Current Affairs The New Middle

[tsubaki]

Dancing around an MLK quote to insinuate that white people are victims is exactly what I am talking about.

I am not saying he is racist, but that bit is the veiled racism that some are trying to normalize in a pseudo intellectual package.

The problem is that US political discourse is inherently focused on race, almost to the exclusion of anything else, so it will always generate absurd claims like that (or like that Lena Dunham "how are you feeling about the extinction of white men" video released just before the election).

Until they realise that class (edit: and wealth, but mostly class) has always been the deciding factor in how their society functions (and indeed in order to prevent them realising that class is the deciding factor in how their society functions) there will always be people coming out with such nonsense.

 

[dholliday]

Shapiro and Peterson still hold right-wing views, so I have trouble fitting them into a "new middle" unless you define "new middle" as center-right.

The man Peterson himself doesn't describe himself as rightwing (The Guardian does, tho'). Which rightwing views does he hold which would fit him into centre-right? He's more of a classic centrist to me, or as he calls himself 'classic British liberal':

 

[verreauxi]

The man Peterson himself doesn't describe himself as rightwing (The Guardian does, tho'). Which rightwing views does he hold which would fit him into centre-right? He's more of a classic centrist to me, or as he calls himself 'classic British liberal':

Certainly, not all of his views are conservative. I can acknowledge that. But he does hold some conservative views, which he admits. Calling himself a "classic British Liberal" isn't very pragmatic or useful. He might as well call himself a "Habberdasher" or some other obscurantist term. He shares many viewpoints that are allied with conservatives, such as his focus on having a family as some sort of prime directive rather than a choice, his weird focus (sometimes disguised, sometimes laid bare) on antiquated Christian narratives dressed-up in new socio-political clothes (see quotes below), his bizarre targeting of gender-neutral pronouns (if he is for economic freedom--a mainstay of liberalism--then why target the 1 in 1000 LGBT kids???--this is a right-wing tactic, not a British liberal one), his targeting of universities as Marxist/Post-Modern cult and indoctrination factories (another right-wing trope...see here, and scroll down), his completely antiquated (<--that's being very charitable) views on women--and on that point let's pause and take in what he says about women:

“The Divine Individual is masculine because the feminine is not individual: The divine feminine is, instead, mother and child.”
--Jordan Peterson

“The Divine Individual is the man that every man admires, and the man whom all women want their men to be.”
--Jordan Peterson

“Effective birth control has emerged as one of the consequences of our powerful technological materialism … We do not yet know how to balance the opportunities thus provided for expanded female individuality with the eternal necessity for a woman to serve as the Mother of the Divine Individual.”
--Jordan Peterson

“The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”
--Jordan Peterson

“This is a note to women You have obtained power, even equality. Even in some cases, superiority. But you have not taken responsibility for reining in your insane sisters. Men cannot do it. Men cannot oppose pathological women because chivalry demands they keep their most potent weapons sheathed. It’s up to you. The forces that have provided you with oft-unhappy freedom have also bred the shrieking harpies of fairness and victimization.”
--Jordan Peterson

“It’s very common to go into a household where there’s a war in the kitchen. And that’s the … manifestation of the war between men and women in the household. And that to me is also a secondary consequence of the invention of the birth control pill.”
--Jordan Peterson

I was going to continue, but I think I'll just stop here. He strikes me more as a pen1s-with-a-Thesaurus.

You are welcome to differ, and you are welcome to put him in the "new middle." And we can agree to disagree on that.

 

[ilikecheese]

Certainly, not all of his views are conservative. I can acknowledge that. But he does hold some conservative views, which he admits. Calling himself a "classic British Liberal" isn't very pragmatic or useful. He might as well call himself a "Habberdasher" or some other obscurantist term. He shares many viewpoints that are allied with conservatives, such as his focus on having a family as some sort of prime directive rather than a choice, his weird focus (sometimes disguised, sometimes laid bare) on antiquated Christian narratives dressed-up in new socio-political clothes (see quotes below), his bizarre targeting of gender-neutral pronouns (if he is for economic freedom--a mainstay of liberalism--then why target the 1 in 1000 LGBT kids???--this is a right-wing tactic, not a British liberal one), his targeting of universities as Marxist/Post-Modern cult and indoctrination factories (another right-wing trope...see here, and scroll down), his completely antiquated (<--that's being very charitable) views on women--and on that point let's pause and take in what he says about women:

“The Divine Individual is masculine because the feminine is not individual: The divine feminine is, instead, mother and child.”
--Jordan Peterson

“The Divine Individual is the man that every man admires, and the man whom all women want their men to be.”
--Jordan Peterson

“Effective birth control has emerged as one of the consequences of our powerful technological materialism … We do not yet know how to balance the opportunities thus provided for expanded female individuality with the eternal necessity for a woman to serve as the Mother of the Divine Individual.”
--Jordan Peterson

“The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”
--Jordan Peterson

“This is a note to women You have obtained power, even equality. Even in some cases, superiority. But you have not taken responsibility for reining in your insane sisters. Men cannot do it. Men cannot oppose pathological women because chivalry demands they keep their most potent weapons sheathed. It’s up to you. The forces that have provided you with oft-unhappy freedom have also bred the shrieking harpies of fairness and victimization.”
--Jordan Peterson

“It’s very common to go into a household where there’s a war in the kitchen. And that’s the … manifestation of the war between men and women in the household. And that to me is also a secondary consequence of the invention of the birth control pill.”
--Jordan Peterson

I was going to continue, but I think I'll just stop here. He strikes me more as a pen1s-with-a-Thesaurus.

You are welcome to differ, and you are welcome to put him in the "new middle." And we can agree to disagree on that.

Jesus...what a backwards little boy.

 

[verreauxi]

BTW, the phrase "penis with a thesaurus" is from David Foster Wallace talking about John Updike.

 

[Huyton Layne]

Middle doesn’t exist. You’re either a selfish money grubbing racist or think people shouldn’t be shackled by being born poor or live a life of privilege by being born to wealth.
Anyone claiming to be neither is either too mentally challenged to function or a liar. Sure people can be nearer the centre than commies or neo-nazis but centralism is a term thought up by boring people with not enough intellect to form an opinion.
Peace.

 

[zzr45]

Certainly, not all of his views are conservative. I can acknowledge that. But he does hold some conservative views, which he admits. Calling himself a "classic British Liberal" isn't very pragmatic or useful. He might as well call himself a "Habberdasher" or some other obscurantist term. He shares many viewpoints that are allied with conservatives, such as his focus on having a family as some sort of prime directive rather than a choice, his weird focus (sometimes disguised, sometimes laid bare) on antiquated Christian narratives dressed-up in new socio-political clothes (see quotes below), his bizarre targeting of gender-neutral pronouns (if he is for economic freedom--a mainstay of liberalism--then why target the 1 in 1000 LGBT kids???--this is a right-wing tactic, not a British liberal one), his targeting of universities as Marxist/Post-Modern cult and indoctrination factories (another right-wing trope...see here, and scroll down), his completely antiquated (<--that's being very charitable) views on women--and on that point let's pause and take in what he says about women:

“The Divine Individual is masculine because the feminine is not individual: The divine feminine is, instead, mother and child.”
--Jordan Peterson

“The Divine Individual is the man that every man admires, and the man whom all women want their men to be.”
--Jordan Peterson

“Effective birth control has emerged as one of the consequences of our powerful technological materialism … We do not yet know how to balance the opportunities thus provided for expanded female individuality with the eternal necessity for a woman to serve as the Mother of the Divine Individual.”
--Jordan Peterson

“The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”
--Jordan Peterson

“This is a note to women You have obtained power, even equality. Even in some cases, superiority. But you have not taken responsibility for reining in your insane sisters. Men cannot do it. Men cannot oppose pathological women because chivalry demands they keep their most potent weapons sheathed. It’s up to you. The forces that have provided you with oft-unhappy freedom have also bred the shrieking harpies of fairness and victimization.”
--Jordan Peterson

“It’s very common to go into a household where there’s a war in the kitchen. And that’s the … manifestation of the war between men and women in the household. And that to me is also a secondary consequence of the invention of the birth control pill.”
--Jordan Peterson

I was going to continue, but I think I'll just stop here. He strikes me more as a pen1s-with-a-Thesaurus.

You are welcome to differ, and you are welcome to put him in the "new middle." And we can agree to disagree on that.

I think the thing with Peterson, and I know I’m repeating myself, is that his original angle was based around the fact that Neo-Marxism was/is a hinderance to Higher Education with a lot of research and education being done through that lense/being affected by ideological ‘truths’ rather than the objective ‘truth’. One of the best examples of that is the Lindsey Shepard stuff that happened in Canada last year. Have to say it’s a similar set of circumstances I found when I worked in Academia, which convinced me that it wasn’t for me.

From there Peterson’s message has sorta mutated, and for someone who isn’t a fan of biases he wears his on his sleeve. He’s an intelligent man with some key points, but he’s not the messiah he’s being made out to be.

 

[Prevenger17]

(if he is for economic freedom--a mainstay of liberalism--then why target the 1 in 1000 LGBT kids???

I really have to pull you up on this one. The law he was objecting to was basically a bill for state-prescribed language. It's one thing banning certain words or language, which he accepts his fair in some cases, but it's quite another to implement a law saying you have to use certain language in certain circumstances. There's a definite difference, and while he wouldn't be personally litigated against under such a law, professors like himself would have been at risk of subjecting the institutions they worked for to lawsuits from particularly tenacious language pedants, not to mention limiting language in his own workspace. That isn't targeting LGBT kids at all

 

[verreauxi]

I really have to pull you up on this one. The law he was objecting to was basically a bill for state-prescribed language. It's one thing banning certain words or language, which he accepts his fair in some cases, but it's quite another to implement a law saying you have to use certain language in certain circumstances. There's a definite difference, and while he wouldn't be personally litigated against under such a law, professors like himself would have been at risk of subjecting the institutions they worked for to lawsuits from particularly tenacious language pedants, not to mention limiting language in his own workspace. That isn't targeting LGBT kids at all

You and I (and Mezzrow) have discussed this before a few times, see here for example. He's welcome to protest any law he wants, but he was very ham-fisted in tying his protest to the deaths of 100 million people in terms of Marxism. This was pointlessly extreme. My sense, as I've said before, was that he really going about this in a poor fashion; and I definitely feel he was specifically targeting LGBT kids--I say this because he is certainly smart enough to come up with a different way voicing his opposition to a law rather than putting "zhe" in the same sentence with "Marxist doctrine" and "killed at least 100 million people." Further, the Federal Canadian law that Peterson was protesting does not apply to University settings, they fall under Provincial law, and Ontario (where Peterson is based), has already had a gender-identity clause on their books for 5 years. But apparently he was silent when that Ontario law passed, perhaps because he was unaware of it. So I think he was purposely stirring the pot a bit once things came to a national stage.

 

[verreauxi]

I think the thing with Peterson, and I know I’m repeating myself, is that his original angle was based around the fact that Neo-Marxism was/is a hinderance to Higher Education with a lot of research and education being done through that lense/being affected by ideological ‘truths’ rather than the objective ‘truth’. One of the best examples of that is the Lindsey Shepard stuff that happened in Canada last year. Have to say it’s a similar set of circumstances I found when I worked in Academia, which convinced me that it wasn’t for me.

From there Peterson’s message has sorta mutated, and for someone who isn’t a fan of biases he wears his on his sleeve. He’s an intelligent man with some key points, but he’s not the messiah he’s being made out to be.

Yes, I agree, academia is full of problems, and Lindsey Shepard was treated very unfairly simply for playing a tape of what Peterson said. There is way too much sensitivity-based censorship in academia--a place where traditional exchange of ideas are paramount. I disagree with the views of Milo Yiannopolis, Anne Coulter, Charles Murray, but I would never encourage students to protest their right to speaking at a university. There was a biology teacher who was also treated unfairly at Evergreen State for suggesting that he shouldn't have to stay home on a given prescribed day. See here. People get too emotional and say/do stupid things, and I saw this with the full awareness that I'm guilty of this myself at times (as when I argue with @Pettifogger), but censoring people for their views isn't what a university is all about. I don't like Peterson's characterization (or Trump's) that universities are indoctrination factories. Universities have lots of problems--emphasis on athletics over education, increasing "businessification" of education, the bloated and growing administration (do we really need four Vice Co-Deans for Student affairs, etc.) at the expense of faculty funding. I would rank the post-modern professors who tell their students to speak up for what they believe in and/or tell students (wrongly) to protest a given speakers right to speak, as a small problem in the university landscape, not the large "indoctrinational" problem as it is often portrayed.

 

[Prevenger17]

You and I (and Mezzrow) have discussed this before a few times, see here for example. He's welcome to protest any law he wants, but he was very ham-fisted in tying his protest to the deaths of 100 million people in terms of Marxism. This was pointlessly extreme. My sense, as I've said before, was that he really going about this in a poor fashion; and I definitely feel he was specifically targeting LGBT kids--I say this because he is certainly smart enough to come up with a different way voicing his opposition to a law rather than putting "zhe" in the same sentence with "Marxist doctrine" and "killed at least 100 million people." Further, the Federal Canadian law that Peterson was protesting does not apply to University settings, they fall under Provincial law, and Ontario (where Peterson is based), has already had a gender-identity clause on their books for 5 years. But apparently he was silent when that Ontario law passed, perhaps because he was unaware of it. So I think he was purposely stirring the pot a bit once things came to a national stage.

You're mixing up loads of different things he's said, and it feels like you haven't actually watched videos where he outlines his specific objections to that law. He doesn't target LGBT people in the slightest, or in anything he says for that matter, it's an enforced language imposition (as opposed to a restriction), and he's completely right to resist it imo.

 

[Prevenger17]

I would rank the post-modern professors who tell their students to speak up for what they believe in and/or tell students (wrongly) to protest a given speakers right to speak, as a small problem in the university landscape, not the large "indoctrinational" problem as it is often portrayed.

He's a university professor, and I imagine he would have a clearer idea of how big a problem it is. It might not matter to a lot of people outside of college campuses, but there's videos on Youtube where protestors stop him from doing a visiting lecture by going into the lecture hall and blowing horns, banging drums and not letting him speak. I can see why his interpretation of the problem's severity might be different to yours

 

[zzr45]

Yes, I agree, academia is full of problems, and Lindsey Shepard was treated very unfairly simply for playing a tape of what Peterson said. There is way too much sensitivity-based censorship in academia--a place where traditional exchange of ideas are paramount. I disagree with the views of Milo Yiannopolis, Anne Coulter, Charles Murray, but I would never encourage students to protest their right to speaking at a university. There was a biology teacher who was also treated unfairly at Evergreen State for suggesting that he shouldn't have to stay home on a given prescribed day. See here. People get too emotional and say/do stupid things, and I saw this with the full awareness that I'm guilty of this myself at times (as when I argue with @Pettifogger), but censoring people for their views isn't what a university is all about. I don't like Peterson's characterization (or Trump's) that universities are indoctrination factories. Universities have lots of problems--emphasis on athletics over education, increasing "businessification" of education, the bloated and growing administration (do we really need four Vice Co-Deans for Student affairs, etc.) at the expense of faculty funding. I would rank the post-modern professors who tell their students to speak up for what they believe in and/or tell students (wrongly) to protest a given speakers right to speak, as a small problem in the university landscape, not the large "indoctrinational" problem as it is often portrayed.

Agreed, take it from someone who paid next to nothing that went to teaching kids paying through the nose, yet actually saw teaching standards decline that there are far bigger fish to fry.

I think the ‘indoctrinational’ problem is amplified to an extent by the very tangible nature of it. It’s very easy to see a campaign on a campus and upload it to YouTube with choice quotes, but it’s very difficult to create uproar about the creation of pointless roles.

 

[dholliday]

“The Divine Individual is masculine because the feminine is not individual: The divine feminine is, instead, mother and child.”
--Jordan Peterson

“The Divine Individual is the man that every man admires, and the man whom all women want their men to be.”
--Jordan Peterson

“Effective birth control has emerged as one of the consequences of our powerful technological materialism … We do not yet know how to balance the opportunities thus provided for expanded female individuality with the eternal necessity for a woman to serve as the Mother of the Divine Individual.”
--Jordan Peterson

“The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”
--Jordan Peterson

“This is a note to women You have obtained power, even equality. Even in some cases, superiority. But you have not taken responsibility for reining in your insane sisters. Men cannot do it. Men cannot oppose pathological women because chivalry demands they keep their most potent weapons sheathed. It’s up to you. The forces that have provided you with oft-unhappy freedom have also bred the shrieking harpies of fairness and victimization.”
--Jordan Peterson

“It’s very common to go into a household where there’s a war in the kitchen. And that’s the … manifestation of the war between men and women in the household. And that to me is also a secondary consequence of the invention of the birth control pill.”
--Jordan Peterson

I haven't checked the accuracy of the quotes but I'll assume they're all true. The thing is Peterson is a guy who is difficult to quote with intent without listening to the full context of what he's saying. In one quote he effectively looks like he's saying 'women should stay in the kitchen!' - we should also consider his faith at least partly forming such views.

I did say earlier in the thread I disagree with about half of what he says, and those quotes (and possibly the context too) I'd include in that, tho' I do understand the philosophical (even more than psychological) argument he is putting across. My take on it would be different tho'.

Me and my lady often have conversations similar to the above quotes, and her philosophical take is probably more in line with Peterson on that than I am (and she's learned, works freelance, supports self-agency & equality-of-opportunity across the board and doesn't suffer fools).

It's an interesting discussion to have in context of third/fourth-wave feminism which many traditional feminists (like Greer & Bindel) find more damaging than helpful. Everyone sensible and with decent morals is obviously against sexual harrassment, but the themes are not just that.

Jesus...what a backwards little boy.

...and that is another way to respond to those quotes lol

Middle doesn’t exist. You’re either a selfish money grubbing racist or think people shouldn’t be shackled by being born poor or live a life of privilege by being born to wealth.
Anyone claiming to be neither is either too mentally challenged to function or a liar. Sure people can be nearer the centre than commies or neo-nazis but centralism is a term thought up by boring people with not enough intellect to form an opinion.
Peace.

C'mon Layne, I thought you were sharper than that x

If you're in the middle, it means you have formed views of your own that have a mix of tribes. Some views will be considered Tribe-Left, and some Tribe-Right, some may even be spiritual and difficult to pigeonhole. That is the exact opposite of "not enough intellect to form an opinion".

One of the best examples of that is the Lindsey Shepard stuff that happened in Canada last year. Have to say it’s a similar set of circumstances I found when I worked in Academia, which convinced me that it wasn’t for me.

Yes, this has to be listened to for anyone in doubt of the state of social sciences academia in the Western World. It's horrible in all sorts of ways:

I really have to pull you up on this one. The law he was objecting to was basically a bill for state-prescribed language. It's one thing banning certain words or language, which he accepts his fair in some cases, but it's quite another to implement a law saying you have to use certain language in certain circumstances. There's a definite difference, and while he wouldn't be personally litigated against under such a law, professors like himself would have been at risk of subjecting the institutions they worked for to lawsuits from particularly tenacious language pedants, not to mention limiting language in his own workspace. That isn't targeting LGBT kids at all

Well explained that. He's said so in myriad interviews which are all on youtubes. His problem is that such a law is the beginning of a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

I wonder if on this topic the opinions are split between those who've read classic dystopian fiction like Huxley/Kafka/Orwell/Koestler and those who haven't?

he was very ham-fisted in tying his protest to the deaths of 100 million people in terms of Marxism. This was pointlessly extreme.

He was saying it's a slippery slope towards authoritarianism, and history has shown us where authoritarianism leads. It's an extreme example, but not pointlessly so.

I disagree with the views of Milo Yiannopolis, Anne Coulter, Charles Murray, but I would never encourage students to protest their right to speaking at a university...I would rank the post-modern professors who tell their students to speak up for what they believe in and/or tell students (wrongly) to protest a given speakers right to speak, as a small problem in the university landscape, not the large "indoctrinational" problem as it is often portrayed.

The thing is you say it's a "small problem" yet earlier in your paragraph you admit people aren't being allowed to speak, sometimes violently so. That to me isn't a "small problem" by any stretch.

I think the ‘indoctrinational’ problem is amplified to an extent by the very tangible nature of it. It’s very easy to see a campaign on a campus and upload it to YouTube with choice quotes, but it’s very difficult to create uproar about the creation of pointless roles.

Youtube's been great for those of us wanting to just know what's going on. As you say they're only clips so you still have to get your info from other sources to balance it out.

 

[Pettifogger]

Came over here at your suggestion dholliday. I like Peterson so I'll read back and catch up.

But to respond to your comment in the other thread, I'm less confident. I think the "middle" will casually say things that would give the impression of less polarization. Polling indicates people will agree to common sense ideas (gun control, for example), but I don't think that holds up in action and under pressure. I fear the fractures are very real.

I don't want to derail anything already discussed so I'll leave it there and jump back in once I can read what you all have touched on.