Jordan Peterson
UnderstandMouseMagic
Member Posts: 2,147
in Off-Topic
So, what do you think?
Lol, how to disengage anybody reading this before they start.
I've been listening to his lectures and talks and frankly, I think he is amazing.
For anybody who doesn't know who I am talking about, (seriously where have you been?) basically he's a Canadian psychology professor who fell foul of the identity politic authoritarians when he took a stand against proscribed speech.
Just to clear up something, he never stood against equality for transgender people, his objection was to the Canadian government implementing law that meant you could be prosecuted for not using the pronouns they proscribed. In other words, compelled speech.
I think a huge number of people, (like myself), discovered him and what he was saying and lecturing about after the debarcle of his interview on UK TV Channel 4 with Cathy Neuman about the false and dishonest "gender pay gap". He quietly and logically demolished the interviewer's stance to the point where she couldn't even talk for a few moments while she considered what he was saying.
It was glorious.
Anyway, here's the link. Have a watch if you are interested in listening to somebody who has something valuable to say rather than soundbites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=3sOne other thing, he has a whole series of lectures titled "Maps and Meaning" which explore the archetypes of myths, legends and the religious stories (of the Bible in particular) and how they resonate.
Something that might be of interest to people on a forum based on a game that uses all of those archetypes.
5
Comments
I like him but he's also prone to some really Deepak Chopra -esque inane babble. He also has strange ideas about religion, like you cannot be moral without the god of bible and apparently everyone secretly believes in this god.
That interview was mental. She had no interest in honest discussion.
Now you see I'm an atheist, always have been. No "conversion" or wokeness, it has never made sense to me that there was a "creator" or even that there needed to be one. And living up to some ideal, nope
However, I am always surprised when people are so "moral". In this day and age, discussion and politics is dominated by "moral stances". Regardless of religion or Gods, people are incredibly offended when you cross what they believe to be "morally" correct.
It's been said that the new far left resemble the puritans of old. Go against their beliefs and you are cast out and ostracised and of course insulted and called names.
He doesn't say that you need to believe in God to be moral, it's far more subtle what he is saying. His stance is that regardless of belief in a deity, people believe in things.
It's the "belief" that he is discussing, not what it is in.
The examples in politics at the moment abound in this, with examples of belief in what they say rather than logical conclusions.
Have an argument with an idealog and you end up with the discussion being framed in belief.
I don't remember the timestamp, though.
Here's a shorter video which implies the same
If you look at his popular writing (Maps of Meaning) it is a typical example of using very complex language to say very little. If you look at the positive critical reception, it is mostly in the vein "I don't understand it, but it sounds brilliant". It is so vague that when debated he can always claim to be misunderstood.
Looking at his political opinions, he is the usually white right wing academic, who claims he is not allowed to speak his mind and being opressed, while having a huge audience, published books and a nice position at a university. Then there is the typical decrying of identity politics, while engaging on identity politics of his own (but in that case, it is being "rational").
In short, the man is a hack.
It has blown over since this had happened though and with the media exposure he received from it, he was able to expand his personal brand.
When the gender identity thing did happen in Canada (and I am talking about zis/ze), a lot of people agreed with him. All he was saying is that there is a way to go too far to the left in the accommodation of what is reasonably acceptable. Fake outrage is a political stunt in an attempt to grasp power.
A person should be allowed to ‘guess’ what pronoun group another person would respond to, and if that guess is wrong, the other person can politely correct them. There is nothing wrong with that but there are a few people who deem that unacceptable. The majority of society shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a few. That was his message in a nutshell.
But it is explictly not the position of Peterson. Peterson is not saying you should be allowed to guess, and the other person can politely correct you. He strictly refuses to use the preferred pronoun, after being politely informed about it.
Not sure what you are saying.
You used "white" as a discriptor? really?
Why?
He has stated that if an individual asked him to address them as whatever preferred pronoun he would comply if he believed it was an honest request.
Seems reasonable? maybe, maybe not. It's an opinion and a view and this is how far the other side swung it.
"We don't believe federal funding should be used to endorse individuals who have exceptionally problematic views, and who attempt to block human rights legislation (Bill C-16) to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. For the National Gallery to hire this individual sends a message to the trans community that we're not valued in this space, and that our bodies are not considered valid."
Let me see if I can find it, doubt it though... nope found it...
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/how-controversial-u-of-t-prof-jordan-peterson-became-a-lightning-rod
If a rich heir says the poor should shut up and work harder, I will call him a rich heir. And if a white straight man says minorities are just playing identity politics, I am going to call him a white straight man. It is a matter of perspective, not of blaming people as a group.
Do you see any room here for him believing it to be a honest request to be adressed in such a way in any manner?
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
While I do not believe the state as government should be able to demand basic courtesy from it's citizens, the state as employer should be able demand it from it's employees, like every other employer.
Also do you notice that you just moved the goal posts? You made a claim that Peterson did not say X but instead Y. I demonstrate that he did in fact say X and now you say "yes, but Y is correct"?
And if someone wanted to be addressed as supreme leader of the universe, would you give them that courtesy as well? It doesn't hurt you in anyway does it?
What happens when an individual decides that zhe doesn't actually reflect them and they want to be called something else like quoratic. How far should society bend on the whims of an individual? How far is too far?
It is also where the Zher/Zhe came from that he is against.
According to Paterson, the zher/zhe is already too far. He bases it on the binary definition of "male/ female." You personally may not agree with that opinion, which is fine, but you, nor he, should be silenced for having that opinion and attempting to discuss it.
Read the comment section of any video Jordan Peterson is the subject of, and you will inevitably run into three patterns: 1.) He was taken out of context (the video was edited!!!!) 2.) A refusal to call a trans person by their preferred pronoun and 3.) How being transgender is a mental disorder. The last point is pointed out almost like they think they are doing society a favor by pointing it out as often as possible. As if they truly CARE about trans people, rather than what they feel is their inalienable right to be as rude as possible. I suppose they DO have that right, but let's not sit around and pretend it's anything other than what it is. Alot of Jordan Peterson followers (demographically) are young, male, white, pissed off, and looking for a some sort of surrogate father figure. And that is what Peterson provides. Alot of self-help mumbo jumbo sprinkled with a hall pass to dabble in some pretty loathsome views about women and transgender people. All with that light touch of plausible deniability provided by "ideas" and "academia"
I don't even think Jordan Peterson himself is an especially hateful person or engaging in flat-out bigotry or misogyny. He is too crafty for that. He is simply catering to an audience that is.
Do you even hear yourself?
"That audience"? "Hateful person"?
People can disagree with things without being,
a) hateful
b) lumped together so you can dismiss discussion or ideas as being from "the other".
Peterson is just trying to come up with a reasonable sounding explanation for his bias.
Now I don't want to get into "corrective surgery" or past medical mistakes involving intersex people, however, most intersex people will still define themselves as one of the two genders. So it is based on society, culture and biology.
So if a majority of that 1.7% of the population self recognizes themselves as either male or female, we are looking at less than 1% attempting to dictate how society should function. Is that acceptable? If so where is the line where it is no longer acceptable? Why does it always have to swing that far right when discussing this?
There are also people who think we should get rid of he/she/his/her and replace it a new gender neutral pronoun that everyone should be addressed as. There are extremes on both sides, but to have a conversation regarding this the extremes should be ignored and attempt to find a comparable middle ground.