Jordan Peterson Thread.

[Steve0]

You're missing the point. I'm not defending what he said. I'm saying what he said wasn't misogynistic. I'm not inflating what he said to be something worse than it was in order to destroy his reputation.


Ok, so you think it's indefensible to suggest some women wear high-heels & make-up at work to feel sexually attractive. Fine, if you want to police opinion in that way, that's your thing.

It's not misogynistic. And other people would argue there's a discussion there, that some women really do those things for those reasons.

It's not a discussion which interests me, personally I see no harm in women wearing those things for whatever reason they choose. If men are arseholes because of it, that's on them, not on the woman. JP may put out a view it's partly on the woman.

Is that part indefensible? You can say that, sure. Unfair? That's what I'd say. Misogynistic? No.

You're defending him through mitigation. You can argue that by the absolutely pedantically correct definition of the word of misogyny doesn't apply but most fair minded people would view it as such.

 

[dholliday]

The fact he refuses to accept a transperson's preferred pronoun? Or how he dishonestly makes out that the C-16 bill will infringe on free speech, even though it won't?

Those two things are the same thing. We've covered this already.

So we've only got the really infamous examples (which keep getting repeated here) of:

- the high-heels comment
- the preferred pronouns thing

as justification for an entire City Council to publicly shame a Professor of Psychology as "racist, transphobic, misogynistic" while also implying he supports horrific violence against women.


Surely there must be more than that to justify such harsh character defamation?

Anyone?

 

[Aqui1a]

Those two things are the same thing. We've covered this already.

So we've only got the really infamous examples (which keep getting repeated here) of:

- the high-heels comment
- the preferred pronouns thing

as justification for an entire City Council to publicly shame a Professor of Psychology as "racist, transphobic, misogynistic" while also implying he supports horrific violence against women.


Surely there must be more than that to justify such harsh character defamation?

Anyone?

Just because we've covered them already doesn't mean they're not legitimate examples. And I think I need to repeat this so you definitely understand - I didn't bring that thing up about Durham, and in my response to you, I explicitly said,

But yeah, I'd rather people were more careful about throwing those words about in general.

So could you please stop trying to dishonestly redirect the conversation in attempt to get me to defend something I didn't say? I've already provided plenty of evidence to show why I believe Peterson is a fraud, and I'll continue to do so.

 

[dholliday]

You're defending him through mitigation. You can argue that by the absolutely pedantically correct definition of the word of misogyny doesn't apply but most fair minded people would view it as such.

Disagree. And it's not being pedantic. Language is important.

Especially disagree with the bolded bit. The signs are all out there: they point to the majority of people agreeing with my take on it.

Take any mainstream online-comment platform on a JP-hitpiece, then sort via 'most recommended'. You'll see a familiar pattern.

Ironically, it's JP's critics which keep elevating his status. He's even said so himself. His work is attracting ever more followers due to his most rabid critics making him the centre of attention.


The anti-JP phenomenon can easily be put to bed if the following is answered honestly:

What do you think of the many positive feedback his work on troubled-male psychology is reaping? Does that have value, in an objective sense? Does that value somewhat offset some of these negative things you are feeling about him?

 

[dholliday]

Just because we've covered them already doesn't mean they're not legitimate examples. And I think I need to repeat this so you definitely understand - I didn't bring that thing up about Durham, and in my response to you, I explicitly said,

Oh wow, seriously?

Wow. Amazing.

Honestly, mate...are you messing with me?

*goes to your post which started this whole epic debate*

Were you not even aware when you posted this that this had to do with Durham Council? It even says so in the tweet.

Incredible stuff. Your blind spot must be HUGE!

 

[Aqui1a]

The signs are all out there: they point to the majority of people agreeing with my take on it.

Take any mainstream online-comment platform on a JP-hitpiece, then sort via 'most recommended'. You'll see a familiar pattern.

Don't do this, @Steve0 . To take the comments of a Jordan Peterson-related video as some form of proof that Peterson is in the right is asking for trouble. They need to make a unique form of the argumentum ad populum fallacy just for Peterson and his fans. lol

 

[Aqui1a]

Oh wow, seriously?

Wow. Amazing.

Honestly, mate...are you messing with me?

*goes to your post which started this whole epic debate*



Were you not even aware when you posted this that this had to do with Durham Council? It even says so in the tweet.

Incredible stuff. Your blind spot must be HUGE!

Hang on, that's showing Peterson's doxxing of council officials and suggesting his fans contact them, which any reasonable person would accept as inciting harassment due to the size of his audience and the type of audience he has. Regardless of the claims of Durham council, you don't do this as a public figure. If he wants to take legal action, go for it. Don't try to start a harassment campaign about it, though, yes?

But nice try.

 

[Aqui1a]

Oh wow, seriously?

Wow. Amazing.

Honestly, mate...are you messing with me?

*goes to your post which started this whole epic debate*



Were you not even aware when you posted this that this had to do with Durham Council? It even says so in the tweet.

Incredible stuff. Your blind spot must be HUGE!

That is, unless you agree with him in suggesting that his largely-reactionary audience contact the Durham Council with what I'm sure will be friendly emails discussing the council's comments in a calm and polite manner. It's not like, you know, you only need one person to contact them - Peterson himself.

 

[dholliday]

Hang on, that's showing Peterson's doxxing of council officials and suggesting his fans contact them, which any reasonable person would accept as inciting harassment due to the size of his audience and the type of audience he has.

Intellectually dishonest to the extreme. It's eyewatering to behold.

I think I need to repeat this so you definitely understand - I didn't bring that thing up about Durham

No of course not. You only brought it up, you didn't actually bring it up

Regardless of the claims of Durham council, you don't do this as a public figure. If he wants to take legal action, go for it. Don't try to start a harassment campaign about it, though, yes?

It's very much not regardless. That's been the whole debate.

Hang on, that's showing Peterson's doxxing of council officials and suggesting his fans contact them, which any reasonable person would accept as inciting harassment due to the size of his audience and the type of audience he has.

Council officials are publicly-elected, with public methods to contact them (emails, letter). If they have gone beyond the pale, they are publicly-open to receive criticism for it.

I criticised JP's reaction nonetheless, pages ago. I called it "lame & vindictive". As we all agreed on that there wasn't much more to debate. So since then we've moved to Durham Council's statement, which in my view is a more profound and unfair attack than JP's response, and as such justifies the petty retort from JP.

But you didn't bring it up, so no worries

 

[Aqui1a]

Intellectually dishonest to the extreme. It's eyewatering to behold.



No of course not. You only brought it up, you didn't actually bring it up




It's very much not regardless. That's been the whole debate.




Council officials are publicly-elected, with public methods to contact them (emails, letter). If they have gone beyond the pale, they are publicly-open to receive criticism for it.

I criticised JP's reaction nonetheless, pages ago. I called it "lame & vindictive". As we all agreed on that there wasn't much more to debate. So since then we've moved to Durham Council's statement, which in my view is a more profound and unfair attack than JP's response, and as such justifies the petty response from JP.

But you didn't bring it up, so no worries

It's not intellectually dishonest at all. He's setting his audience onto the council, knowing full-well what sort of things they'll send. They did the same thing to the woman who interviewed him on channel 4. To deny this actually is intellectual dishonesty.

I didn't bring up the letter they wrote, I brought up Peterson's actions in response to it. How is that so hard to understand for you? lol

It very much is regardless, as I've already explained why.

Yes, they are publicly-elected, but I wonder what percentage of Peterson's fans who email the council are even Durham constituents. Or even from Toronto, for that matter. And I wonder, being fans of Peterson, whether they'll give fair unbiased criticism. etc. etc. It's incitement to harass mate, plain and simple. I mean, as you've said yourself, it's lame and vindictive. Is it yet another one of Jordan Peterson's faults that you'll disagree with in pure isolation? You'll have to let me know, because I'm still hopeful that you'll finally see the bigger picture. lol

Correct, I didn't bring the letter up. I brought Peterson's action in response to it. Now you're getting it.

 

[Steve0]

Those two things are the same thing. We've covered this already.

So we've only got the really infamous examples (which keep getting repeated here) of:

- the high-heels comment
- the preferred pronouns thing

as justification for an entire City Council to publicly shame a Professor of Psychology as "racist, transphobic, misogynistic" while also implying he supports horrific violence against women.


Surely there must be more than that to justify such harsh character defamation?

Anyone?

- the denial of white privilege thing
- using lobsters to justify unfair hierarchies thing
- the making a fake profile bigging up his credentials thing
- his problematic faith in IQ scores thing
- his constant whiney victimhood thing
- his constant whining about others whining about their victimhood thing
- his labelling of literally everything he disapproves of as 'cultural neo-marxism' thing.

Look he's professor, he's not going to come out and say 'dem broads eh? Better when we could hit him eh?'


It wasn't just a throwaway comment though was it? He revealed a weird mindset where he believes women to be slippery weasels, manipulating men with their make-up and high heels. It's difficult to see how this wouldn't inform other views. You can dismiss as harmless and meaningless but.....well i think that would be dishonest of you.

The preferred pronouns thing is really ALL that that encompassed. His disproportiionate rage, his odd musings that this meant Canada was about to become a Maoist dystopia...it was the ramblings of someone a tad unhinged.

You might have sat there, tweaking your neck beard, going 'yeah stick it to them Jords, those cucks dont know what's hit em'

But really we're just thinking 'what an oddball, why is he so popular'.

 

[dholliday]

It's not intellectually dishonest at all. He's setting his audience onto the council, knowing full-well what sort of things they'll send.

That's not what's intellectually dishonest, as I agree with that to the point where those council members will get some critical, trolling and perhaps even nasty emails. What's dishonest is you being totally unwilling to even consider what may have led to JP's reaction ("I didn't bring that up") when it's staring at you right in the face.

They did the same thing to the woman who interviewed him on channel 4. To deny this actually is intellectual dishonesty.

You have to be more specific here. I can't deny something you're not clearly specifying. If you're referring to Channel 4's breathless claims they had to call security to protect Cathy Newman, it's generally accepted now that this was a gross over-reaction designed to foster sympathy with the flustered interviewer.

Statistical analysis of those Twitter/Youtube responses to Newman's performance have found only a small handful of nasty-type abusive comments. The vast majority were damningly-critical, but not abusively-so. The analysis revealed around 500 of the 50-thousand public comments (1%) were sexist abuse directed at Newman.

There'll always be arseholes, unfortunately. But they shouldn't outweigh the 99% critical comments which were fair game. This is another point I made earlier: we shouldn't focus on the negative minority, it breeds bad energy.

I didn't bring up the letter they wrote, I brought up Peterson's actions in response to it. How is that so hard to understand for you? lol

lol indeed. If you bring up someone's reaction to something, you obviously have to expect analysis of what brought on this reaction. You can't just leave it at "so & so called me a meff!" then ignore all attempts at discovering why you were called a meff in the first place.

That is the intellectually dishonest part, which is thus defined: a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of.

Language is important.

I keep saying this...there's a good reason for it. George Orwell knew a thing or two about why language is important:

http://rorueso.blogs.uv.es/2010/10/...n-of-mind-control-and-abuse-of-power-in-1984/

It's incitement to harass mate, plain and simple. I mean, as you've said yourself, it's lame and vindictive. Is it yet another one of Jordan Peterson's faults that you'll disagree with in pure isolation?

I don't think you understand what "pure isolation" means.

 

[ilikecheese]

Can't believe I wasted so much time on this yesterday.

Is he a racist? Probably not, but he empowers them through his words and logic.

Is he a misogynist? Probably not, but he empowers them through his words and logic.

Is he transphobic? Probably not, but he empowers them through his words and logic.

I appreciated @mezzrow taking the time to post a video in good faith that would show me why when he's not talking about politics, he's being uplifting etc. Sadly even in a short 11 minute snapshot, he barely got past minute 8 before he dismissed women because their lives are easy. Men on the other hand have to figure out life...so much harder being a man, etc.

Ridiculous and infuriating. His 15 minutes have to be coming up.

 

[Aqui1a]

That's not what's intellectually dishonest, as I agree with that to the point where those council members will get some critical, trolling and perhaps even nasty emails. What's dishonest is you being totally unwilling to even consider what may have led to JP's reaction ("I didn't bring that up") when it's staring at you right in the face.




You have to be more specific here. I can't deny something you're not clearly specifying. If you're referring to Channel 4's breathless claims they had to call security to protect Cathy Newman, it's generally accepted now that this was a gross over-reaction designed to foster sympathy with the flustered interviewer.

Statistical analysis of those Twitter/Youtube responses to Newman's performance have found only a small handful of nasty-type abusive comments. The vast majority were damningly-critical, but not abusively-so. The analysis revealed around 500 of the 50-thousand public comments (1%) were sexist abuse directed at Newman.

There'll always be arseholes, unfortunately. But they shouldn't outweigh the 99% critical comments which were fair game. This is another point I made earlier: we shouldn't focus on the negative minority, it breeds bad energy.




lol indeed. If you bring up someone's reaction to something, you obviously have to expect analysis of what brought on this reaction. You can't just leave it at "so & so called me a meff!" then ignore all attempts at discovering why you were called a meff in the first place.

That is the intellectually dishonest part, which is thus defined: a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of.

Language is important.

I keep saying this...there's a good reason for it. George Orwell knew a thing or two about why language is important:

http://rorueso.blogs.uv.es/2010/10/...n-of-mind-control-and-abuse-of-power-in-1984/




I don't think you understand what "pure isolation" means.

If you think I can't criticise Peterson's behaviour without having to consider what might have led him to behave in such a nefarious manner, then I'm afraid you're just wrong. Regardless of the statement made by Durham council, what Peterson did was wrong. You might say, lame and vindictive.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...security-experts-trolls-make-vicious-threats/

I know you'd like to ignore the threats, and the behaviour of the 'minority', because it would let us all view Peterson and his audience in a much better light. However, I'm not going to ignore it. lol Also, can you source that 99% fair criticism claim please?

Even though I actually don't need to address what caused Peterson to incite harassment, I've already explicitly told you twice that I'd rather people were more careful about making such claims are the Durham council did. Twice. And I didn't even have to, to criticise Peterson. Generous me, aren't I! lol

Yeah, language matters. Although I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it here. xD

Sure I do. You're seemingly looking at each of Peterson's faults in a vacuum, disagreeing with them on an individual basis and refusing to acknowledge that such repeated failings says something about him.

 

[dholliday]

@Steve0

- the denial of white privilege thing
He didn't deny it, you admitted this yourself only a page ago. But now you've reverted to your original incorrect statement. Weird.

- using lobsters to justify unfair hierarchies thing
How is that racist or how does that relate to hating women? Do you disagree we're evolved from lobsters?

- the making a fake profile bigging up his credentials thing
Not heard this one. Link?

- his problematic faith in IQ scores thing
He's hardly the only one. Heard of Mensa? Are they bad racists?

- his constant whiney victimhood thing
Non-specific. You'll have to say something concrete here.

- his constant whining about others whining about their victimhood thing
see above, or rather how does this make him a racist or hater of women? It may make him tiresome or annoying, but racist?

- his labelling of literally everything he disapproves of as 'cultural neo-marxism' thing.
see above

Look he's professor, he's not going to come out and say 'dem broads eh? Better when we could hit him eh?'
No, he says stuff like this, which you may agree or disagree with. Does it make him a hater of women who promotes horrific violence against them as claimed by Durham Council?

It wasn't just a throwaway comment though was it? He revealed a weird mindset where he believes women to be slippery weasels, manipulating men with their make-up and high heels. It's difficult to see how this wouldn't inform other views. You can dismiss as harmless and meaningless but.....well i think that would be dishonest of you.

The preferred pronouns thing is really ALL that that encompassed. His disproportiionate rage, his odd musings that this meant Canada was about to become a Maoist dystopia...it was the ramblings of someone a tad unhinged.

You might have sat there, tweaking your neck beard, going 'yeah stick it to them Jords, those cucks dont know what's hit em'

But really we're just thinking 'what an oddball, why is he so popular'.

This is a good post, tho'...the first decent argument against my position for a while.

I can understand where you're getting the above, while still maintaining these perhaps unpleasant characteristics don't make him something as extreme as a racist, transphobe or hater of women who advocates horrific violence.

It makes him an obsessive oddball, perhaps even borderline sexist. Those criticisms are fair game based on what we know of him. Exaggerating those things in an attempt to demonise him, ruin his career, is a real problem in my view.

I still haven't heard from you or @Aqui1a regarding this, I'd be really interested to hear your take:

What do yous think of the many positive feedback his work on troubled-male psychology is reaping? Does that have value, in an objective sense? Does that value somewhat offset some of these negative things you are feeling about him?