Jordan Peterson Thread.

[LinekersLegs]

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

This goes in pretty hard on him. Verrrrrrrrry long read though.

Wow, does Peterson really think the only way you can keep a conversation civilized is the possibility of punching the other person?

Consider the way Peterson talks about the “threat of physicality”:
“I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassing against me. And the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. That’s forbidden in discourse with women. And so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it. I think they have to throw their hands up in. . . In what? It’s not even disbelief. It’s that the cultural. . . There’s no step forward that you can take under those circumstances, because if the man is offensive enough and crazy enough, the reaction becomes physical right away.
Or at least the threat is there. And when men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there, especially if it’s a real conversation. It keeps the thing civilized to some degree.

If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone [for] whom you have absolutely no respect. But I can’t see any way… For example there’s a woman in Toronto who’s been organizing this movement, let’s say, against me and some other people who are going to do a free speech event. And she managed to organize quite effectively, and she’s quite offensive, you might say. She compared us to Nazis, for example, publicly, using the Swastika, which wasn’t something I was all that fond of. But I’m defenseless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me. So I don’t know. . . It seems to me that it isn’t men who have to stand up and say, ‘Enough of this.’ Even though that is what they should do, it seems to me that it’s sane women who have to stand up against their crazy sisters and say, ‘Look, enough of that. Enough man-hating. Enough pathology. Enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender.’”

 

[dholliday]

Wow, does Peterson really think the only way you can keep a conversation civilized is the possibility of punching the other person?

Consider the way Peterson talks about the “threat of physicality”:
“I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassing against me. And the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. That’s forbidden in discourse with women. And so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it. I think they have to throw their hands up in. . . In what? It’s not even disbelief. It’s that the cultural. . . There’s no step forward that you can take under those circumstances, because if the man is offensive enough and crazy enough, the reaction becomes physical right away.
Or at least the threat is there. And when men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there, especially if it’s a real conversation. It keeps the thing civilized to some degree.

If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone [for] whom you have absolutely no respect. But I can’t see any way… For example there’s a woman in Toronto who’s been organizing this movement, let’s say, against me and some other people who are going to do a free speech event. And she managed to organize quite effectively, and she’s quite offensive, you might say. She compared us to Nazis, for example, publicly, using the Swastika, which wasn’t something I was all that fond of. But I’m defenseless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me. So I don’t know. . . It seems to me that it isn’t men who have to stand up and say, ‘Enough of this.’ Even though that is what they should do, it seems to me that it’s sane women who have to stand up against their crazy sisters and say, ‘Look, enough of that. Enough man-hating. Enough pathology. Enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender.’”

From a bloke's perspective what he's saying sounds reasonable. Men, at least those leaning towards the Alpha strain (for want of better terminology), start doing the King Kong thing where we figuratively beat our chests to make a point when a perceived slight or even altercation might start getting hairy, unpleasant or damaging. This is almost always inappropriate towards a female, as men are borne of superior physical strength and as such fair-minded men (gentlemen, if you like) would not want to use such an unfair form of dominance. Instead we may look to other females to help out (in lieu of other options like further discussion, ignoring or escaping).

Roles reversed: a man is being intolerably aggressive towards you in a public bar. Do you: A) be aggressive back, or B) look to the other males in the room and expect them to pipe down the aggressor?

There's deffo some lasses who'd choose A, just as there's some men who wouldn't shy away from using their physical dominance to make a point to a woman. What Peterson is saying is that he would prefer to keep aggressive conflict within the sexes. It's an old-fashioned, and indeed old-school gentlemanly way, of looking at how best to keep discourse in a free society civilised.

He's neither wrong nor right, as that's a matter of perspective.

 

[dholliday]

Going to see Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson in the 3 Arena when they come in July, looking forward to it.

Interesting. I bet it'll be more entertaining than when my mate went to see Owen Jones.

I hope someone close to Peterson has told him to chill a little. He sails a little too close to his own hype machine at times, this makes him listen less to what his debate partner is saying, making Jordan more prone to interrupting the flow by excitedly wanting to get his next point across. It's understandable given the pace of things happening for him at the moment, and the nature of modern-debating is partly at fault too as he's by far not the only one at it. But I like Peterson because he's capable of taking that step back then leaning forward with considered might, like Hitchens & Dawkins. Sam Harris is more in tune with him so you'll probably see the more considered rather than adversarial side of the Prof. That is a good thing.

Saying that, personally I haven't quite tuned into Harris yet. I get that he's a good talker, and has thoughtful views. Whether we agree with his thoughts or not is not as important as whether we understand where his thinking is coming from. I think that's something that's sadly missing from a lot of consumers of modern debate, where there has to be a winner: a right and a wrong. Those Youtube uploads with titles like SAM HARRIS DESTROYS SNOWFLAKE! or JORDAN PETERSON OWNS TRANS! are über-cringey. Especially as often the actual debate shown is a decent balanced one where nobody destroyed anything. Saying that it gets the uploaders clicks & comments...not done the Daily Mail or Guardian any harm where their headlines are but once removed from this sort of lark.

That's why I enjoy a lot of Joe Rogan podcasts...there's no wrong or right, no winner or loser, no side to pick...just good discussion of the kind you sometimes have with your mates.

 

[mezzrow]

 

[mezzrow]

Wow, does Peterson really think the only way you can keep a conversation civilized is the possibility of punching the other person?

Consider the way Peterson talks about the “threat of physicality”:
“I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassing against me. And the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. That’s forbidden in discourse with women. And so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it. I think they have to throw their hands up in. . . In what? It’s not even disbelief. It’s that the cultural. . . There’s no step forward that you can take under those circumstances, because if the man is offensive enough and crazy enough, the reaction becomes physical right away.
Or at least the threat is there. And when men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there, especially if it’s a real conversation. It keeps the thing civilized to some degree.

If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone [for] whom you have absolutely no respect. But I can’t see any way… For example there’s a woman in Toronto who’s been organizing this movement, let’s say, against me and some other people who are going to do a free speech event. And she managed to organize quite effectively, and she’s quite offensive, you might say. She compared us to Nazis, for example, publicly, using the Swastika, which wasn’t something I was all that fond of. But I’m defenseless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me. So I don’t know. . . It seems to me that it isn’t men who have to stand up and say, ‘Enough of this.’ Even though that is what they should do, it seems to me that it’s sane women who have to stand up against their crazy sisters and say, ‘Look, enough of that. Enough man-hating. Enough pathology. Enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender.’”

It's like sixth grade. True story.

Girl walks up, starts whacking me in the arm. BAM. "you can't hit me, I'm a girl..." BAM.

How to respond? This kept up for MONTHS. No help from administration. "deal with it"

By tenth grade or so, she was sent away for some help with her troubles, but this is basically what Peterson is describing, reduced to its most elemental form. Words won't work, and more physical solutions are not available. You can't appeal for help as you'll be ridiculed for whining about being beaten by some girl. Everybody already more or less knew she was mental, but what's a twelve year old boy to think?

 

[verreauxi]

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

That is a savage and thorough dressing down, revealing an unambiguous case of the emperor has no clothes.

What a pseudo-intellectual fraud. And those diagrams in his books are just embarrassing. The irony of him criticizing post-modernist authors for being obscurantist, sequipedalian, and empty is delicious, as he is exactly that.

 

[verreauxi]

I used to like and respect the Guardian, but it's become a parody of itself at times. As myopic as the Daily Mail I'm it's own way. Shame.

I think their news reporting is quite good. But their opinion section is usually ridiculous and has no coherence.

 

[Prevenger17]

Wow, does Peterson really think the only way you can keep a conversation civilized is the possibility of punching the other person?

Consider the way Peterson talks about the “threat of physicality”:
“I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassing against me. And the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. That’s forbidden in discourse with women. And so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it. I think they have to throw their hands up in. . . In what? It’s not even disbelief. It’s that the cultural. . . There’s no step forward that you can take under those circumstances, because if the man is offensive enough and crazy enough, the reaction becomes physical right away.
Or at least the threat is there. And when men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there, especially if it’s a real conversation. It keeps the thing civilized to some degree.

If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone [for] whom you have absolutely no respect. But I can’t see any way… For example there’s a woman in Toronto who’s been organizing this movement, let’s say, against me and some other people who are going to do a free speech event. And she managed to organize quite effectively, and she’s quite offensive, you might say. She compared us to Nazis, for example, publicly, using the Swastika, which wasn’t something I was all that fond of. But I’m defenseless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me. So I don’t know. . . It seems to me that it isn’t men who have to stand up and say, ‘Enough of this.’ Even though that is what they should do, it seems to me that it’s sane women who have to stand up against their crazy sisters and say, ‘Look, enough of that. Enough man-hating. Enough pathology. Enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender.’”

Aye, he does come out with some weird stuff tbf

Interesting. I bet it'll be more entertaining than when my mate went to see Owen Jones.

I hope someone close to Peterson has told him to chill a little. He sails a little too close to his own hype machine at times, this makes him listen less to what his debate partner is saying, making Jordan more prone to interrupting the flow by excitedly wanting to get his next point across. It's understandable given the pace of things happening for him at the moment, and the nature of modern-debating is partly at fault too as he's by far not the only one at it. But I like Peterson because he's capable of taking that step back then leaning forward with considered might, like Hitchens & Dawkins. Sam Harris is more in tune with him so you'll probably see the more considered rather than adversarial side of the Prof. That is a good thing.

Saying that, personally I haven't quite tuned into Harris yet. I get that he's a good talker, and has thoughtful views. Whether we agree with his thoughts or not is not as important as whether we understand where his thinking is coming from. I think that's something that's sadly missing from a lot of consumers of modern debate, where there has to be a winner: a right and a wrong. Those Youtube uploads with titles like SAM HARRIS DESTROYS SNOWFLAKE! or JORDAN PETERSON OWNS TRANS! are über-cringey. Especially as often the actual debate shown is a decent balanced one where nobody destroyed anything. Saying that it gets the uploaders clicks & comments...not done the Daily Mail or Guardian any harm where their headlines are but once removed from this sort of lark.

That's why I enjoy a lot of Joe Rogan podcasts...there's no wrong or right, no winner or loser, no side to pick...just good discussion of the kind you sometimes have with your mates.

I'm a big fan of Peterson, moreso of his general life pointers and advocacy of personal responsibility, but he is reaching saturation point in the media, and I'm not certain he realises it. I'm convinced he's consulting people with regards to branding and online analytics, and I think it will diminish him and his message over time.

The other thing is the brand of online scrote he's emboldening. A large contingent of his followers seem to be predominantly young males who are taking his conclusions (like the gender wage gap thing) and hawking them out on whatever Twitter, YouTube and Facebook feed they can start a fight in. This is usually done without any regard to the means with which he made those conclusions, or the intended application of what he says. Instead, they're just using his surface findings as intellectual validation for whatever weird views they already have on women or for attacking anyone they perceive to be slightly liberal, which ends up being everyone who disagrees with them.

You get this strange result where a lot of the people who are flocking to his banner, are lads who are still living with their parents, have messy rooms, and do things on a daily basis that diminish themselves as humans (like starting pointless misogynistic arguments on the internet), things Peterson has specifically railed against. He's visibly become increasingly reluctant to condemn these people outwardly and I can't help but feel he is starting to become a slave to his own cult. He's one personal scandal (and I believe he has one in him) away from the whole thing collapsing.

As much as he's been misinterpreted by the left, he gets far more misinterpreted by the right.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

I think their news reporting is quite good. But their opinion section is usually ridiculous and has no coherence.

Very much so.

 

[Walken]

Aye, he does come out with some weird stuff tbf





I'm a big fan of Peterson, moreso of his general life pointers and advocacy of personal responsibility, but he is reaching saturation point in the media, and I'm not certain he realises it. I'm convinced he's consulting people with regards to branding and online analytics, and I think it will diminish him and his message over time.

The other thing is the brand of online scrote he's emboldening. A large contingent of his followers seem to be predominantly young males who are taking his conclusions (like the gender wage gap thing) and hawking them out on whatever Twitter, YouTube and Facebook feed they can start a fight in. This is usually done without any regard to the means with which he made those conclusions, or the intended application of what he says. Instead, they're just using his surface findings as intellectual validation for whatever weird views they already have on women or for attacking anyone they perceive to be slightly liberal, which ends up being everyone who disagrees with them.

You get this strange result where a lot of the people who are flocking to his banner, are lads who are still living with their parents, have messy rooms, and do things on a daily basis that diminish themselves as humans (like starting pointless misogynistic arguments on the internet), things Peterson has specifically railed against. He's visibly become increasingly reluctant to condemn these people outwardly and I can't help but feel he is starting to become a slave to his own cult. He's one personal scandal (and I believe he has one in him) away from the whole thing collapsing.

As much as he's been misinterpreted by the left, he gets far more misinterpreted by the right.

hopefully the alt right poster boy's image is completely destroyed before you get to go to your rally, still, once his hard drive has been confiscated it should make him more attainable

 

[Prevenger17]

hopefully the alt right poster boy's image is completely destroyed before you get to go to your rally

lollollol

 

[Black Belt Jones]

Very much so.

The Guardian is testing at the moment - Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, George Monbiot et al, it's a bit of a circus. Seen more vision and clarity of thought in our midfield.
You'd hope it could be written off as a phase but the uncertainty of print media means any editorial missteps can be costly.

Wonder what would happen if you read the Telegraph for a month - probably push you leftwards in rage. Might try that.

 

[Prevenger17]

The Guardian is testing at the moment - Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, George Monbiot et al, it's a bit of a circus. Seen more vision and clarity of thought in our midfield.
You'd hope it could be written off as a phase but the uncertainty of print media means any editorial missteps can be costly.

Wonder what would happen if you read the Telegraph for a month - probably push you leftwards in rage. Might try that.

The Guardian is grand if you just stay away from the Opinion section imo. It's like they're catching every 2:1 English and Philosophy major in a net and paying them a tenner for their mind splurges

 

[LinekersLegs]

From a bloke's perspective what he's saying sounds reasonable. Men, at least those leaning towards the Alpha strain (for want of better terminology), start doing the King Kong thing where we figuratively beat our chests to make a point when a perceived slight or even altercation might start getting hairy, unpleasant or damaging. This is almost always inappropriate towards a female, as men are borne of superior physical strength and as such fair-minded men (gentlemen, if you like) would not want to use such an unfair form of dominance. Instead we may look to other females to help out (in lieu of other options like further discussion, ignoring or escaping).

Roles reversed: a man is being intolerably aggressive towards you in a public bar. Do you: A) be aggressive back, or B) look to the other males in the room and expect them to pipe down the aggressor?

There's deffo some lasses who'd choose A, just as there's some men who wouldn't shy away from using their physical dominance to make a point to a woman. What Peterson is saying is that he would prefer to keep aggressive conflict within the sexes. It's an old-fashioned, and indeed old-school gentlemanly way, of looking at how best to keep discourse in a free society civilised.

He's neither wrong nor right, as that's a matter of perspective.

That genuinely surprises me - the concept that it reasonable that whenever you have a discussion with another man that gets slightly heated, irrespective of the circumstances such as if you are at a bar/a wedding/at work/the post office, your first instinct is to size him up to see if you can settle things with a punch.

I personally doubt that the only thing keeping all the Alpha males in boardrooms across the globe in reasonably civil conversation is that they are nervous they will get a bloody nose - imo a far more effective check on behaviour is both reputational damage and the risk of HR marching you out the door without collecting your belongings or annual bonus. What about situations where you can’t use any vague “threat of physicality”, it isn’t just conversations with women that would apply - how about in discussions with the elderly, young or disabled? Or any conversation on the phone or internet?

That isn’t to say that I don’t think some people use physical intimidation, Jurgen Klopp looming over refs is just one example, it is just that I don’t believe that a) in the long term it is particularly productive and b) that an effective response is to respond in kind.

I’m not clear in this public bar situation you are suggesting whether it is just a random weirdo or someone I know where the conversation has become inflamed but in the latter I’d probably choose option C) de-escalation and if that didn’t work or I didn’t know the guy I’d try D) disengage including E) getting the hell out of there as fast as my presumably high heels would let me - why would I try A or B which is likely to result in either myself or someone else involved in a physical fight, what does that solve? If he truly was that obnoxious I’d also expect the bar management to notice and throw him out as it seems unlikely I’d be the only one who would be uncomfortable with the situation.

It's like sixth grade. True story.

Girl walks up, starts whacking me in the arm. BAM. "you can't hit me, I'm a girl..." BAM.

How to respond? This kept up for MONTHS. No help from administration. "deal with it"

By tenth grade or so, she was sent away for some help with her troubles, but this is basically what Peterson is describing, reduced to its most elemental form. Words won't work, and more physical solutions are not available. You can't appeal for help as you'll be ridiculed for whining about being beaten by some girl. Everybody already more or less knew she was mental, but what's a twelve year old boy to think?

That must have been difficult and it is very disappointing that the adults involved didn’t resolve the situation quicker.
But at the same age I was the smallest person in my school and even now am usually described as “petite” or “shortarse” depending on the politeness of the commentator hence physical solutions have never been available to me so I honestly struggle with the belief that they are needed apart from unusual circumstances.

The one that Peterson himself cites, the Toronto women, is unpleasant but surely just ignoring her is a much better approach and I have to admit to being sceptical that if it were the exact same circumstances just with a man that Peterson would be solving the issue by giving him a black eye.

 

[Walken]

That genuinely surprises me - the concept that it reasonable that whenever you have a discussion with another man that gets slightly heated, irrespective of the circumstances such as if you are at a bar/a wedding/at work/the post office, your first instinct is to size him up to see if you can settle things with a punch.

I personally doubt that the only thing keeping all the Alpha males in boardrooms across the globe in reasonably civil conversation is that they are nervous they will get a bloody nose - imo a far more effective check on behaviour is both reputational damage and the risk of HR marching you out the door without collecting your belongings or annual bonus. What about situations where you can’t use any vague “threat of physicality”, it isn’t just conversations with women that would apply - how about in discussions with the elderly, young or disabled? Or any conversation on the phone or internet?

That isn’t to say that I don’t think some people use physical intimidation, Jurgen Klopp looming over refs is just one example, it is just that I don’t believe that a) in the long term it is particularly productive and b) that an effective response is to respond in kind.

I’m not clear in this public bar situation you are suggesting whether it is just a random weirdo or someone I know where the conversation has become inflamed but in the latter I’d probably choose option C) de-escalation and if that didn’t work or I didn’t know the guy I’d try D) disengage including E) getting the hell out of there as fast as my presumably high heels would let me - why would I try A or B which is likely to result in either myself or someone else involved in a physical fight, what does that solve? If he truly was that obnoxious I’d also expect the bar management to notice and throw him out as it seems unlikely I’d be the only one who would be uncomfortable with the situation.

That must have been difficult and it is very disappointing that the adults involved didn’t resolve the situation quicker.
But at the same age I was the smallest person in my school and even now am usually described as “petite” or “shortarse” depending on the politeness of the commentator hence physical solutions have never been available to me so I honestly struggle with the belief that they are needed apart from unusual circumstances.

The one that Peterson himself cites, the Toronto women, is unpleasant but surely just ignoring her is a much better approach and I have to admit to being sceptical that if it were the exact same circumstances just with a man that Peterson would be solving the issue by giving him a black eye.

Despite what dholliday clearly believes, he doesn't speak for 'blokes' or half the worlds population, he has a horse in this race, so please do not interpret his appalling views as standard of the male gender