc)
This gives you a short and sweet jumping board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylw6f14tUOg&app=desktop
Yep, the thread for that NPR interview is where Raphael and I first started debating this topic. I'm convinced I'm not going to change their mind so I've given up on trying to discuss it with them.
Yep, the thread for that NPR interview is where Raphael and I first started debating this topic. I'm convinced I'm not going to change their mind so I've given up on trying to discuss it with them.
Of course neo-nazis and white supremacists are using the science of heredity and intelligence to justify their ideology. That doesn't mean that the science is wrong, that they have intellectual...
Of course neo-nazis and white supremacists are using the science of heredity and intelligence to justify their ideology. That doesn't mean that the science is wrong, that they have intellectual integrity or even a correct understanding of the science in question.
I have to ask - why do you seem to be so fixated on this topic? A large part of your activity on the site has been related to it. Are you a researcher in a related field or something similar?
I have to ask - why do you seem to be so fixated on this topic? A large part of your activity on the site has been related to it. Are you a researcher in a related field or something similar?
I'm glad to hear you are so invested in science! How much time have you spent studying it? What's your background in science like? I think part of the reason you're running into so much opposition...
I'm glad to hear you are so invested in science! How much time have you spent studying it? What's your background in science like? I think part of the reason you're running into so much opposition is because people think you are jumping to conclusions based on what the science can accurately say. Have you ever taken a class on scientific paper analysis?
I've found that a class on interpretation of scientific studies helped me tremendously when it came to understanding when an author was over-reaching in their conclusion and taught me some tips and tricks when it comes to recognizing really solid study design methodology.
You and I have debated this quite thoroughly already. I'm going to decline to continue arguing about whether certain races are genetically more or less intelligent than others.
You and I have debated this quite thoroughly already. I'm going to decline to continue arguing about whether certain races are genetically more or less intelligent than others.
Intelligence and IQ should always be separated whenever anyone attempts to argue about IQ scores in a racial fashion. IQ tests are inherently biased, because they are a social construct. There's a...
Intelligence and IQ should always be separated whenever anyone attempts to argue about IQ scores in a racial fashion. IQ tests are inherently biased, because they are a social construct. There's a good reason they've evolved over the years, and anyone who gives IQ tests regularly (or really any standardized tests) knows quite well that it does a piss poor job of measuring across subgroups such as race, background, locale, language spoken, and plenty more.
lmao your own sources prove my point. Especially this one: but in case you'd like a few studies to read, here's a bunch that were easily found on wikipedia. 1 2 3 4 5
lmao your own sources prove my point. Especially this one:
IQ is positively correlated with socially liberal but fiscally conservative (libertarian) beliefs
but in case you'd like a few studies to read, here's a bunch that were easily found on wikipedia.
Please provide context (like I did) for the studies you are citing. Also a correlation between a political set of beliefs and IQ don't mean that IQ is a social construct. This is a classical non...
Please provide context (like I did) for the studies you are citing. Also a correlation between a political set of beliefs and IQ don't mean that IQ is a social construct. This is a classical non sequitur.
Normally I would, but this is frankly like arguing with the existence of global warming. To anyone who works in psychology, it's well known and taught in nearly every textbook that IQ tests are...
Please provide context
Normally I would, but this is frankly like arguing with the existence of global warming. To anyone who works in psychology, it's well known and taught in nearly every textbook that IQ tests are not definitive and have a huge bias towards certain backgrounds. I simply don't have time to do this.
Also a correlation between a political set of beliefs with IQ don't mean that IQ is a social construct.
What do you think is the explanation for why IQ is correlated with political beliefs?
That is false. IQ tests are among the most reliable, predictive measures in all of psychology. I can provide you dozens of meta-analysis that show exactly that. I don't have the explanation. A...
To anyone who works in psychology, it's well known and taught in nearly every textbook that IQ tests are not definitive and have a huge bias towards certain backgrounds. I simply don't have time to do this.
That is false. IQ tests are among the most reliable, predictive measures in all of psychology. I can provide you dozens of meta-analysis that show exactly that.
What do you think is the explanation for why IQ is correlated with political beliefs?
I don't have the explanation. A naive hypothesis could be that high IQ is correlated with high earning that is itself correlated with this set of political beliefs, but a good study should have controlled for that.
Have you ever considered that the IQ test might actually be measuring political affiliation in some fashion? Or perhaps the questions were written by someone with a particular political...
Have you ever considered that the IQ test might actually be measuring political affiliation in some fashion?
Or perhaps the questions were written by someone with a particular political affiliation and therefore slanted to reflect their ideology?
Or what if people of a particular political affiliation are more likely to learn about a particular piece of knowledge, and that this knowledge is what's tested in an IQ test?
We know that IQ is correlated with many things that doesn't mean that IQ is measuring those things. That's a misunderstanding of how correlation works. For anybody that actually looked what IQ...
Have you ever considered that the IQ test might actually be measuring political affiliation in some fashion?
We know that IQ is correlated with many things that doesn't mean that IQ is measuring those things. That's a misunderstanding of how correlation works.
Or perhaps the questions were written by someone with a particular political affiliation and therefore slanted to reflect their ideology? Or what if people of a particular political affiliation are more likely to learn about a particular piece of knowledge, and that this knowledge is what's tested in an IQ test?
For anybody that actually looked what IQ tests are like this idea is laughable.
You're absolutely right, it's not measuring those things. But what is it measuring? What makes true intelligence not also a correlation with the IQ test? What is intelligence? Why is it laughable?
We know that IQ is correlated with many things that doesn't mean that IQ is measuring those things. That's a misunderstanding of how correlation works.
You're absolutely right, it's not measuring those things. But what is it measuring? What makes true intelligence not also a correlation with the IQ test? What is intelligence?
For anybody that actually looked what IQ tests are like this idea is laughable.
How can you be sure that's what it's actually measuring? Ignoring the fact that you specifically chose a question that's as divorced as possible from politics, rather than something that's a bit...
How can you be sure that's what it's actually measuring?
How can this be biased
Ignoring the fact that you specifically chose a question that's as divorced as possible from politics, rather than something that's a bit more obvious, allow me offer 3 explanations on how this particular question can be influenced by background:
The easiest thing to point out is the dichotomy between rich and poor backgrounds. The rich people are able to afford more resources for their children, exposing them to more problems such as this. The poor backgrounds do not get this exposure, and therefore their measured intelligence will be lower.
Different cultures teach in different ways. A good example of this is the games and socialization that happens among the youth. Some cultures are more insular, some are not. Unsurprisingly, measures of "social" intelligence, or the ability for people to read and react appropriately to social interactions is higher among societies that have their children mix earlier and more often. The same can be said of certain cultures and what is taught. A hunter gathering society that relies heavily on the ability to navigate space will score higher on visuo-spatial intelligence, because they both use this part of their brain more often and have more practical experience and are more likely to have encountered the same problem, or a similar problem already.
This particular problem makes use of shape and colors in a way that draws upon the experience of the person who developed this problem. The games they played as a child, the problems they solved as a researcher, what they've been exposed to - it all influences everything they do and is impossible to divorce from a person. There's actually even tiny biases in how we understand time and other "facts" of life that are built into the very language we speak.
That argument is nearly as inane as the basis of his ideas focusing on race and the development of IQ. If you're going to take the stance that Murray is including environmental factors in the the...
That's a very dishonest account of the ideas of Charles Murray as expressed in The Bell Curve. Race (as in heredity) genetically determines only a part (even if significant) of your IQ. They are many environmental factors.
That argument is nearly as inane as the basis of his ideas focusing on race and the development of IQ. If you're going to take the stance that Murray is including environmental factors in the the development of IQ, then why would you also call for the gutting of social services that seek to improve the environment.
I'm not talking about Murray policy proposals. I only care about his portrayal of the scientific mainstream in the field. It's dishonest to say that Murray is claiming that "race genetically...
If you're going to take the stance that Murray is including environmental factors in the the development of IQ, then why would you also call for the gutting of social services that seek to improve the environment.
I'm not talking about Murray policy proposals. I only care about his portrayal of the scientific mainstream in the field. It's dishonest to say that Murray is claiming that "race genetically determines your IQ and therefore blacks are stupid". I disagree with many, if not most, of his policy proposals by the way.
I have not read The Bell Curve or his other works and I don't plan to because I think I'd get just as much out of it as a reading of phrenological texts. While I have not seen him explicitly say...
I have not read The Bell Curve or his other works and I don't plan to because I think I'd get just as much out of it as a reading of phrenological texts. While I have not seen him explicitly say "black people are stupid", you don't even need to read between the lines to see the racial - and classist if you want to dig deeper - undertones of his theory. In his own words:
“Try to imagine a … presidential candidate saying in front of the cameras, ‘One reason that we still have poverty in the United States is that a lot of poor people are born lazy.’ You cannot imagine it because that kind of thing cannot be said. And yet this unimaginable statement merely implies that when we know the complete genetic story, it will turn out that the population below the poverty line in the United States has a configuration of the relevant genetic makeup that is significantly different from the configuration of the population above the poverty line. This is not unimaginable. It is almost certainly true.”
From a scientific perspective, it completely ignores objectively-verifiable social power structures in favor of pseudo-science that has been on shaky grounds within its applicable fields FOR DECADES. Also, for someone representing themselves as a scientist focused purely on objectivity, he sure ignores a lot of sociological variables that would negatively skew his "findings"
I can only talk about intelligence and heredity because that is the only thing I know well enough, so I will not say anything about the social factors of poverty, but I do not agree with him at...
I can only talk about intelligence and heredity because that is the only thing I know well enough, so I will not say anything about the social factors of poverty, but I do not agree with him at all that people below the poverty line are usually there because of their intelligence. That doesn't mean I don't believe there are on average a gap in intelligence between people below and above the poverty line and that this gap is significant and matters. I believe that the science is pretty clear on this.
That's because as much as he projects himself as an intellectual, he's more of a cultural mouthpiece. He's basically the Bill O'Reilly for this generation.
That's because as much as he projects himself as an intellectual, he's more of a cultural mouthpiece. He's basically the Bill O'Reilly for this generation.
What's his deal? I often hear him mentioned here and there. So I tried to look him up, and he was presented like an anti-snowflake guru. But then everything he said on his videos sounded, I don't...
What's his deal? I often hear him mentioned here and there. So I tried to look him up, and he was presented like an anti-snowflake guru. But then everything he said on his videos sounded, I don't know, too abstract or too obvious. I don't see why people are listening to him so much.
I'm personally a little bothered that the actual title of the article is "Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson". Nobody is afraid of Jordan Peterson; he has no power. But I will blame the...
I'm personally a little bothered that the actual title of the article is "Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson". Nobody is afraid of Jordan Peterson; he has no power. But I will blame the extreme title on the editor.
What is considerably less forgivable is how the author lumps everyone in the left into one big group and characterizes it as a monarch who is about to be deposed. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I was part of a giant organization that rules over the world with a single unifying banner. I guess I should have taken advantage of the member benefits while I still had the chance.
This article (posted on Tildes here) is a bit of a response to The Atlantic one: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/the-lefts-hatred-of-jordan-peterson-is-perfectly-rational.html
These to me gets to the heart of all the problems. Jordan is not necessarily a remarkable voice in this discussion. He's quite long winded and incredibly inaccessible to a huge portion of his...
It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind. When the poetry editors of The Nation virtuously publish an amateurish but super-woke poem, only to discover that the poem stumbled across several trip wires of political correctness; when these editors (one of them a full professor in the Harvard English department) then jointly write a letter oozing bathos and career anxiety and begging forgiveness from their critics; when the poet himself publishes a statement of his own—a missive falling somewhere between an apology, a Hail Mary pass, and a suicide note; and when all of this is accepted in the houses of the holy as one of the regrettable but minor incidents that take place along the path toward greater justice, something is dying.
If you think that a backlash to the kind of philosophy that resulted in The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming. And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded. All across the country, there are people as repelled by the current White House as they are by the countless and increasingly baroque expressions of identity politics that dominate so much of the culture. These are people who aren’t looking for an ideology; they are looking for ideas. And many of them are getting much better at discerning the good from the bad. The Democratic Party reviles them at its peril; the Republican Party takes them for granted in folly.
These to me gets to the heart of all the problems. Jordan is not necessarily a remarkable voice in this discussion. He's quite long winded and incredibly inaccessible to a huge portion of his intended audience. He woo's younger minds with his seemingly wordiness while simultaneously failing to say much at times. He's easily hung up on definitions of terms that threaten to derail the conversation at any turn.
However the article does correctly identify that the's not the problem. It's that there is a large group of people out there looking for answers that neither platform is correctly identifying, and THAT should be terrifying to anyone hoping their party wins.
The bit about something dying when you have to backtrack every word after a career of not violating anyone's feelings is exactly a good portion of that. The normal moral human is fine with being respectful of triggers and SJW culture so long as they're not asked to bend over backwards for a tiny % of the population. If any of it was presented in a moderate way I would be adopted and primarily is across the nation. However when you put it in the context of the two party system you have parties required to get more and more extreme to compete and you have the majority of America left in the wake standing alone searching for the middle.
When people like Peterson and Rogan come along with a message that sounds more reasonable, people latch on to that. It just sounds like common sense after the extremes at the polls.
I agree with you in respect to a large portion of his audience coming from people feeling lost and looking for answers. Notably young white men, whose life previously seemed very structured in...
I agree with you in respect to a large portion of his audience coming from people feeling lost and looking for answers. Notably young white men, whose life previously seemed very structured in terms of progression and hierarchy. However, I don't agree with you on your contention that the general public are being asked to "bend over backwards" to accommodate a small portion of the population. Unless you're jumping down the rabbit hole of hyper-left social-theorist Twitter, what's being asked of the general public in terms of rights and the general lexicon (i.e., pronouns) is not very far left. I also don't agree with your statement that people are being presented with two "extremes at the poles". Sure, the republic party could be seen as drifting to an extreme, but that has been the case for awhile and Trump is just an off-shoot of that. The democratic party remains incredibly centrist and honestly somewhat right of center.
Also using "SJW culture" is painting with a very VERY broad brush. When you say, "If any of it was presented in a moderate way I would be adopted and primarily is across the nation." What are you asking to be presented in a moderate way?
This was definitely talking about the SJW type situation, which you're correct is not the normal in the Democrat party but is wildly the main voice you hear for most young people online. From...
asked to "bend over backwards" to accommodate a small portion
This was definitely talking about the SJW type situation, which you're correct is not the normal in the Democrat party but is wildly the main voice you hear for most young people online. From obvious examples like tumblr all the way to something like Bernie, there's a spectrum of extreme but very little of it is presented in an appealing way to younger people online. Most people on the left online are either press/journalists, the extremely biased shows like TYT (which are essentially the press disguised as youth content), or random youtubers. None of which are particularly aimed at these young white men we were referring to. Many of them seemingly almost attacking this group specifically (or at least engaging the segment in a way that could feel attacking). You have the entirety of pop culture and Hollywood engaged in the SJW level extreme between seemingly benign movements that start in a good place (#metoo) that end in bad places (#menaretrash).
Young people are on social media. They are influenced more by Bruce Jenner and the Kardashians than Hillary's speeches. The Right is absolutely crushing the online spaces like youtube in terms of providing engaging personalities to espouse their beliefs.
I've only recently found through purposely looking for some great anti-new-right commentators on youtube and other places that break down point by point the inaccuracies presented by the Lauren Southerns and Stefan Molylldalflsdaflaldflasdfs followed by more realistic interpretations and they are getting a 10th to a 20th of the views of the previously mentioned ones.
There's a great divide as you pointed out between the democrat party and the SJW fad, but for people in college and young adults trying to form their opinions, the right is absolutely crushing in terms of attractively presented points from engaging presenters in the spheres that most influence that age group.
All of this is just my opinion. I don't mind sitting through a 45 minute video explaining the reality of the migrant crisis, but I'm not expecting the average 20-something year old to be able to do the same.
Sure, I will buy into your argument that the social-justice rhetoric is probably alienating a lot of white male voters and white female voters to a certain extent. But again, you are painting with...
Sure, I will buy into your argument that the social-justice rhetoric is probably alienating a lot of white male voters and white female voters to a certain extent. But again, you are painting with such a broad brush by continuously saying "SJW" and it's so difficult to nail down the argument that you're trying to make. Let's start off with this:
This was definitely talking about the SJW type situation, which you're correct is not the normal in the Democrat party but is wildly the main voice you hear for most young people online. From obvious examples like tumblr all the way to something like Bernie,
Here you've put a wide range of subjects under one umbrella. Bernie ran on a campaign of changes to socio-economic and was frequently criticized for not focusing enough on purely social issue like race and gender. #metoo addressed a social issue and was seemingly adopted by much of the political spectrum. #menaretrash is one I haven't heard of. I mean, in general men are trash but of course this is an alienating idea and it's probably why it hasn't gone beyond the Twitter echochamber. It's not like you're seeing national #menaretrash rallies that are shaping policy.
I agree with you when you say that a lot of people are feeling alienated, but I don't think the problem is SJW culture because like you said, "most people are fine with being respectful" of social issues. Young white voters aren't being alienated by social-rights issues because very little is being asked of them. They're feeling like there is very little for them to be included in because their problems are not being addressed because the democratic party does next to nothing address the economic needs of the majority of the population. That is why Bernie Sanders was able to capture so much of the younger vote.
I don't mean to say that SJW culture is the only thing alienating people, just that it is one contributing factor. I definitely agree that the economic factors are also huge. Probably even more so...
I don't mean to say that SJW culture is the only thing alienating people, just that it is one contributing factor.
I definitely agree that the economic factors are also huge. Probably even more so when it actually comes to voting in the democratic side. However zooming out from the democrats I think Trump is ultimate example of how many people were just pissed at the system. It could have been because of economics, but I do believe a non-small portion of that was because of the natural rubber band effect of the Politically Correct push. People who had lived long lives saying and doing certain things that are now no longer "correct" to say in public see this guy who just says and does whatever he wants come along. Even the campaign of MAGA was specifically designed to elicit those kind of nostalgic feelings.
I think we really agree on almost everything. I think I just feel the push for society to be overly politically correct recently is a slightly more important factor than you do. I think we both agree it was a factor and that there were tons of other factors also contributing. And it also probably varies a lot depending on which demographic or which area of the country you're talking about too.
I think that social justice is a massive issue that needs to be addressed in this country and world-wide. I honestly don't think the popular calls for change go far enough. Backing off of these...
I think that social justice is a massive issue that needs to be addressed in this country and world-wide. I honestly don't think the popular calls for change go far enough. Backing off of these issues because people in a position of privilege can't stomach it, would be incredibly regressive. There are so many more issues that need to be addressed and brought into the lens of popular discourse (e.g, the majority of this country's leadership tacitly supports Israel & Saudi Arabia).
I absolutely agree with you in regards to social justice issues alienating people. But the people being alienated are those who are having their privilege challenged and are reacting negatively to it. For these people, I think it's a two-way split. You have people who are legitimately racist/misogynist/etc. and see their privilege being challenged. Then you have the people who just can't relate to the social justice issues, through a lack of exposure, education, etc. I think the problem is that when candidates present policies and talking points, those brought out by the democratic party who do call for a focus on social justice issues, have very little else to offer their constituents. It's often more of the same and people are dissatisfied because look where it has gotten the lower-middle classes. They do not present any radical economic or social-economic policies that these people in racially-privileged positions can get behind and relate to. I think for a lot of middle of the road white people, it can look like they are being told that everything is fine EXCEPT issues of identity which they are to blame for. It becomes hard to budge on issues that you may find uncomfortable when you're not being offered anything of substance in return (e.g, student debt forgiveness, single-payer medicare, corporate tax accountability - all of which have popular support).
So yes, I agree with you that people are turned off by "SJW" culture, but it is because they are being given a stick (in their eyes at least) but no carrot. People are not being asked for much and you yourself have alluded to most people being receptive of most social justice issues. That just can't be the only thing you present them with.
I really like how this is laid out and might be what I was thinking just not wording correctly. Not to counter your points, but just to pick your brain. Do you think society can have sweeping...
I really like how this is laid out and might be what I was thinking just not wording correctly.
Not to counter your points, but just to pick your brain.
Do you think society can have sweeping social changes in a short period of time and still maintain stability?
If the current reforms are not going far enough (assuming they were effectively received nationwide) what else do you want to see done?
Even if you want a farther reform than what's currently on the table surely you have to see situations like Evergreen State as a sign that we must be careful when peeling back these layers as to not just hand over the reigns to the mob who feels like they are owed something right? I don't mean to say that SJW's don't have a valid goal, but the process to reach that must be more careful as we're already seeing the rubberband away from support.
Thank you. Domestically, I think it is possible but it's complicated and I certainly am not well-read enough to have the answers because there are so many different factors that would need to be...
Thank you.
Do you think society can have sweeping social changes in a short period of time and still maintain stability?
Domestically, I think it is possible but it's complicated and I certainly am not well-read enough to have the answers because there are so many different factors that would need to be addressed. Policies that level the economic playing field should in turn lift up the voices of minority populations by granting them more political power. I don't know how long it would take to heal the racial schism our country was founded on, but giving POC's more economic autonomy will certainly open the door for more activism and in turn more public discourse. As far as stability goes, I think it will remain stable as long as the white/male population sees improvements to their quality of life as well. If not, politicians have the ability to build off of that frustration by scapegoating/weaponizing minority rights.
If the current reforms are not going far enough (assuming they were effectively received nationwide) what else do you want to see done?
This is also complicated because it goes so much further than issues of identity. At our current rate, domestic policies related to social justice only address symptoms of much larger problems. For example, calls to end 'family separation' does not solve the problem of how 1st-world countries are complicit in making countries in the global-south uninhabitable, thus driving immigration and asylum seekers. Rather than listing them off, I think Ocasio-Cortez's platform is a good jumping off point from where we are now. Although I think we need a redistribute economic policy with even stronger teeth. I also think there are a ton of geopolitical solutions that won't be implemented in my lifetime (e.g, gutting the military budget, gutting the CIA, stop supporting proxy states such as Saudi Arabia, holding companies that operate internationally to the same environmental/human-rights as those that operate in the US, etc.). As far as gender-based rights/reform, I don't know enough to voice any suggestions.
Even if you want a farther reform than what's currently on the table surely you have to see situations like Evergreen State as a sign that we must be careful when peeling back these layers as to not just hand over the reigns to the mob who feels like they are owed something right?
I don't really know what to say to this because I haven't heard of the Evergreen State case so I'll have to read up on it. I understand this sentiment though and am familiar with it being broached during the #metoo wave. I think the important thing to consider is the intent of each particular movement/instance vs. the actions taken as a result of the intent. From a brief glance at a report on Evergreen State, it sounds like the intent was to address the issue of white supremacy and ultimately resulted in a walkout? Or a sit in? But no intent to use violence to voice their concerns. Effective methods of activism should always make people uncomfortable because they are challenging a norm, but as long as they're non-violent, there shouldn't be a concern. People are often reasonable in keeping movements like this from going too far.
Ah yes, people flock to Jordan Peterson for his sustained argument against identity politics and departure from radicalism in exchange for moderation and sanity. That is why we can witness...
Ah yes, people flock to Jordan Peterson for his sustained argument against identity politics and departure from radicalism in exchange for moderation and sanity. That is why we can witness Peterson persistently alluding to an unspecific cloud of intellectual thought as nefarious authoritarians who will bring about the Gulags and destroy Western Civilization as we know it and describing entire academic spheres as "infected" with ideas he personally has assessed as being toxic that should be "rooted out".
Peterson's fans don't reject identity politics, they merely adopt another form of it. There are the rational skeptics and then there are the postmodern neomarxists ( an almost oxymoronic string of words ). One side works to make the world a good and rational place the other wishes to make it a dark and authoritarian one. "Post-modern" becomes a signal word which denotes evil despite Peterson regularly and blatantly applying postmodern thought. Opposition to Peterson can only be explained as irrational malice and fear rather than disagreement or, even more unthinkable, that Peterson might be wrong.
Why would people who are tired of identity politics flock to Peterson? A more likely explanation would be that Peterson has stances that affirm many preconceptions and maintain the status quo such that little to no effort is required of followers. Peterson wouldn't be so popular if he was truly the underdog he is advertised as.
Honestly, I think the ideas you are trying to express exemplify the reasons why I don't like Jordan Peterson. Peterson has turned himself into a modern Ayn Rand. He popularizes himself by...
Peterson's fans don't reject identity politics, they merely adopt another form of it. There are the rational skeptics and then there are the postmodern neomarxists ( an almost oxymoronic string of words ). One side works to make the world a good and rational place the other wishes to make it a dark and authoritarian one. "Post-modern" becomes a signal word with denotes evil despite Peterson regularly and blatantly applying postmodern thought. Opposition to Peterson can only be explained as irrational malice and fear rather than disagreement or, even more unthinkable, that Peterson might be wrong.
Honestly, I think the ideas you are trying to express exemplify the reasons why I don't like Jordan Peterson. Peterson has turned himself into a modern Ayn Rand. He popularizes himself by presenting a philosophy to people who have no understanding of philosophy, and by appearing to be intelligent while actually offering poorly vetted ideas. That's why he uses terms like "postmodern neomarxism"; postmodernism and marxism are real philosophies, but by combining fundamentally incompatible terms he is inventing a strawman with which he is able to extract more credibility from those unfamiliar with philosophy.
But you know what? I can't really be angry at Peterson. Just like Ayn Rand before him, he is not indoctrinating our youth like many people try to paint him. He is merely reinforcing the things they already believe.
I assume this is referring to the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act? How does a president signing into law a popular piece of legislation make them an extremist? That...
Barack Obama, the poet laureate of identity politics
I assume this is referring to the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act? How does a president signing into law a popular piece of legislation make them an extremist? That is oxymoronic. It’s off-hand language like this that belies a truly warped ideology. Obama was not an extremist. If you insist that he is an extremist in the face of his actual legacy, I’m sorry, but you’re just upset because he’s black.
Even this headline exposes part of why I dislike Peterson and the broader "intellectual dark web" movement.
I'm left of center. I'm not afraid of Peterson. I just think he's wrong (as in factually incorrect, not as in morally wrong). The framing of the headline is part of a definite trend of argumentative style I've noticed among Peterson and his fellow travelers. In general it looks like:
For the clearest example of this, Ezra Klein from Vox had a debate with Sam Harris, part of the "intellectual dark web". It was about the ideas in Charles Murray's The Bell Curve, that race genetically determines your IQ and therefore blacks are stupid and therefore we shouldn't bother with welfare.
If you listen to that podcast or read the transcript, the bulk of Sam Harris' defense of Murray is "we shouldn't be afraid to discuss these ideas"...during a debate in which they were discussing those ideas. Very little of it was about the factual accuracy of Murray's claims. Instead Harris tried very hard to frame the discussion in terms of ideas being politically incorrect and the left wanting to suppress debate of them because of fear of what the results might be.
That's a very dishonest account of the ideas of Charles Murray as expressed in The Bell Curve. Race (as in heredity) genetically determines only a part (even if significant) of your IQ. They are many environmental factors.
Because pretty much everything Murray is saying on intelligence and heredity is a reflection of the state of the art in the field. He's not doing the meta-analysis, he's citing the meta-analysis.
That's exactly what is happening, but he's not talking about the left but only a small chunk of the left, the radical ideology driven activist left that is obsessed with identity politics and don't care about facts and reason.
I'm going to repost a comment the last time this argument came up:
About this hit piece by somebody from the chunk of the left I was referencing.
Restating of old social darwinist stories, long debunked. Here we go again. A new round of of the same old opportunistic grab. It's a quick way for a pseudo-intellectual (actually seem very anti-intellectual) group to get some quick attention and boost sales (books and tours etc etc)
This gives you a short and sweet jumping board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylw6f14tUOg&app=desktop
Yep, the thread for that NPR interview is where Raphael and I first started debating this topic. I'm convinced I'm not going to change their mind so I've given up on trying to discuss it with them.
Of course neo-nazis and white supremacists are using the science of heredity and intelligence to justify their ideology. That doesn't mean that the science is wrong, that they have intellectual integrity or even a correct understanding of the science in question.
I invoke Godwin's Law!
I have to ask - why do you seem to be so fixated on this topic? A large part of your activity on the site has been related to it. Are you a researcher in a related field or something similar?
I believe in science. I believe in reason. I would be as critical to anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers.
I'm glad to hear you are so invested in science! How much time have you spent studying it? What's your background in science like? I think part of the reason you're running into so much opposition is because people think you are jumping to conclusions based on what the science can accurately say. Have you ever taken a class on scientific paper analysis?
I've found that a class on interpretation of scientific studies helped me tremendously when it came to understanding when an author was over-reaching in their conclusion and taught me some tips and tricks when it comes to recognizing really solid study design methodology.
You and I have debated this quite thoroughly already. I'm going to decline to continue arguing about whether certain races are genetically more or less intelligent than others.
Intelligence and IQ should always be separated whenever anyone attempts to argue about IQ scores in a racial fashion. IQ tests are inherently biased, because they are a social construct. There's a good reason they've evolved over the years, and anyone who gives IQ tests regularly (or really any standardized tests) knows quite well that it does a piss poor job of measuring across subgroups such as race, background, locale, language spoken, and plenty more.
That's not true. See my comment there
lmao your own sources prove my point. Especially this one:
but in case you'd like a few studies to read, here's a bunch that were easily found on wikipedia.
1
2
3
4
5
Please provide context (like I did) for the studies you are citing. Also a correlation between a political set of beliefs and IQ don't mean that IQ is a social construct. This is a classical non sequitur.
Normally I would, but this is frankly like arguing with the existence of global warming. To anyone who works in psychology, it's well known and taught in nearly every textbook that IQ tests are not definitive and have a huge bias towards certain backgrounds. I simply don't have time to do this.
What do you think is the explanation for why IQ is correlated with political beliefs?
That is false. IQ tests are among the most reliable, predictive measures in all of psychology. I can provide you dozens of meta-analysis that show exactly that.
I don't have the explanation. A naive hypothesis could be that high IQ is correlated with high earning that is itself correlated with this set of political beliefs, but a good study should have controlled for that.
If you have no explanation, why are you citing it as an argument against it's cultural bias?
Because it's universal, controlled for culture. The more intelligent you are the more libertarian your beliefs are on average.
And what are all the potential explanations for this correlation?
Again, I don't know. I don't have the explanation. We know it's not cultural, but strongly correlated with IQ.
Have you ever considered that the IQ test might actually be measuring political affiliation in some fashion?
Or perhaps the questions were written by someone with a particular political affiliation and therefore slanted to reflect their ideology?
Or what if people of a particular political affiliation are more likely to learn about a particular piece of knowledge, and that this knowledge is what's tested in an IQ test?
We know that IQ is correlated with many things that doesn't mean that IQ is measuring those things. That's a misunderstanding of how correlation works.
For anybody that actually looked what IQ tests are like this idea is laughable.
You're absolutely right, it's not measuring those things. But what is it measuring? What makes true intelligence not also a correlation with the IQ test? What is intelligence?
Why is it laughable?
General intelligence
How can this be biased in favor of socially liberal but fiscally conservative people?
How can you be sure that's what it's actually measuring?
Ignoring the fact that you specifically chose a question that's as divorced as possible from politics, rather than something that's a bit more obvious, allow me offer 3 explanations on how this particular question can be influenced by background:
That argument is nearly as inane as the basis of his ideas focusing on race and the development of IQ. If you're going to take the stance that Murray is including environmental factors in the the development of IQ, then why would you also call for the gutting of social services that seek to improve the environment.
I'm not talking about Murray policy proposals. I only care about his portrayal of the scientific mainstream in the field. It's dishonest to say that Murray is claiming that "race genetically determines your IQ and therefore blacks are stupid". I disagree with many, if not most, of his policy proposals by the way.
I have not read The Bell Curve or his other works and I don't plan to because I think I'd get just as much out of it as a reading of phrenological texts. While I have not seen him explicitly say "black people are stupid", you don't even need to read between the lines to see the racial - and classist if you want to dig deeper - undertones of his theory. In his own words:
From a scientific perspective, it completely ignores objectively-verifiable social power structures in favor of pseudo-science that has been on shaky grounds within its applicable fields FOR DECADES. Also, for someone representing themselves as a scientist focused purely on objectivity, he sure ignores a lot of sociological variables that would negatively skew his "findings"
I can only talk about intelligence and heredity because that is the only thing I know well enough, so I will not say anything about the social factors of poverty, but I do not agree with him at all that people below the poverty line are usually there because of their intelligence. That doesn't mean I don't believe there are on average a gap in intelligence between people below and above the poverty line and that this gap is significant and matters. I believe that the science is pretty clear on this.
That's because as much as he projects himself as an intellectual, he's more of a cultural mouthpiece. He's basically the Bill O'Reilly for this generation.
What's his deal? I often hear him mentioned here and there. So I tried to look him up, and he was presented like an anti-snowflake guru. But then everything he said on his videos sounded, I don't know, too abstract or too obvious. I don't see why people are listening to him so much.
I'm personally a little bothered that the actual title of the article is "Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson". Nobody is afraid of Jordan Peterson; he has no power. But I will blame the extreme title on the editor.
What is considerably less forgivable is how the author lumps everyone in the left into one big group and characterizes it as a monarch who is about to be deposed. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I was part of a giant organization that rules over the world with a single unifying banner. I guess I should have taken advantage of the member benefits while I still had the chance.
This article (posted on Tildes here) is a bit of a response to The Atlantic one: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/the-lefts-hatred-of-jordan-peterson-is-perfectly-rational.html
These to me gets to the heart of all the problems. Jordan is not necessarily a remarkable voice in this discussion. He's quite long winded and incredibly inaccessible to a huge portion of his intended audience. He woo's younger minds with his seemingly wordiness while simultaneously failing to say much at times. He's easily hung up on definitions of terms that threaten to derail the conversation at any turn.
However the article does correctly identify that the's not the problem. It's that there is a large group of people out there looking for answers that neither platform is correctly identifying, and THAT should be terrifying to anyone hoping their party wins.
The bit about something dying when you have to backtrack every word after a career of not violating anyone's feelings is exactly a good portion of that. The normal moral human is fine with being respectful of triggers and SJW culture so long as they're not asked to bend over backwards for a tiny % of the population. If any of it was presented in a moderate way I would be adopted and primarily is across the nation. However when you put it in the context of the two party system you have parties required to get more and more extreme to compete and you have the majority of America left in the wake standing alone searching for the middle.
When people like Peterson and Rogan come along with a message that sounds more reasonable, people latch on to that. It just sounds like common sense after the extremes at the polls.
I agree with you in respect to a large portion of his audience coming from people feeling lost and looking for answers. Notably young white men, whose life previously seemed very structured in terms of progression and hierarchy. However, I don't agree with you on your contention that the general public are being asked to "bend over backwards" to accommodate a small portion of the population. Unless you're jumping down the rabbit hole of hyper-left social-theorist Twitter, what's being asked of the general public in terms of rights and the general lexicon (i.e., pronouns) is not very far left. I also don't agree with your statement that people are being presented with two "extremes at the poles". Sure, the republic party could be seen as drifting to an extreme, but that has been the case for awhile and Trump is just an off-shoot of that. The democratic party remains incredibly centrist and honestly somewhat right of center.
Also using "SJW culture" is painting with a very VERY broad brush. When you say, "If any of it was presented in a moderate way I would be adopted and primarily is across the nation." What are you asking to be presented in a moderate way?
This was definitely talking about the SJW type situation, which you're correct is not the normal in the Democrat party but is wildly the main voice you hear for most young people online. From obvious examples like tumblr all the way to something like Bernie, there's a spectrum of extreme but very little of it is presented in an appealing way to younger people online. Most people on the left online are either press/journalists, the extremely biased shows like TYT (which are essentially the press disguised as youth content), or random youtubers. None of which are particularly aimed at these young white men we were referring to. Many of them seemingly almost attacking this group specifically (or at least engaging the segment in a way that could feel attacking). You have the entirety of pop culture and Hollywood engaged in the SJW level extreme between seemingly benign movements that start in a good place (#metoo) that end in bad places (#menaretrash).
Young people are on social media. They are influenced more by Bruce Jenner and the Kardashians than Hillary's speeches. The Right is absolutely crushing the online spaces like youtube in terms of providing engaging personalities to espouse their beliefs.
I've only recently found through purposely looking for some great anti-new-right commentators on youtube and other places that break down point by point the inaccuracies presented by the Lauren Southerns and Stefan Molylldalflsdaflaldflasdfs followed by more realistic interpretations and they are getting a 10th to a 20th of the views of the previously mentioned ones.
There's a great divide as you pointed out between the democrat party and the SJW fad, but for people in college and young adults trying to form their opinions, the right is absolutely crushing in terms of attractively presented points from engaging presenters in the spheres that most influence that age group.
All of this is just my opinion. I don't mind sitting through a 45 minute video explaining the reality of the migrant crisis, but I'm not expecting the average 20-something year old to be able to do the same.
Sure, I will buy into your argument that the social-justice rhetoric is probably alienating a lot of white male voters and white female voters to a certain extent. But again, you are painting with such a broad brush by continuously saying "SJW" and it's so difficult to nail down the argument that you're trying to make. Let's start off with this:
Here you've put a wide range of subjects under one umbrella. Bernie ran on a campaign of changes to socio-economic and was frequently criticized for not focusing enough on purely social issue like race and gender. #metoo addressed a social issue and was seemingly adopted by much of the political spectrum. #menaretrash is one I haven't heard of. I mean, in general men are trash but of course this is an alienating idea and it's probably why it hasn't gone beyond the Twitter echochamber. It's not like you're seeing national #menaretrash rallies that are shaping policy.
I agree with you when you say that a lot of people are feeling alienated, but I don't think the problem is SJW culture because like you said, "most people are fine with being respectful" of social issues. Young white voters aren't being alienated by social-rights issues because very little is being asked of them. They're feeling like there is very little for them to be included in because their problems are not being addressed because the democratic party does next to nothing address the economic needs of the majority of the population. That is why Bernie Sanders was able to capture so much of the younger vote.
I don't mean to say that SJW culture is the only thing alienating people, just that it is one contributing factor.
I definitely agree that the economic factors are also huge. Probably even more so when it actually comes to voting in the democratic side. However zooming out from the democrats I think Trump is ultimate example of how many people were just pissed at the system. It could have been because of economics, but I do believe a non-small portion of that was because of the natural rubber band effect of the Politically Correct push. People who had lived long lives saying and doing certain things that are now no longer "correct" to say in public see this guy who just says and does whatever he wants come along. Even the campaign of MAGA was specifically designed to elicit those kind of nostalgic feelings.
I think we really agree on almost everything. I think I just feel the push for society to be overly politically correct recently is a slightly more important factor than you do. I think we both agree it was a factor and that there were tons of other factors also contributing. And it also probably varies a lot depending on which demographic or which area of the country you're talking about too.
I think that social justice is a massive issue that needs to be addressed in this country and world-wide. I honestly don't think the popular calls for change go far enough. Backing off of these issues because people in a position of privilege can't stomach it, would be incredibly regressive. There are so many more issues that need to be addressed and brought into the lens of popular discourse (e.g, the majority of this country's leadership tacitly supports Israel & Saudi Arabia).
I absolutely agree with you in regards to social justice issues alienating people. But the people being alienated are those who are having their privilege challenged and are reacting negatively to it. For these people, I think it's a two-way split. You have people who are legitimately racist/misogynist/etc. and see their privilege being challenged. Then you have the people who just can't relate to the social justice issues, through a lack of exposure, education, etc. I think the problem is that when candidates present policies and talking points, those brought out by the democratic party who do call for a focus on social justice issues, have very little else to offer their constituents. It's often more of the same and people are dissatisfied because look where it has gotten the lower-middle classes. They do not present any radical economic or social-economic policies that these people in racially-privileged positions can get behind and relate to. I think for a lot of middle of the road white people, it can look like they are being told that everything is fine EXCEPT issues of identity which they are to blame for. It becomes hard to budge on issues that you may find uncomfortable when you're not being offered anything of substance in return (e.g, student debt forgiveness, single-payer medicare, corporate tax accountability - all of which have popular support).
So yes, I agree with you that people are turned off by "SJW" culture, but it is because they are being given a stick (in their eyes at least) but no carrot. People are not being asked for much and you yourself have alluded to most people being receptive of most social justice issues. That just can't be the only thing you present them with.
I really like how this is laid out and might be what I was thinking just not wording correctly.
Not to counter your points, but just to pick your brain.
Do you think society can have sweeping social changes in a short period of time and still maintain stability?
If the current reforms are not going far enough (assuming they were effectively received nationwide) what else do you want to see done?
Even if you want a farther reform than what's currently on the table surely you have to see situations like Evergreen State as a sign that we must be careful when peeling back these layers as to not just hand over the reigns to the mob who feels like they are owed something right? I don't mean to say that SJW's don't have a valid goal, but the process to reach that must be more careful as we're already seeing the rubberband away from support.
Thank you.
Domestically, I think it is possible but it's complicated and I certainly am not well-read enough to have the answers because there are so many different factors that would need to be addressed. Policies that level the economic playing field should in turn lift up the voices of minority populations by granting them more political power. I don't know how long it would take to heal the racial schism our country was founded on, but giving POC's more economic autonomy will certainly open the door for more activism and in turn more public discourse. As far as stability goes, I think it will remain stable as long as the white/male population sees improvements to their quality of life as well. If not, politicians have the ability to build off of that frustration by scapegoating/weaponizing minority rights.
This is also complicated because it goes so much further than issues of identity. At our current rate, domestic policies related to social justice only address symptoms of much larger problems. For example, calls to end 'family separation' does not solve the problem of how 1st-world countries are complicit in making countries in the global-south uninhabitable, thus driving immigration and asylum seekers. Rather than listing them off, I think Ocasio-Cortez's platform is a good jumping off point from where we are now. Although I think we need a redistribute economic policy with even stronger teeth. I also think there are a ton of geopolitical solutions that won't be implemented in my lifetime (e.g, gutting the military budget, gutting the CIA, stop supporting proxy states such as Saudi Arabia, holding companies that operate internationally to the same environmental/human-rights as those that operate in the US, etc.). As far as gender-based rights/reform, I don't know enough to voice any suggestions.
I don't really know what to say to this because I haven't heard of the Evergreen State case so I'll have to read up on it. I understand this sentiment though and am familiar with it being broached during the #metoo wave. I think the important thing to consider is the intent of each particular movement/instance vs. the actions taken as a result of the intent. From a brief glance at a report on Evergreen State, it sounds like the intent was to address the issue of white supremacy and ultimately resulted in a walkout? Or a sit in? But no intent to use violence to voice their concerns. Effective methods of activism should always make people uncomfortable because they are challenging a norm, but as long as they're non-violent, there shouldn't be a concern. People are often reasonable in keeping movements like this from going too far.
Ah yes, people flock to Jordan Peterson for his sustained argument against identity politics and departure from radicalism in exchange for moderation and sanity. That is why we can witness Peterson persistently alluding to an unspecific cloud of intellectual thought as nefarious authoritarians who will bring about the Gulags and destroy Western Civilization as we know it and describing entire academic spheres as "infected" with ideas he personally has assessed as being toxic that should be "rooted out".
Peterson's fans don't reject identity politics, they merely adopt another form of it. There are the rational skeptics and then there are the postmodern neomarxists ( an almost oxymoronic string of words ). One side works to make the world a good and rational place the other wishes to make it a dark and authoritarian one. "Post-modern" becomes a signal word which denotes evil despite Peterson regularly and blatantly applying postmodern thought. Opposition to Peterson can only be explained as irrational malice and fear rather than disagreement or, even more unthinkable, that Peterson might be wrong.
Why would people who are tired of identity politics flock to Peterson? A more likely explanation would be that Peterson has stances that affirm many preconceptions and maintain the status quo such that little to no effort is required of followers. Peterson wouldn't be so popular if he was truly the underdog he is advertised as.
Honestly, I think the ideas you are trying to express exemplify the reasons why I don't like Jordan Peterson. Peterson has turned himself into a modern Ayn Rand. He popularizes himself by presenting a philosophy to people who have no understanding of philosophy, and by appearing to be intelligent while actually offering poorly vetted ideas. That's why he uses terms like "postmodern neomarxism"; postmodernism and marxism are real philosophies, but by combining fundamentally incompatible terms he is inventing a strawman with which he is able to extract more credibility from those unfamiliar with philosophy.
But you know what? I can't really be angry at Peterson. Just like Ayn Rand before him, he is not indoctrinating our youth like many people try to paint him. He is merely reinforcing the things they already believe.
I assume this is referring to the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act? How does a president signing into law a popular piece of legislation make them an extremist? That is oxymoronic. It’s off-hand language like this that belies a truly warped ideology. Obama was not an extremist. If you insist that he is an extremist in the face of his actual legacy, I’m sorry, but you’re just upset because he’s black.