Jordan Peterson Thread.

[SiEdmo]

Genuinely intelligent people have an easier command of the language than him.

He's only considered an intellectual by idiots.

not so thinly veiled dig there considering I said he was intelligent

so im an idiot?

 

[Prevenger17]

The backlash was because he was clearly courting a confrontation rather than just getting on with his life. To call it a free-speech issue is a manufactured hyperbole in order to draw attention to himself.

To repeat (from my post on page 2):

**********
Peterson has about a 1 in 1000 chance of being asked by a student, "Excuse me, Professor Peterson, can you please use zhe and zher when you refer to me?"
But let's say he is asked. He now has a few options to choose from:
1) "Sure, I'll do that" (and think nothing more of it because it literally does not affect his life in any meaningful way)
2) "Sure, no problem" (and then have a laugh over it--perhaps even a mocking one--with is friends, and then think nothing more of it)
3) Compare the request for using "zhe/zher" with the death of 100 million people.
He chose option three, which says a lot more about his character and intellect then it does about the hypothetical audacious student who had the "effrontery" to make such a request.
*******

And his quote was: "I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."

I have serious reservations about someone--a Full Professor with a succesful career--who chooses to pursue such a fruitless battle. Imagine if he put his ostensibly "great" intellect to actual good use--maybe saying something about income disparity, or racism, or geo-political strife--rather than picking on the, literally, 1-in-1000 intersex student who asks for a different pronoun. This is simply an extension of the right-wing gay-marriage viewpoint broadened to even more absurd circumstances, and another instance of in-power older white right-wing idiots targeting a small and vulnerable demographic sector in the name of "free-speach" or "foundational morals" or "attackes on our values" etc. Imagine if you were a baker and had to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple...THE HORROR!!!!

To give him the benefit of the doubt, clearly his emotional faculties are not so delicate and fragile that his whole world view, and apparently the free-world as well, would come crumbling down if he had to utter "zhe"? Or to put it another way, he's obviously using this issue to profit from and showcase his rightwing, anti-inclusive, mean-spirited viewpoint. The fact that he dresses it up with pompous affectations and big words doesn't make it anything more than what it is: a poorly disguised whiny whinge about how things are changing in the world and he doesn't have the resolve to keep up with it.

I don't know too much about the lad yet but, based on a few listens, I think you have misinterpreted him as much as the alt-right lads who hold him up as their intellectual mouthpiece

 

[verreauxi]

I don't know too much about the lad yet but, based on a few listens, I think you have misinterpreted him as much as the alt-right lads who hold him up as their intellectual mouthpiece

I base my interpretation of him on this quote and reading a few of his other things: "I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."

 

[Prevenger17]

I base my interpretation of him on this quote and reading a few of his other things: "I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."

But he's saying that it's the same mechanic that drives extreme Marxist doctrines, not that it will inevitably lead to the death of millions. I believe it was in response to Canada introducing laws to govern language around gender identification, which is a step too far in a lot of people's opinions. In the interview from the OP, he intimates that he is more than willing to refer to people whatever way they prefer, but that it should be down to personal governance and not a state law

 

[zzr45]

A lot of what Peterson spoke about in his early days (I liked him before he was cool lads) really could be traced back to what he sees as creeping Marxism in Higher Education.

The problem for him is that this tends to interfere with the purpose of academia (the journey towards ‘the truth’) as it tends to put a filter on exactly how research is carried out and students taught.

I think the fact as well that ‘Marxism’ is seen as this sanitised, it’s about people so it’s alright viewpoint in academia also totally rankles him. Do agree with him there - when working at a uni, one of my colleagues had a Soviet flag up in his office without anyone batting an eyelid - wouldn’t of been the same if it had been a Nazi Germany flag, despite the two countries being totally deplorable.

 

[verreauxi]

But he's saying that it's the same mechanic that drives extreme Marxist doctrines, not that it will inevitably lead to the death of millions. I believe it was in response to Canada introducing laws to govern language around gender identification, which is a step too far in a lot of people's opinions. In the interview from the OP, he intimates that he is more than willing to refer to people whatever way they prefer, but that it should be down to personal governance and not a state law

I know, mezzrow also told me that. I still feel that his quote is pointlessly extreme--to even put the idea of gender-neutral pronouns in a sentence with "Marxist" and the death of "100 million people"--is ridiculous; and if the forced-use of "zhe" won't result in 100 million deaths, then why bring it up in the first place? I find his analogy to the same underlying mechanism to be disingenuous; as he well knows, there is a vast difference between Canadian democracy and Stalinism (and it is the latter term that he should have used instead of Marxism--and he knows this too!). To me, he's seeking out attention and controversy with such a statement. And I don't think the Canadian law is extreme. Its wording is very similar to most other nation's existing hate-crime laws and several existing laws here in the USA and in Canadian provinces that include gender identity clauses. What he's trying to say, of course, is that he would be legally culpable if he refused to use "zhe" or other gender-neutral pronouns, but from what I understand legal experts, including sexual diversity-rights advocates, state that this bill would never be used for the purposes of going after a single individual, unless they are motivated by an extreme pattern of hate-speech (i.e., "advocating genocide"), and Jordan Peterson is certainly not engaging in any extreme pattern. He's just voicing his opposition to the bill using a poorly chosen analogy.

 

[Prevenger17]

Listening to more of this chap, I like him a lot. Some of his arguments seemed like very tenuously connected ideas at first, but make a lot more sense the more I listen to him.

 

[magicjuan]

Like Farage with a rare Bordeaux.

By using linguistical markers to define a battleground he oversimplifies. He is under a cloak of what Toffler termed as Futureshock, the pace of change leaves him confused and clinging to a set of comforting 'anti-beliefs'. The highlighting of 'Marxism' is a simplistic tool designed to draw likeminded support, that the understanding of 'Marxism' is swayed by decades of poor representation by a system that sees it as a threat, in the same way Corbyn is a 'Marxist' and a threat, but a threat to what or who? To the very system.
This illusion of a massive explosion in Marxism is patent nonsense, promoted by his ilk. People tired of propping up the rich wanting a fairer society isn't inherent Marxism, but a desire for a fairer society, but that in itself cannot be spun into McCarthy like headlines, can it?

 

[Prevenger17]

This illusion of a massive explosion in Marxism is patent nonsense, promoted by his ilk. People tired of propping up the rich wanting a fairer society isn't inherent Marxism, but a desire for a fairer society, but that in itself cannot be spun into McCarthy like headlines, can it?

I don't know Juan, I don't think his thoughts connect that strongly to anything economical. If you listen to him talk, he talks about the necessity of fairness and the need to curb extreme capitalistic excess. His interpretation and opposition to Marxism are more to do with the ideological aspect of it, he's more concerned with the imposition of identity politics and language controls that are creeping on to campuses.

 

[magicjuan]

I don't know Juan, I don't think his thoughts connect that strongly to anything economical. If you listen to him talk, he talks about the necessity of fairness and the need to curb extreme capitalistic excess. His interpretation and opposition to Marxism are more to do with the ideological aspect of it, he's more concerned with the imposition of identity politics and language controls that are creeping on to campuses.

Then I don't see any relevance to Marxism, in this context. Even ideologically. What has appeared to have happened is the concept of identity politics has, and continues, to develop by the interpretation of those who don't feel represented or who feel, as mainstream thinkers, marginalised as it splinters into ever smaller fragments, leaving them exposed and vulnerable, a portrayal diametrically opposed to the original intent of across the board representation.
From proportional representation to Trump, Farage etc, the psyche of the populace is charged against others, so each feels threatened or undervalued against another grouping. Peterson identifies with this but rather than identify it as a sympton proposes it as a cause. All these developments are the consequences of seperation from a fair society over many years.
As I mentioned earlier the concept of 'future shock' seems to be validated. As technology develops society at a pace none can keep up with, and few benefit from, fear brcomes the driving force and people seek safety in those they identify with the most. It is a very childlike process, almost foetal, and if fuelled can be controlled.
I'll do others the courtesy of looking more at Petersons output to be more 'informed', but from what I have seen to now it is just populism being de rigeur.

 

[Prevenger17]

Then I don't see any relevance to Marxism, in this context.

The term "Marxism" can be interpreted a lot of different ways, it has practically lost its meaning. One thing I would say about Peterson, and it's a good thing to consider before delving into his lectures, is that he is almost more self-help guru than a professor, and he seems to have a primary interest in improving people's lives. He tends to use a lot of catch-all phrases and 3 point lists in the way of a salesman almost, using simple communication techniques to lay out complex thoughts, establishing simple steps for people to follow.

You hear a lot of recurring words and phrases to jam the message home, but his use of terms like "Marxism" aren't really rooted in their academic meanings. I can see why that might jar with people who might consider actual Marxism as something far more sacred and complex than what he implies (which it is)

 

[Prevenger17]

Then I don't see any relevance to Marxism, in this context. Even ideologically. What has appeared to have happened is the concept of identity politics has, and continues, to develop by the interpretation of those who don't feel represented or who feel, as mainstream thinkers, marginalised as it splinters into ever smaller fragments, leaving them exposed and vulnerable, a portrayal diametrically opposed to the original intent of across the board representation.
From proportional representation to Trump, Farage etc, the psyche of the populace is charged against others, so each feels threatened or undervalued against another grouping. Peterson identifies with this but rather than identify it as a sympton proposes it as a cause. All these developments are the consequences of seperation from a fair society over many years.
As I mentioned earlier the concept of 'future shock' seems to be validated. As technology develops society at a pace none can keep up with, and few benefit from, fear brcomes the driving force and people seek safety in those they identify with the most. It is a very childlike process, almost foetal, and if fuelled can be controlled.
I'll do others the courtesy of looking more at Petersons output to be more 'informed', but from what I have seen to now it is just populism being de rigeur.

By the way, I disagree with him fundamentally on a lot of things, his belief in a god and his conflation of creeping extreme liberalism with the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, for example (a guy who gets compared with Hitler should probably know better). It's his general life advice that has resonated with me

 

[magicjuan]

By the way, I disagree with him fundamentally on a lot of things, his belief in a god and his conflation of creeping extreme liberalism with the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, for example (a guy who gets compared with Hitler should probably know better). It's his general life advice that has resonated with me

That I can see. I just flicked through a few videos and stumbled on his 'illuminati' ones, surprised tbh. His clips on religion hide an almost fundamental desire for a reinforcement of 'christian values', which is what irks me, it would be quite easy to identify him an almost messianic figure if it wasn't for his belief still in 'god'.
I found it ironic that, through a search, his videos are somehow aligned with those of Christopher Hitchens, illustrious company indeed.

 

[Prevenger17]

I found it ironic that, through a search, his videos are somehow aligned with those of Christopher Hitchens, illustrious company indeed.

He's big on the messages and allegories in the bible, he did a whole series of lectures on them as far as I know. He's doing a tour with Sam Harris now I think, the extremism of modern dialogue has made some curious bedfellows.

 

[magicjuan]

He's big on the messages and allegories in the bible, he did a whole series of lectures on them as far as I know. He's doing a tour with Sam Harris now I think, the extremism of modern dialogue has made some curious bedfellows.

just to clarify an earlier point. Hadn't seen this before, but read most of Tofflers stuff. This is quite dark, but it shows the present to be the Petrie dish for rising viewpoints.