Sigh, Jordan Peterson. I don't know. I'm torn because I've heard people who I respect and who definitely don't belong in the alt-right/anti-sjw crowd praise him yet when I listen to his ramblings...
Sigh, Jordan Peterson. I don't know. I'm torn because I've heard people who I respect and who definitely don't belong in the alt-right/anti-sjw crowd praise him yet when I listen to his ramblings it often gets to a point where it seems he relies more on his excellent rhetoric skills than hard arguments (which is rather ironic, given the topics he's known for). I know him mostly from his defense of Lindsay Shepherd (google it, if you really want to know, she's a TA who was borderline threatened to be expelled over showing a clip of Peterson in a talk show during a class on gendered pronouns).
I think the argument he makes that gets non-alt-right people on board is that the left/liberal position is now one of power in certain institutions and even cities/countries and should accept the responsibility that comes with that. It used to be that the right was known for just ruthlessly box through laws and rules in their favor while the left scolded them, proposing calm, fact-based discussion instead. But now it seems, out of either a simple generational shift in power or maybe just sheer frustration, a lot of "left" policies are enforced just as shortsightedly and aggressively. For example, the gendered pronouns thing he complained about potentially makes it "harassment" to not call an individual person "they" if they choose so as a gender or to even suggest that there are biological genders that show statistically relevant differences in abilities. That is something that is literally forbidden to be discussed in certain universities, nowadays, which is a step up from being used as an ideal or general policy. It's the distinction between saying "differences exist and that's okay and should not lead to disadvantages for individuals" to "differences don't exist and suggesting so is hate speech".
There was a talk by a different guy (I wished I knew the name or link to the youtube video), I believe a professor comparable to Peterson, who said it best, I can only paraphrase: If you literally forbid certain points of view (not talking about insane ramblings on fringe blogs here, this is about published papers and well accepted facts) to be discussed in universities just because they could be used by the alt-right to justify their position, they'll just dig that shit out later and now have at least one genuine fact on their side: The left tried to hide this. And this is how a ton of the alt-right movement works. "Look, the left tried to hide this, so it must support our side!" It's not even really true because further context often contradicts individual facts like this, which is used as the justification to not allow it. By not allowing it to be mentioned, you create an argument for the alt-right out of thin air.
Not trying to defend Jordan Peterson's meandering rants about how protecting minorities from hate speech is bad for society (even though it clearly worked in the past, I genuinely don't think he thought this through), but he's right about the left having acquired a position of authority in many places and still employs underground "fight" tactics which are problematic when there's nobody who can even fight back. University, especially, is often a space for young people to question authority based on an intense stream of new ideas. If the left uses its position so aggressively, it creates room for a right-wing counter-culture who now have a sense of "fighting the system", which is quite powerful. Do we really want that?
I both do not understand the Jordan Peterson praise nor the Jordan Peterson hate. It seems like he's becoming just another self-help guru trying to improve peoples' lives - and in a way that...
I both do not understand the Jordan Peterson praise nor the Jordan Peterson hate. It seems like he's becoming just another self-help guru trying to improve peoples' lives - and in a way that doesn't seem particularly offensive. I'm not sure why he's become such a big deal (there are plenty of self-help people out there) nor why he's a pariah (because whenever I look into it, the stuff he says doesn't seem all that problematic).
Then you clearly haven't watched many Jordan Peterson videos. He is a divisive man with divisive opinions, a bit like Christopher Hitchens was. And like Hitchens was, Peterson is also incredibly...
Then you clearly haven't watched many Jordan Peterson videos. He is a divisive man with divisive opinions, a bit like Christopher Hitchens was. And like Hitchens was, Peterson is also incredibly intelligence, articulate and a remarkably skilled debater. But as soon as Peterson leaves his wheelhouse of psychology, self-help and self-empowerment, the cracks in his facade begin to show. His views on social issues, especially in relation to LGBT rights and traditional gender roles are backwards, factually incorrect and in some cases totally abhorrent. He is also a fearmonger of epic proportions who purposely misrepresents certain issues to justify his deep seated prejudices, particularly towards transgendered people which he uses the gender pronoun laws passed up here in Canada to justify.
He claims that Bill C-16, which added transgendered people to the list of Canada's "protected classes" and gender pronouns to our already established harassment and discrimination laws, is some Communist/Neo-Marxist conspiracy to prevent free thought, insulate transgendered people from criticism and undermine recognized biological gender differences. That is a total crock of shit.
From another comment I made about his criticism of the bill on reddit:
Yeah, we simply added the pronouns to the already established harassment and discrimination laws and sexual identity is now considered a "protected class" (like race, gender, colour, religion/creed, nationality, etc already were) which now grants transgendered people protection from hate speech/propaganda. The changes introduced by Bill C-16 aren't some massive institutional shift that suddenly gives transgendered people special rights above other Canadians, all it did was finally include them in the protections already afforded to all other Canadians by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So you won't get charged for mistakenly calling someone by the wrong pronoun... however if, even after being corrected by that person, you continue refer to them with the wrong pronoun in order to harass them you can now potentially be charged with harassment or workplace discrimination. It's functionally no different than the harassment or discrimination laws in the US, we just now recognize that pronouns can (<-- important word since intent is important) be used in a similar capacity to commit harassment as something like racial slurs.
And hate speech/propaganda laws in Canada are very specifically written to only apply to advocation of genocide/mass murder or inciting violence towards a "protected class" which now includes Transgendered people. You can still rant and rave all you want about transgendered peoples' life choices, you just can't advocate for their death anymore since they're now included in the laws protecting them from such.
p.s. I don't hate love or hate him. I just find him rather compelling and enjoy watching his debates despite not agreeing with him on most things. But IMO this is a pretty damn funny article, regardless of how you feel about him. ;)
I can't add too much substance that wasn't already said except to say that Jordan Peterson is more like the C.S. Lewis for conservative/libertarian culture warriors. The sort of people who are...
I can't add too much substance that wasn't already said except to say that Jordan Peterson is more like the C.S. Lewis for conservative/libertarian culture warriors. The sort of people who are looking for any visage of logic to latch their complaints onto. So he occupies a similar position as Ben Shapiro (another highly intelligent scion in some conservative/libertarian circles).
If that comparison doesn't make sense, C.S. Lewis was trying to make an intellectual defense of Christianity which ultimately doesn't get around the core logical problems of believing in something without "Begging the Question" in fallacy terms, which is when someone argues some conclusion is true with the very same conclusion being a reason for its being true. It doesn't stop Christians from citing him all the time to smart skeptics as a reason to believe.
The misinformation and utter fabrications he spread and espoused on such an innocuous change to a law should be enough to dismiss him from most larger conversations, really. He's basically doing...
The misinformation and utter fabrications he spread and espoused on such an innocuous change to a law should be enough to dismiss him from most larger conversations, really. He's basically doing what Kanye did: get a lot of clout for his field and then expanded his scope of conversation with zero effort to inform himself about those topics.
Sigh, Jordan Peterson. I don't know. I'm torn because I've heard people who I respect and who definitely don't belong in the alt-right/anti-sjw crowd praise him yet when I listen to his ramblings it often gets to a point where it seems he relies more on his excellent rhetoric skills than hard arguments (which is rather ironic, given the topics he's known for). I know him mostly from his defense of Lindsay Shepherd (google it, if you really want to know, she's a TA who was borderline threatened to be expelled over showing a clip of Peterson in a talk show during a class on gendered pronouns).
I think the argument he makes that gets non-alt-right people on board is that the left/liberal position is now one of power in certain institutions and even cities/countries and should accept the responsibility that comes with that. It used to be that the right was known for just ruthlessly box through laws and rules in their favor while the left scolded them, proposing calm, fact-based discussion instead. But now it seems, out of either a simple generational shift in power or maybe just sheer frustration, a lot of "left" policies are enforced just as shortsightedly and aggressively. For example, the gendered pronouns thing he complained about potentially makes it "harassment" to not call an individual person "they" if they choose so as a gender or to even suggest that there are biological genders that show statistically relevant differences in abilities. That is something that is literally forbidden to be discussed in certain universities, nowadays, which is a step up from being used as an ideal or general policy. It's the distinction between saying "differences exist and that's okay and should not lead to disadvantages for individuals" to "differences don't exist and suggesting so is hate speech".
There was a talk by a different guy (I wished I knew the name or link to the youtube video), I believe a professor comparable to Peterson, who said it best, I can only paraphrase: If you literally forbid certain points of view (not talking about insane ramblings on fringe blogs here, this is about published papers and well accepted facts) to be discussed in universities just because they could be used by the alt-right to justify their position, they'll just dig that shit out later and now have at least one genuine fact on their side: The left tried to hide this. And this is how a ton of the alt-right movement works. "Look, the left tried to hide this, so it must support our side!" It's not even really true because further context often contradicts individual facts like this, which is used as the justification to not allow it. By not allowing it to be mentioned, you create an argument for the alt-right out of thin air.
Not trying to defend Jordan Peterson's meandering rants about how protecting minorities from hate speech is bad for society (even though it clearly worked in the past, I genuinely don't think he thought this through), but he's right about the left having acquired a position of authority in many places and still employs underground "fight" tactics which are problematic when there's nobody who can even fight back. University, especially, is often a space for young people to question authority based on an intense stream of new ideas. If the left uses its position so aggressively, it creates room for a right-wing counter-culture who now have a sense of "fighting the system", which is quite powerful. Do we really want that?
I both do not understand the Jordan Peterson praise nor the Jordan Peterson hate. It seems like he's becoming just another self-help guru trying to improve peoples' lives - and in a way that doesn't seem particularly offensive. I'm not sure why he's become such a big deal (there are plenty of self-help people out there) nor why he's a pariah (because whenever I look into it, the stuff he says doesn't seem all that problematic).
Then you clearly haven't watched many Jordan Peterson videos. He is a divisive man with divisive opinions, a bit like Christopher Hitchens was. And like Hitchens was, Peterson is also incredibly intelligence, articulate and a remarkably skilled debater. But as soon as Peterson leaves his wheelhouse of psychology, self-help and self-empowerment, the cracks in his facade begin to show. His views on social issues, especially in relation to LGBT rights and traditional gender roles are backwards, factually incorrect and in some cases totally abhorrent. He is also a fearmonger of epic proportions who purposely misrepresents certain issues to justify his deep seated prejudices, particularly towards transgendered people which he uses the gender pronoun laws passed up here in Canada to justify.
He claims that Bill C-16, which added transgendered people to the list of Canada's "protected classes" and gender pronouns to our already established harassment and discrimination laws, is some Communist/Neo-Marxist conspiracy to prevent free thought, insulate transgendered people from criticism and undermine recognized biological gender differences. That is a total crock of shit.
From another comment I made about his criticism of the bill on reddit:
p.s. I don't hate love or hate him. I just find him rather compelling and enjoy watching his debates despite not agreeing with him on most things. But IMO this is a pretty damn funny article, regardless of how you feel about him. ;)
I can't add too much substance that wasn't already said except to say that Jordan Peterson is more like the C.S. Lewis for conservative/libertarian culture warriors. The sort of people who are looking for any visage of logic to latch their complaints onto. So he occupies a similar position as Ben Shapiro (another highly intelligent scion in some conservative/libertarian circles).
If that comparison doesn't make sense, C.S. Lewis was trying to make an intellectual defense of Christianity which ultimately doesn't get around the core logical problems of believing in something without "Begging the Question" in fallacy terms, which is when someone argues some conclusion is true with the very same conclusion being a reason for its being true. It doesn't stop Christians from citing him all the time to smart skeptics as a reason to believe.
The misinformation and utter fabrications he spread and espoused on such an innocuous change to a law should be enough to dismiss him from most larger conversations, really. He's basically doing what Kanye did: get a lot of clout for his field and then expanded his scope of conversation with zero effort to inform himself about those topics.
To keep it short, he's worshipped by the reactionary T_D/sjwhate types. One can take a glance at his fan sub on reddit.