Surprisingly well written and balanced article in today's world of demonizing those we disagree with and deifying those we agree with. Something increasingly lost in the noise is that in the end we're all just people -- something that this article emphasizes.
This is the first time I've heard of Booger McBoogerson, be sounds like the flip-side of everything he whinges about. I choose to not use his preferred proper noun.
Below is a very good related article about the "intellectual dark web" consisting of academics like Peterson who are being driven out of the academy by orthodoxy and instead work through podcasts, Youtube, Patreon, etc
I think there's something really interesting happening with philosophy and its use of the Internet as a platform. It's a disruption in the same way that traditional media is being disrupted.
YouTube debates held by self-made moderators are a sort of spectator sport where differing schools of thought are battling it out rhetorically. The audiences are people who are honed by online debate groups and have experience in one-liner Tweets and trolling to prove a point.
When you think about it, it's not all that new of a concept -- the classical philosophers had their "schools" but they weren't like formal institutions with faculty. Philosophers had their followers or acolytes, not matriculated registered students. Maybe the more calcified academic structures we see starting to break down are the aberration rather than the norm.
In an environment where non-progressives are shunned, he refrains from shunning them.
Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non-progressives deserve to be demonized.
And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason.
We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cows come home but it doesn't address the fact that people will always seek an icon to revolve around. The only solution to such a situation, like insurgencies in war-zones, is de-escalation and re-integration (of militant progressives and social conservatives into a cohesive society where they both achieve political representation and fairness in the eyes of the law).
Unfortunately modern-day progressives (regressives) have no interest in this and as such social conservatives will continue to gravitate towards those that they don't fully understand but nevertheless find appealing.
Probably the way that poster threw in the "regressive" label for modern progressives (who I'm guessing a lot of people might identify as) at the end, if I had to guess.
How would you describe the emerging subset of traditional liberals who are beginning to embrace authoritarian stances in the context of authoritarianism being largely incompatible with liberal ideals?
Edit: This is a sincere question. If a more useful description or label exists I would like to know it.
I have a hard time reconciling my progressive ideals with social constructivism, where distinct groups seek to assert control over society and "guide" it to achieve a certain political ideal.
Progressives (least ones I associate with) are increasingly shunning "Social Conservatives" because they release that the position that's become known as "Social Conservative" is about authoritarianism.
The election of Trump has made the damage they're doing painfully obvious. Suddenly, Nazis are "good people" and that has really riled people up. It's hard for me to support someone when I know they voted for a Nazi sympathizer, and thus I have no desire to interact with them.
Unfortunately, in a world where everyone is purportedly a Nazi (including my grandmother), nobody is a Nazi. And state control of academia and industry for the purpose of punishing those that don't support ever-increasing state power is indeed of grave concern...
Disagreement with a proposed belief/behavior system is equated with "hate", and hate-filled "whatever"-phobes are Nazis. My grandmother remains unconvinced that "whatever" is good. Hence she is "hate" filled, and a Nazi. QED.
I understand. When we have access to so many people and views, I don't think we're evolved enough to process it, so we have to guard ourselves against looking at each other as demons - while also protecting ourselves from those of us who are dangerous. It's not easy to navigate, and most people can't.
in a world where everyone is purportedly a Nazi (including my grandmother), nobody is a Nazi
This is a BS argument. Right wing commentators have been labeling everyone they disagree with as 'Nazis' for decades. Rush Limbaugh is famous for popularizing the term 'Feminazi' and has been using it regularly since ~1995. Jonah Goldberg wrote a book a decade ago that conservatives love citing, called 'Liberal Fascism' and whose cover depicts a smiley-face button with a Hitler moustache. I could cite numerous other examples.
It is simply false to suggest that this problem originates with the left, but it does (however unintentionally) give great cover for dismissing the fact that there are rather a lot of militant neo-nazis who have been significantly emboldened in recent years, organize with impunity, and commit violence regularly.
The article mentions the first interview Sam Harris did with Jordan Peterson. It appeared frustrating for both parties because they got caught up in definitions of words, etc. Still, it was civil so they parted and agreed to talk again. Harris says, "I’d received more listener requests for him than for Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Edward Snowden—or, indeed, any other person on earth."[0]
Notably, but not in the article, Harris interviewed Peterson again, two months later.[1]
This is key: Continuing discussion is essential to scientific and social progress -- especially on topics in which you disagree or may even be offended (if emotions were allowed to dominate), not to the exclusion of such things.
This inversion from intellectuals welcoming disagreement to shunning it is a terrifying movement to those who value science and truth-seeking, because in a worst case scenario it could very realistically lower us into a new dark age. Just the necessity of an "intellectual dark web" is itself an extremely concerning reflection of today's intellectual climate, which is becoming hostile to tenets of rationality and civilized discourse.
When we subtract dialogue and reason from the picture, all we are left with is emotional conflict -- and rarely do two extremely conflicting emotional views of a topic resolve automatically without the intervention or guidance of rationality.
It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong.
He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and definitions without involvement from an elected legislature.
In everyday life I've never found it to be too inconvenient to be as accommodating as possible to others and communicate with them on their own terms, whether that means remembering to use the pronouns they want or using alternative terminology if they think some word is offensive.
I've never had to think about how my outlook might change if all of that got a lot more inconvenient though (if more people start requiring ever more varied pronouns, or if so many words get soft-banned as being offensive that it's difficult to communicate with clarity). Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along. I can understand and be sympathetic to Peterson's position in that sense, although I'm not sure if I agree.
It's easy in one-on-one conversations with people you know or have a reasonable way of learning about.
It's hard for public or mass communications with people who have rapidly-evolving preferences and sets of things that can cause offense.
Peterson sounds like a dick in his methods, but there's a dangerous regressive trend picking up in mainstream circles of treating disagreement as heresy. We've picked up the worst habits of religion. (And the "right" is too intellectually dishonest to notice that this treend of whining/heresy/safe-spaces-desire trend is deeply entrenched in evangelical and right-wing America, with private schools, "wars on Christmas", etc.)
>It's hard for public or mass communications with people who have rapidly-evolving preferences and sets of things that can cause offense.
I'm not convinced of this. "Hi all" works as a salutation, in public speaking, you can substitute ladies and gentlemen with lots of far more engaging variants (eg: "Dear friends", "my fellow students" (a favourite of one of my best instructors in college), "distinguished guests", etc), announcers have been using "attention all passengers" and other formal identifiers for a while.
The outrage is less, but you can still catch flak for little slips like referring to an unknown party as "he" or "she" instead of "they." (A perfectly cromulent third-person-singular pronoun with plenty of history, IMO, but some people dislike it, too.)
But I'm thinking more of things like "creating a gender drop down box for a tool where demographic info was desired." Or do we just drop the idea of even having a meaningful response to such a question? Sometimes it's relevant, though, especially in medical industries.
It's been my experience that trans/genderqueer people indicate what their preferred pronouns are when goy meet them. The annoyance comes if someone repeatedly misgenders them afterwards. It seems to be me to be on par with calling them the wrong name a few times. It's not an especially huge transgression, but it's a bit oblivious. Not saying anything about Shapiro-caliber deliberate provocation here.
Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along.
Have you never made a mistake in common courtesy? What if any mistake in common courtesy meant that you could be hauled before a kangaroo court which can use a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" against you as evidence? What if that kangaroo court could get you kicked out of your job? Go and read the law Jordan Peterson is complaining about.
This is different! A mistake in common courtesy could cause one of these oppressed people to commit suicide. It has everything to do with pronouns and absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.
I agree. If being mistaken as the wrong gender causes someone significant enough distress to make them commit suicide, they need (and likely are getting) serious mental health attention.
It is not the burden of anyone to cater to a stranger's mental illness. If you look vaguely male, I will say "excuse me sir, could I get past you?" (and "madam" for a vaguely female looking person). And there is no place where that should be illegal or morally wrong.
Deliberate misgendering is definitely a separate discussion from a genuine mistake.
I get misgendered all the time, and I'm just some guy who never recovered from the 80's and 90's and still sports a ponytail. Once in South Carolina, I got, "Uh, sir, uh, ma'am, uh,..." -- That checkout guy never made up his mind!
I thought it would be clear I was being sarcastic but apparently not. This was really the point I was trying to make — that these speech laws really aren’t doing anything to address the problem.
Additionally, the idea that the incredibly high suicide rate is because of oppression doesn’t match up with other data at all. If this is true, why do whites commit suicide at 3 times the rate of blacks?
Not to mention scientifically dubious tests of "unconscious bias" used against you as evidence in kangaroo courts -- enshrined into law. That's something that might be in Room 101 in the world of Orwell's1984.
Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)
...and a square looks like a circle if you round it down as well. Doing so does make it lose its essence though, just like rounding down pi does. It is not for nothing after all that the ancients tried all sorts of tricks to find the actual numerical value of the ratio between a circle's radius and its circumference.
While this is true, they were still able to build pretty significant things without such accuracy. Sure, if you keep rounding you can lose essence but rounding pi to 3 doesn't lose enough of the essence for practical usefulness. 3 works fine rough circles..it might not work fine for building a rocket or a some finer piece of machinery but for may things it works fine.
Besides, although I said what I did to make a valid point, I mostly said it to be humorous. Sorry I did not put in the humor tags.
Exactly. I have no problem calling a genetic male "she" that's what she prefers. I take issue with being held to a standard of somehow needing to "know" that ahead of time, and respect it, with no effort on the part of the woman in question.
I'm perfectly able to be understanding in these cases, but I'm not capable to be psychic.
I've only met one transgender person. She was basically a dude wearing lipstick and high heeled boots. She was really nice, and I wanted to use her preferred pronouns, but it's really difficult to do so.
> I take issue with being held to a standard of somehow needing to "know" that ahead of time, and respect it, with no effort on the part of the woman in question.
I'd like to postulate that it's not just ahead of time. It's really hard to change your usage of he to she or him to her, when you are visually presented with a man. The brain doesn't easily change, so don't get mad when it doesn't change as fast as you want.
There seems to be a very vocal minority of trans people out there who are demanding a totally friction free experience to their life. These are the people people like Peterson get riled up.
I know two trans individuals, I address them by the correct pronouns probably 80% of the time if I'm being a little kind to myself. The other 20% they've been totally understanding. Anecdotal yes but I feel like this is the vast majority of trans people; they know it's out of the ordinary and respect that, and handle the inevitable slips with social grace.
> I take issue with being held to a standard of somehow needing to "know" that ahead of time
I agree that this would be an unreasonable standard. But I've yet to see that standard being applied to anyone (And I run in circles where I'm exposed to quite a bit of very outspoken trans/nonbinary rhetoric).
What I see, time and time again, is people who explicitly refuse to call someone by their preferred pronoun, whether it's on the grounds of pure petulance ("You can't make me!"), or of some biological essentialism ("HE, because Y chromosome").
So unless you have any examples of people being attacked for a single, innocent mistake, I'm inclined to see this as a strawman (straw-person?) argument.
I try to treat people with respect and in the manner they would like to be treated (within reason) but I also reserve my right to be offensive to other people, to be rude and crude and aggressive because some times that's appropriate.
> It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se.
At some point, what someone literally says they are or aren't against starts to pale in comparison to the perception of their stance. And if that perception persists, at some point, one has to call into question their sincerity.
That and saying "I'm not ______", and then turning around and saying ______ things is a sign that you're at best lacking in self-awareness and at worst lying.
You are espousing a position that calls for the validation of anyone's unjustified projections onto someone else. Should this cause me to question your sincerity?
He actually wrote a letter to the administration of his university to state that if he had a trans student he would not be compelled to use their gender pronoun of choice. The admin told him, in so many words, to not be an asshole for no reason. He then published to response on the internet and played the victim.
So he more or less had to create a controversy out of nothing. The great majority of people consider the question a matter of courtesy and hold no strong feelings.
> The admin told him, in so many words, to not be an asshole for no reason. He then published to response on the internet and played the victim.
This is a pretty low resolution summary of their correspondence. It’s also pretty easy to argue that his behavior is better described as refusing to play the victim. For him, the loss of his rights is more impactful than the consequences of not complying, so he refused to play a part in the quiet loss of his rights.
> So he more or less had to create a controversy out of nothing. The great majority of people consider the question a matter of courtesy and hold no strong feelings.
Well, this is now enshrined in Canadian law, so it doesn't matter much what the great majority of people feel. It only matters how courts will interpret the law.
Not at all, although Dr Peterson has spent a lot of time arguing that it is. In particular, he thinks that a recent addition of gender to anti-discrimination law means something about the sort of gender pronouns you can use. He has not been dissuaded in his opinion by a great number of people with much better qualifications in that sort of law.
Well, something is enshrined in Canadian law, but the heat of the debate over whether what Peterson claims Bill C-16 does is a desirable thing for a law to do sometimes obscures the fact that people—including people who are experts in law, which Peterson is not—have challenged his characterization of what the law actually does.
>He believes that the insistence on the use of gender-neutral pronouns is rooted in postmodernism, which he sees as thinly disguised Marxism.
I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.
Many take issue with the minutae of his arguments, like his understanding of postmodernism. Still, if you focus on the problematic symptoms he describes and skip his causal arguments, that is, what he attributes as the cause of those symptoms, he is pointing out real issues that deserve attention.
If I remember correctly, Peterson says that the Neo-Marxists followed up on the theories of postmodernism as a way to bring Marxist thought back into the academically-acceptable realm, and that led to where we are today. So, the author is slightly wrong in his description of Peterson's beliefs. He doesn't see Postmodernism as "thinly disguised Marxism". He see Neo-Marxism as having its roots in Postmodernism.
I’ve never encountered this interpretation before either.
The only way I can make some sense of it is by drawing a correspondence between postmodernism’s “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions” and marxism’s class warfare.
There's the academic philosophical postmodernism, which rejects metanarratives. Then there's a derived ideology taken up as the basis for a lot of Intersectional activism which can be termed "Social Constructionism." As is the case for many activist derivations of ideology, there is some straying away from the original academic version.
While postmodernism claims it rejects metanarratives, like the one in Marxism, the derived ideologies share a lot of parallels in effect. They both result in opposing groups which can't effectively talk to each other, so must coerce each other by force. (Doesn't this remind you of the Intersectional "Stack Ranking" and the "Oppression Olympics?") They both effectively result in a rejection of logic. They both effectively create their own forms of obscurantist alternative "logic." The ideological effect of both Marxism and Social Constructionism is to come up with a pretext for rejecting existing standards and tearing society apart -- one which is ideologically sealed against negotiation, logic, and adaptation to evidence.
It's still great to read but rereading I noticed at the core the same oppression narrative that seems to appear out of all postmodern discourse at some point and which JBP associates with Marxism. Here the programmer is oppressed by stuck up programming languages, Perl reverses the roles and is happy to be like a butler/slave. Which is fine for a programming language, but offers problems when reversing the oppressor/oppressed roles is the only solution you can think of, the only interpretation you wish to dwell on however flimsy the interpretation is (which seems to be where postmodernism went wrong / taken over by Marxists), and each side involves real people.
"Postmodernism" and "deconstructionism" are often used synonymously: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-decons... and like many overarching "isms" they've come to mean such different things that they can be used to mean almost anything.
That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just change the language.
Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).
So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed.
This, anyway, is the line of thinking, though it isn't my own view of the world. To say that everything is linguistic seems unlikely. When I was in grad school in English (note: don't do this: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befo... ) and would hear this argument, I liked to observe that everyone, given the choice between getting punched in the face or having someone say something mean to them, chooses the latter. This would seem to me to argue that not everything can be reduced to language, even apart from all the other very good and obvious-seeming arguments along those lines.
> That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just change the language.
> Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed."
Those aren't really separate stands, the latter is a consequence of the former: if language (or, rather, beliefs which is transmitted between people by language) is the defining factor in reality, then the ultimately meaningful differentiation between people is whether they are influential in shaping belief (powerful) or not (powerless).
It's also directly contrary to the central theme of Marxism, which makes the association of these particular postmodernist viewpoints with Marxism bizarre. (Certainly, there are people who moved from Marxism to this kind of postmodernism, just like there are people who have moved from Marxism to capitalism or from Marxism to democratic socialism or from Trotskyism to neoconservatism.
It's also directly contrary to the central theme of Marxism, which makes the association of these particular postmodernist viewpoints with Marxism bizarre.
And yet, activists who claim to be Marxist seem to be very well aligned with others who claim postmodernist derived ideologies.
I think the "danger" around Jordan Peterson goes beyond the pronoun debate.
Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his most vocal enemies.
I'd be surprised if he shunned collectivism if it were a kind that he agreed with, ie: the Judeo-Christian pro-family values (ie: men and women are destined to for monogamous marriage, homosexuality is sinful) collectivism.
He sounds like a hardcore libertarian but I think it's a smokescreen for ideologically-driven oppression under another name.
> Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).
> So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed.
Same thing applies here. Take note of who is applying these -ist labels, and who they are being applied to: anyone in the outgroup.
I would be floored to discover if the majority of these strawmen "fascists" and "racists" are a collective by any definition other than "not on board with the cause."
He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.
And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
I want you to refer to me using the 'floop' pronoun. Here's an example sentence: `Floop was referring to floopself when floop said floop wanted to go home`.
If you don't use my 'floop' pronoun you're an asshole and a bigot, just apologize to me and I will forgive you.
In all seriousness, I have no issue with people who want to be referred to by traditional pronouns that they choose for themselves. I do have an issue when people make up pronouns and demand that you use them, and if you don't use them then it makes you a bigot and an asshole (as you mention yourself). There are enough difficulties in remembering things as it is, why do I need to remember what made up pronoun you want me to use?
If it was even remotely plausible that being addressed using derivatives of "he" or "she" rather than "floop" caused you distress, I think I'd try to use "floop".
If the "floop" thing is just wantonly imposing your will over how others speak, then the pendulum has swung the other way: you're now falling afoul of "don't be an asshole".
If you're serious about being called a floop, that's fine. I'll try to be good about it.
If you're demanding to be called a floop when you don't see yourself as a floop, just so you can mock those who don't call you floop as an ironic metaphor for people who are actually serious about their pronouns, then you're not a floop. You're an asshole.
And trust me as someone who has a lot of friends with unusual gender identities - if you're sincere, they won't be calling you an asshole and a bigot when you sometimes screw up, because they know you're trying, and they know it's hard. It's refusal that gets you called out, not accidents.
Respectfully, I'd like to put this in a different frame.
"Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time. These things come about through consensus and if there isn't some consensus that that's the way things are, then those attempting to impose new norms are ironically also "being assholes."
When you have moral society in recent decades changing very rapidly in terms of what is being considered acceptable or not (whether or not you consider that positive progress), it's going to feel like whiplash to people who are not on the vanguard of the latest new definition of what's acceptable. People say, "Wait a second, I was taught to be a decent person, I think I'm a decent person -- who are these people telling me that I'm now a hateful person for doing or not doing what seemed reasonable up until a couple years ago? Do the people telling me this have moral authority in my eyes?"
Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.
Most people with unusual gender identities understand this, and are understanding and patient with those who are making an effort to respect their wishes. It's those who consciously refuse, or mock their attempts to clarify their identities, that get called out, and they deserve it.
Yeah, it's hard for us. Hell, I'm 52. I have a lot of adjustment to do. But I try to do it, because I respect my friends. (Patton Oswald did a really excellent speech about this, btw.)
For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being asked to be nice to others. So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he's being oppressed by the evil forces of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use preferred pronouns... I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he's a victim. And when he doubles down and says people shouldn't get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then he's a hypocrite. And an asshole.
So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he's being oppressed by the evil forces of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use preferred pronouns...
But you've never heard that. You've only heard him reject being coerced to do that. He's even on the record as saying he's fine with addressing people as they'd like to be addressed, so long as it's all done civilly. What you're doing is projecting a caricatured position onto him.
For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being asked to be nice to others.
A law that empowers kangaroo courts isn't "simply asking nice." A law that empowers those courts to use an unscientific "unconscious bias" test that claims to get into your head isn't "simply asking nice." A law that can result in dismissal from your job isn't "simply asking nice."
I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he's a victim.
He doesn't claim he's a victim. What he claims is that the law is a potential abridgement of freedom. You could make a claim that Lindsey Shepherd claims to be a "victim" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFUvfAvKs4 -- but then you'd be presenting evidence that Dr. Peterson's assertions about the law are correct.
And when he doubles down and says people shouldn't get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then he's a hypocrite. And an asshole.
A coworker at my work announced her transition, and everyone just started using the feminine pronoun. Everyone was civil about it, and everything was fine. (And I am certain that she was happier and a more vibrant and complete person for making the change.) Again, you are misrepresenting his position. More accurately, a person exists within society (and hopefully a community) and identity is something which is effectively negotiated between the person and society. It's the parties who are being emotionally dishonest, playing games with emotional blackmail, and being crappy people who are "being assholes." From where I'm sitting, it's a lot of emotionally imbalanced trans "activists" who fit that description. Jordan Peterson gets mail from trans people, the majority of whom are supporters or sympathetic to him. Their collective position is that they just want to not be singled out and live their lives in peace.
> A law that empowers kangaroo courts sin't "simply asking nice." A law that empowers those courts to use an unscientific "unconscious bias" test that claims to get into your head isn't "simply asking nice." A law that can result in dismissal from your job isn't "simply asking nice."
I'd like to underline this statement. Making this into a law that will impact employment, sentencing, etc., is not a polite request. It's the power of the state. When that involves a certain way of speaking, or thinking, a lot of us civil libertarian types get very uneasy, regardless of the merits of the issue at hand.
I'm a civil libertarian myself. It makes me uncomfortable. But people seem hell-bent on missing my point in order to correct me for God forbid equating coercion and oppression.
My actual godddamned POINT is that, whatever the logical merits of Peterson's position coming from him, the practical effect is for a hundred thousand red-pill assholes to share excerpted clips around, and thinking it means that a wise philosopher agrees with their joy in being mean to people over their gender identity.
No matter what position you pick, some gaggle of idiots on the Internet are using it as a pretext for being a dick. A lot of the acrimony coming from the Right is a reaction to others doing it using pretexts from the Left.
The solution is to have reasoned dialogue. If you follow Peterson's message, he seems to have explicitly decided to minister to lost young clueless right-wing men, by urging them to clean their rooms, and live worthwhile, responsible lives. In fact, I remember the video where he talks about becoming aware that so many of his followers were effectively Alt-Right, and seeing him hesitate, then say he didn't know what to make of that.
He also talks about the mechanisms by which a crowd can suborn a speaker, so I think he's actively fighting against that.
thinking it means that a wise philosopher agrees with their joy in being mean to people over their gender identity
It seems to me that a lot of people did exactly that, coming from the far Left, in the name of Intersectionality. It was also done with racial identity. (Google "Feminist Cringe" & "Dartmouth College Library Activists")
Oh, undoubtedly. There's no small amount of tribalism and moral sadism among the SJWs, using these sudden shifts in vocabulary as an excuse to berate people they didn't like in the first place.
Which in no way means intersectionality is a Bad Idea. Intersectionality is a major advance in the understanding of oppression.
I hope Peterson can actually wake up some of his red-pill followers, and do more harm than good in the long run. But for now, he really needs to apply that intellect to dealing with something he wasn't ever prepared to deal with - being a symbol of intellectual authority to a movement that stands for things he no doubt despises.
I hope Peterson can actually wake up some of his red-pill followers, and do more harm than good in the long run.
Freudian slip? As George Orwell noted in Road to Wiggan Pier, leftists often don't so much as love the poor, but hate the rich.
But for now, he really needs to apply that intellect to dealing with something he wasn't ever prepared to deal with - being a symbol of intellectual authority to a movement that stands for things he no doubt despises.
For one thing, I can imagine him basically paraphrasing that sentence. How come I don't often hear anything like that kind of introspection coming from the left about the depredations of unbalanced followers? When it does come, why is it that others on the Far Left then try to kick them out of the Left? Then too, I hear and read things like, "It's okay to hate your oppressors." I think I know what it means when people start to say it's okay to hate on a group of people based on outward and inherent characteristics. I grew up being on the receiving end of that.
You're denying people say "It's okay to hate your oppressors?" You're denying that people have been trying to kick people like Dave Rubin and Bret Weinstein out of the Left?
You're being pedantic. I'm characterizing what he's saying using colorful language of my own, but the principles are the same. He objects to gender pronoun changes because he sees them as postmodernism, he believes postmodernism derives from Marxism, and he sees Marxism as authoritarian oppression. So in Peterson's worldview, the difference between being asked to use ze and zim by someone, and sending Solzhenitsyn to a Siberian death camp, is merely a matter of degree, not of kind.
And I'm quite sure he'd agree with my assessment here.
I'm characterizing what he's saying using colorful language of my own, but the principles are the same.
No. It's one thing to advocate that everyone should be nice and say "hello." It's an entirely different thing to advocate for a law that says you will be dragged before a kangaroo court for failing to say "hello," where a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" will be used as evidence of your guilt. Either your bias is showing, or you're missing the distinction.
So in Peterson's worldview, the difference between being asked to use ze and zim by someone, and sending Solzhenitsyn to a Siberian death camp, is merely a matter of degree, not of kind.
If you study the detailed legal history of the Weimar Republic, then you'd be prone to agree. The Nazis didn't have to change the Weimar laws a whole lot, because the Left-leaning Weimar republic left loopholes in the law that basically amounted to, "...unless the state deems it for the common good."
If you let "activists" erode due process and create "crimes" of "unconscious bias," then you are creating legal means for people to engage in the sorts of accusations which sent people to the Gulag. The Magna Carta and particularly Habeas Corpus came about because laws which were about one thing were abused out of poltical expedience.
> It's one thing to advocate that everyone should be nice and say "hello." It's an entirely different thing to advocate for a law that says you will be dragged before a kangaroo court for failing to say "hello," where a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" will be used as evidence of your guilt.
And it's yet another thing to criticize a law for saying that when, in fact, the law says nothing of the sort.
Only if you accept the dishonest sleight of hand, in that the Human Rights Tribunals are not courts of law. They are "kangaroo courts" by my estimation.
> Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.
To your point, failing to accommodate this, and expecting everyone to immediately change because you have, is its own flavor of "being an asshole."
My "Miss Manners" etiquette book from the 1960s says you should call people by the names they wish to be called. So it's not "modern", it's timeless. She directly addresses the social issues of the day, such as gay couples or couples living in sin; it's clear what she would recommend today.
Radical examples from the 1960s: If Bob and Nancy have been living together for a while, invite "Bob and Nancy", not "Bob and Guest"; and this classic:
Q: WHAT DO I SAY TO MY SON'S GAY FRIEND BOB'S LOVER AT MY SON'S WEDDING???
I'm not surprised, because Jordan Peterson is thoughtful.
And yet, a hundred thousand assholes gleefully share the video clip of him getting in the face of someone confronting him about pronouns, him talking about how it's oppressive, and they take it as the intellectual seal of approval for their refusal to use preferred pronouns, based on their contempt for those who ask for it.
I notice you have used the insult “asshole” twice when no one else is, and you are using the mention of the word as proof someone is wrong.
Would you consider writing what someone has specifically done wrong, rather than the insult? It’d be more clear, and we wouldn’t need to guess whether your overall assessment of people is reliable.
There are some 4 or 5 new pronoun classes, totally over 30+ new gender pronouns recognized by some transgender rights activists. This UW LGBT Resource Center lists an additional 7 pronoun classes, totaling 35 new pronouns [1].
So imagine the typical college professor. They've got what? Three or four classes of up to 50 or 60 students?
So you want them remember not only each student's name, but also which of these new pronoun class they prefer, as well as the proper declination of that pronoun class?
And if someone prefers not to do this, it's because they're an asshole?
My guess is that Peterson would have been happy to try to use preferred pronouns for his students, if only he weren't being forced to do so by some human rights act about pronouns and coerced by various activists groups. He's basically said as much before.
For the record, I'm in favor of most transgender rights issues (re: employment, anti-violence, identity documents, etc). But you can't go passing laws to force changes in attitude. US lawmakers did the right thing by passing civil rights laws in the 1960s, but those lawmakers didn't then go and outlaw the use of the n-word. That would have been a bridge too far. People have to learn from those around them what is and isn't appropriate. You can't just force them to think and speak the way you want by force of law.
Or at least, we don't typically try to do that in free societies.
It's very simple, really. You use what seems obvious, and if someone corrects you in one-on-one conversation, you finish the conversation doing the best you can to respect their wishes. And if you screw up, you apologize and self-correct.
We're not talking about 200 students in this case. We're talking about one on one conversation with one person. That's when pronouns matter.
Being unhappy about coercive regulation is an entirely separate issue from trying to do the decent and not terribly difficult thing. And using the coercion as justification for not doing it is, bluntly, an excuse. It's turning around and claiming yourself the victim of what you do to others.
> We're not talking about 200 students in this case. We're talking about one on one conversation with one person. That's when pronouns matter.
Professors never engage in one-on-one conversation with their students? And they never refer to their students in the third-person within the classroom?
> And using the coercion as justification for not doing it is, bluntly, an excuse. It's turning around and claiming yourself the victim of what you do to others.
I don't think Peterson sees himself as a victim, at all. I think he's alarmed and outraged that proscriptive laws governing his speech have been passed. And as an American who's pretty happy with our 1st amendment, I agree with him.
I mean, forget for a moment that this is concerning transgender rights. If a country like Canada continues to outlaw certain ways of speaking, at what point would that concern you? Or would it ever?
I fail to see the distinction between "he's alarmed and outraged that proscriptive laws governing his speech have been passed", and seeing himself as a victim of oppression. But this distinction seems very important to some people, who object to my characterization of him as a self-styled victim of oppression.
Just because he doesn't use the word "oppression" in that context doesn't mean it isn't his broad meaning. Coercion and oppression are more or less interchangeable.
He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole.
AFAIK, he does use preferred pronouns.
Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.
If one is faced with oppressive ideologues who refuse to engage in dialogue and just want to coerce you, the proper response is to stand up to them.
He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
I genuinely think that the critiques of Postmodern Social Construction are thoughtful and interesting. I also think they provide intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism, dressed up as "activism."
> Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole.
Let me ask you, do you think requests for preferred pronouns are rooted in a correct understanding of human nature? Or are you merely accommodating something you believe to be mistaken so as to not hurt someone who likely be (on net) hurt by a more honest approach?
Let me give you a libertarian answer... it's up to individuals to decide what their own identity is. When an individual identifies as one thing, and society refuses to accept that identity and imposes labels they find offensive, then they are being oppressed. And that's a much more substantial form of oppression than "Please don't say that" is.
I'm utterly shocked (not really) how many people proudly wave a flag of liberty, but are quite content for society to denounce and punish harmless individual expression, if they aren't comfortable with that expression.
> it's up to individuals to decide what their own identity is. When an individual identifies as one thing...
That's actually not true and not workable. A very obvious example is a criminal who identifies as a good, upstanding person.
IMHO there are actually two kinds of identity (at least). They are separate things, but related and often confused.
1. Self-identity: the identity that someone applies to themselves based on their own thoughts and aspirations. This is very closely related to one's inner life. This is the identity that you're referring to above.
2. Applied-identity (for lack of a better term): the identity that each person applies to someone else based on their own thoughts, beliefs, and experiences with that person. Someone's reputation is an example.
If you try to force everyone's applied-identity of you to conform with your self-identity, that's also a form of oppression. What and how they think of you is their own business.
I'm not sure that's a particularly libertarian answer. But whether your views belong to a particular political label or not is not my main concern.
My question was whether you think such identity claims are true.
Now maybe you don't think it matters, and that we should use preferred pronouns regardless. But at that point you are saying that people should lie for the sake of politeness. The request isn't just "Please don't say that"; it's "Please say this other thing even if you don't believe it's true".
I think I generally agree with your second paragraph. We should not deliberately be jerks to others, even if they are different from us. And also, we should not be under legal coercion to not be jerks - that way lies at least serious trouble, and maybe social madness.
But I think I disagree with your third paragraph. People who have thoughtful, interesting things to say should say them. (They should also take care to specify what they don't mean, to discredit "followers" who run off in bad directions. Or else, if they agree with those followers, non-followers will conclude that the bad directions taint the thoughtful and interesting things.)
There's the rub, though. When you have something interesting to say that may well be taken the wrong way to justify things you despise (as I believe is the case here), you should take care to clarify as well as possible - and clarify up front, with caveats, to reduce the number of people hearing only the first half of your sentence.
And even then, people will hear what they want to hear. However carefully Peterson speaks his thoughts on this manner, there will still be a lot of people who now think it's the intellectual thing to do to beat up a dude in a dress. Which makes speaking one's mind, however truthfully, an ethical dilemma.
This is the hole below the waterline in the sinking ship of radical honesty. This is why "Don't be an asshole" is more complicated than it sounds.
I kind of hate to beat on Peterson too hard for this, though. He's suddenly acquired a large and unexpected following that he didn't actively pursue. But he needs to deal with the ugly reality of what kind of people make up the bulk of that following, and how his words and ideas affect them. It's an ongoing learning experience.
Well, there's no way I can see that you can say anything and prevent people from reading into it what they want it to say. (This is especially true if they're doing it deliberately - trying to use your stuff as a smokescreen to give support for their pre-chosen position.)
You can make it harder for them. But you can't stop them.
Perhaps the asshole is the person who expects the rest of the world to jump through linguistic hoops in order to protect their carefully maintained delusions.
> his most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago
God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.
I'm fairly socially liberal too and on the fence about him. He says a lot of interesting things and I've never been a fan of postmodernism which I regard as a form of "pseudo-profound bullshit," but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.
Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.
> but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.
> Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.
Seems like he has no love for the alt-right:
> But when [Peterson has] been lumped in with what’s come to be called the alt-right, as happens fairly regularly, Peterson has pushed back, calling it "seriously wrong." The erstwhile socialist considers himself a classic British liberal, and he has castigated the far right for engaging in the "pathology of racial pride."
> I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.
Well, given that Peterson has repeatedly pissed them off by saying that ethnic nationalism is an idiotic ideology (I'm paraphrasing), I'm not sure how many of those followers he now has left.
He definitely has a very vocal cult-like following among a certain type of young adult. While they can be annoying, they're not typically the fascist/racist type. Far from it.
> I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.
I forget if it was this article or the interview (the two of which constitute my entire familiarity with the man, so I'm not strongly for or against him), but he makes the point that he has had many letters from left and right extremists who have reported that Peterson's teachings have moved them to the center. So my inner optimist would like to believe that his far right (and left) fans are in flux, mwaning it's socially ideal for these people to be in the ranks of his "followers". Although the notion of a philosopher with followers does sort of creep me out, rightly or wrongly.
That's the thing... I'm not conservative by any stretch of the imagination, though I am often mistaken for one; I enjoy listening to people like Jordan Peterson and even Ben Shapiro because they are excellent debaters and can make solid arguments. I can't think of anyone on the other side of the political spectrum who can even come close in that regard, although I would love for someone to give me some examples.
It really was. It was two people on entirely different planes of conversation talking right past each other.
One thing I think Peterson could do better (though I imagine he wouldn't do this purely on principle, if he was even capable) is adapting his speech and rhetoric to meet his target audience. He was answering her questions in a calm and well-meaning manner, but just the tone and vocabulary of his explanations was going completely over her head, making her draw the wrong conclusions from what he was saying. That is, assuming that she wasn't trying to be combative on purpose.
I've watched the interview a couple of times. I did not see that his tone or vocabulary were over her head. However, I would like to know what you're referring to. Could you give one or two examples please?
The article really tries hard to paint Jordan Peterson (JP) as a controversial figure who espouses fringe messages. The article uses adjectives like "controversial" and "polarizing" to describe JP. His public presence is "notoriety". His followers are said to be "something akin to a cult following". He "appears on TV, including on Fox & Friends, President Trump’s preferred morning show". WoW so edgy.
But is JP really the one who is controversial and polarizing?
Is JP really the one who is polarizing and extreme here? The left academic really dropped the ball not pointing out their own dirty laundry and cleaning out their own cesspool of fake academics and violent thugs.
Every generation has a successful* fifty plus year old telling the 20 plus year olds how to live.
Mine was The Road Less Traveled, by I Forgot--Actually M. Scott Peck. It was written by a M--edical Dr. so it carried weight at the time. It started off with, "Life is hard." Yes--it is, so why not apply yourself in life/school/career?
How do you argue with that?
It was also filled with stuff that fits perfectly with a upper middle class white family. Oh yea, and God. Can't leave out God when your making obscene amounts of money.
(The first month he received $600, which was enough to help purchase better equipment to film his lectures. But the amount kept growing and, at last count, topped $60,000 per month (Peterson now keeps the amount he’s raising private)
Anyhoo--my advice is get through life without busting a mental gasket. Yes, I had a breakdown in my twenties, and gave never been the same. My only sense that stayed in tack was indentifing charlatans, and filthy greedy Lookers. I don't care what this guy is spouting. It sounds like a rail against the status quo--which will evolve on it's own--in most cases.
Our rights our being stomped on by the wealthy, and we are reading about some old fool who objects to gender pronouns?
I would place myself in the conservative corner, but I find Peterson quite problematic.
1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures. But if you don’t „follow“ and instead analyze what he is saying and how he forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less conclusive.
2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)
3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.
2. and 3. put his followers in a depressed state where he can uplift them with 1.
No wonder he has a sect like following.
His conservative debates are more to the point but I‘m not sure if it is not just advertising for his „religious lectures“.
In total it’s a tiny rather peaceful group. I don’t see a danger for society.
I’m sure he does help some of his followers. But I doubt that most of his followers profit long term from him. At some point they should move on for their own good.
In response to your last sentence, I am interpreting that as a judgment that the quality of his lectures is inferior to those to which people should move on to, is that right? Do you have any recommendations?
I‘m tempted to say think for yourself...
It may sound like a different category but i found listening to Tim Ferris and Guy Raz much more positive and felt energized to try stuff. JBP helps you to do your dishes but the two other push you to pursue your dreams. Your mileage my vary.
1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures...just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less conclusive.
Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language and to use metaphors. Also, they advise you to throw in sentiments to which your audience will agree.
2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)
Do you actually think he says that life is only suffering? Sorry, but that seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of his views. What evidence do you have that Dr. Peterson is anti-joy? Here's an exercise: find evidence in what he says that shows he values joy.
3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.
Let's go right for the most disturbing: The Gulag Archipelago. It's disturbing as an indictment of the worst human beings can do, while those same people are spouting the most positive sounding utopian ideology. It's not going to depress anyone in the West, unless they have already tied up their identity and self worth in a similar ideology.
As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life -- strikes me as a worthwhile and positive message.
"Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language and to use metaphors. Also, they advise you to throw in sentiments to which your audience will agree."
So intellectual pop chords and power riffs...
As for the quasi-alt-right flirtation a while back I started calling a lot of that stuff "intellectual edgelording." Some on the left are guilty of it too, but the far right has really mastered it.
1. I already agreed that his lectures are appealing. Do you agree that his arguments are not logic and conclusive?
2. Fair enough. I shall try if I ever hear his stuff again. With all the metaphors flying around it shouldn’t be to difficult. But can you point out where he says it’s so great to be alive?
3. If you call „I survived the gulag where thousands perished“ as a silver lining you must have a pretty grim world view.
You agree that the Gulag Archipelago is not a relevant reference point to 95% of his western audience. If you don’t find it depressing you must have a very strong character, I would assume a good portion gets depressed (in mood; clinical depression is out of my judgment).
Do you agree that his arguments are not logic and conclusive?
In that they are public speaking and they are not a thesis. They are public speaking, and those aren't logical and conclusive. The point you're trying to make could only stand if all the speakers you like and feel represent your world view have 100% logically rigorous speeches.
But can you point out where he says it’s so great to be alive?
I don't need to, to refute your silly assertion that he's somehow anti-happiness. None of these videos are direct statements about joy, because they are from talks where he is making an entirely differnt point, but it's clear that he's like any human being who thinks children are wonderful, and likes to have fun and laugh.
3. If you call „I survived the gulag where thousands perished“ as a silver lining you must have a pretty grim world view.
Again, not what I said. You said that he put forward books to depress his audience. That's obviously not true. The Gulag Archipelago is meant to alarm and meant to make a personal, emotional connection to the magnitude of the possible evil of such flowery sounding utopian ideologies.
If you don’t find it depressing you must have a very strong character
Or, one could be sure that one is in opposition to such ideologies. My father's older brother disappeared due to one regime with a collectivist ideology. My family here in the US is only here because the US military defended their lives from another regime with a collectivist ideology. Why should The Gulag Archipelago make anyone depressed, as opposed to angry? As opposed to resolute in the opposition of disguised evil?
I can only imagine it makes someone depressed if they identify with such an ideology.
What's more, I explicitly cite Dr. Peterson's message, "As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life," as a silver lining. I find it problematic that you ignore that and try to stuff a different position in my mouth above.
He is not radical but he is outspoken and does not let himself be cowed. This antagonises other outspoken people who have been able to silence a large part of their opposition by labelling them as racist, insert-whatever-identity-phobe, nazi and such. When they tried the same with Peterson by calling him a 'transphobe' their attempts spectacularly backfired in that they drew the attention of the general public to Peterson which quickly gave him a much larger following than he normally would have had.
It's the same pattern with Nicholas Christakis and Bret Weinstein. An association the article pointed out, but didn't mention the pejorative labels applied to those two.
What is often lost since Peterson became "famous" after the whole gender pronoun controversy is the quality and depth of his thinking and lecturing that was already available on YouTube. This article starts with that, and explains his popularity as a teacher at Harvard and Toronto. I had been watching his lectures for about a year before the pronoun issue, and his ideas are fascinating and deep. They tie together many disparate fields and ideas into an original and interesting synthesis.
But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. There are problems with it, and it deserves to be criticized (Peterson would be the first to agree). There are also profound insights that can help elevate your thinking if you can incorporate them. Lots of people don't have the intellectual background or ability to do so. But everyone can form a 2 second hot take on one of his more recent controversial statements, so that is what gets discussed.
But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about.
You can think of Jordan Peterson as going just a bit farther than Sam Harris, when Sam Harris says that we should learn from religion by practicing things like meditation. Jordan Peterson comes from the position that things like myth and religion co-evolved with human beings and human society. Even if the literal epistemology of religion and myth is dead wrong on the conscious/rational/scientific level, it still contains insights into the nature of human beings' self regulation because of that co-evolution. Often, these things operate at below the level of consciousness, as we would expect such things to, given that they co-evolved with us from a time before sentient consciousness.
I was quite surprised to discover that the alt-right venerate him. I got the impression that he was pretty liberal. I mean, I support LGBTQ rights, but don't agree that people should be forced to use appropriate gender pronouns.
I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.
It's not as much "alt-right venerate him", as his ("alt-left", I guss?) opponents like to mark him "alt-right" for no reason other than he is not as "left" as they are.
Based on the recent YT comments on his videos (and the titles of clip compilations of his lectures), the alt-right definitely appear to hold him up as some figure head.
I definitely get frustrated when I hear people on the left call him dangerous. I feel like these aren't even "alt" left people either, it sounds like they are largely plain old liberals who never heard of him, and blindly toss him in with the like of Steve Bannon.
> I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.
I think he did pander a bit, but then realized how far to the right many of those followers were, so drew a clear line in the sand that pissed off and alienated all the fascists and racists (something about ethnic nationalism being an "idiotic ideology" or words to that effect). Peterson is no alt rightist.
However, if you look at places like /r/JordanPeterson, most of his followers were more alienated centrist and liberals than the alt rightists even before he made clear exactly how he felt about the far right/alt right.
is generally regarded (by those I know, at least) as Jordan at his best. He goes through the first few stories in the Bible and tries to bring meaning to them, not from the fundamental Christian lens of "this is absolute truth," but more like:
"Here are some archetypal patterns about the world and how to act in it that our ancestors have discovered over thousands of years and distilled into stories. Maybe they hold truth that isn't the 'word of God' truth, but observations about the world that have utility to us even as a modern, rational, scientific civilization. I'll back this up by tying it to studies on psychology, neuroscience, evolution, and animal behavior, and show that variations of the same archetypal stories appear in non-Judeo-Christian societies all over the world."
You can be a hardline atheist and still get tons of value out of these lectures.
He does a similar thing with the story of Pinocchio instead of the Bible for the first few lectures, which might be more palatable for some. There's a lot of overlap with the Bible series as well.
As an interlocutor, Jordan Peterson seems like a reasonable person to debate with. But his followers are quite dangerous, much like many other political thinkers, whose suggestions were modest, but the followers took it to mean something else...
So, to put it short: "What's dangerous about Jordan Peterson is that he makes ideas we don't like sound plausible"? I don't really see an answer to the question in title.
Anyway, his lectures for psychology students on youtube are quite nice to listen, even though I find it problematic how often he treats hard facts off-handedly to speak in favor of his overall narrative. I wonder if there are more courses (especially on non-technical subjects) of the same quality freely available on youtube.
171 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 224 ms ] threadhttp://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/
edit:
I made a thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120
YouTube debates held by self-made moderators are a sort of spectator sport where differing schools of thought are battling it out rhetorically. The audiences are people who are honed by online debate groups and have experience in one-liner Tweets and trolling to prove a point.
When you think about it, it's not all that new of a concept -- the classical philosophers had their "schools" but they weren't like formal institutions with faculty. Philosophers had their followers or acolytes, not matriculated registered students. Maybe the more calcified academic structures we see starting to break down are the aberration rather than the norm.
Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non-progressives deserve to be demonized.
And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason.
We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cows come home but it doesn't address the fact that people will always seek an icon to revolve around. The only solution to such a situation, like insurgencies in war-zones, is de-escalation and re-integration (of militant progressives and social conservatives into a cohesive society where they both achieve political representation and fairness in the eyes of the law).
Unfortunately modern-day progressives (regressives) have no interest in this and as such social conservatives will continue to gravitate towards those that they don't fully understand but nevertheless find appealing.
Edit: This is a sincere question. If a more useful description or label exists I would like to know it.
"It's okay to hate your oppressors."
"X = Prejudice + Power"
"By Any Means Necessary"
It goes at least as far back as Karl Marx, but probably further.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura
Progressives (least ones I associate with) are increasingly shunning "Social Conservatives" because they release that the position that's become known as "Social Conservative" is about authoritarianism.
The election of Trump has made the damage they're doing painfully obvious. Suddenly, Nazis are "good people" and that has really riled people up. It's hard for me to support someone when I know they voted for a Nazi sympathizer, and thus I have no desire to interact with them.
This is a BS argument. Right wing commentators have been labeling everyone they disagree with as 'Nazis' for decades. Rush Limbaugh is famous for popularizing the term 'Feminazi' and has been using it regularly since ~1995. Jonah Goldberg wrote a book a decade ago that conservatives love citing, called 'Liberal Fascism' and whose cover depicts a smiley-face button with a Hitler moustache. I could cite numerous other examples.
It is simply false to suggest that this problem originates with the left, but it does (however unintentionally) give great cover for dismissing the fact that there are rather a lot of militant neo-nazis who have been significantly emboldened in recent years, organize with impunity, and commit violence regularly.
Notably, but not in the article, Harris interviewed Peterson again, two months later.[1]
[0] https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peters...
[1] https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/
This inversion from intellectuals welcoming disagreement to shunning it is a terrifying movement to those who value science and truth-seeking, because in a worst case scenario it could very realistically lower us into a new dark age. Just the necessity of an "intellectual dark web" is itself an extremely concerning reflection of today's intellectual climate, which is becoming hostile to tenets of rationality and civilized discourse.
When we subtract dialogue and reason from the picture, all we are left with is emotional conflict -- and rarely do two extremely conflicting emotional views of a topic resolve automatically without the intervention or guidance of rationality.
He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and definitions without involvement from an elected legislature.
I've never had to think about how my outlook might change if all of that got a lot more inconvenient though (if more people start requiring ever more varied pronouns, or if so many words get soft-banned as being offensive that it's difficult to communicate with clarity). Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along. I can understand and be sympathetic to Peterson's position in that sense, although I'm not sure if I agree.
It's hard for public or mass communications with people who have rapidly-evolving preferences and sets of things that can cause offense.
Peterson sounds like a dick in his methods, but there's a dangerous regressive trend picking up in mainstream circles of treating disagreement as heresy. We've picked up the worst habits of religion. (And the "right" is too intellectually dishonest to notice that this treend of whining/heresy/safe-spaces-desire trend is deeply entrenched in evangelical and right-wing America, with private schools, "wars on Christmas", etc.)
I'm not convinced of this. "Hi all" works as a salutation, in public speaking, you can substitute ladies and gentlemen with lots of far more engaging variants (eg: "Dear friends", "my fellow students" (a favourite of one of my best instructors in college), "distinguished guests", etc), announcers have been using "attention all passengers" and other formal identifiers for a while.
But I'm thinking more of things like "creating a gender drop down box for a tool where demographic info was desired." Or do we just drop the idea of even having a meaningful response to such a question? Sometimes it's relevant, though, especially in medical industries.
Have you never made a mistake in common courtesy? What if any mistake in common courtesy meant that you could be hauled before a kangaroo court which can use a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" against you as evidence? What if that kangaroo court could get you kicked out of your job? Go and read the law Jordan Peterson is complaining about.
It is not the burden of anyone to cater to a stranger's mental illness. If you look vaguely male, I will say "excuse me sir, could I get past you?" (and "madam" for a vaguely female looking person). And there is no place where that should be illegal or morally wrong.
Deliberate misgendering is definitely a separate discussion from a genuine mistake.
Additionally, the idea that the incredibly high suicide rate is because of oppression doesn’t match up with other data at all. If this is true, why do whites commit suicide at 3 times the rate of blacks?
Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
Besides, although I said what I did to make a valid point, I mostly said it to be humorous. Sorry I did not put in the humor tags.
https://youtu.be/o_eSwq1ewsU
I'm perfectly able to be understanding in these cases, but I'm not capable to be psychic.
> I take issue with being held to a standard of somehow needing to "know" that ahead of time, and respect it, with no effort on the part of the woman in question.
I'd like to postulate that it's not just ahead of time. It's really hard to change your usage of he to she or him to her, when you are visually presented with a man. The brain doesn't easily change, so don't get mad when it doesn't change as fast as you want.
I know two trans individuals, I address them by the correct pronouns probably 80% of the time if I'm being a little kind to myself. The other 20% they've been totally understanding. Anecdotal yes but I feel like this is the vast majority of trans people; they know it's out of the ordinary and respect that, and handle the inevitable slips with social grace.
I agree that this would be an unreasonable standard. But I've yet to see that standard being applied to anyone (And I run in circles where I'm exposed to quite a bit of very outspoken trans/nonbinary rhetoric).
What I see, time and time again, is people who explicitly refuse to call someone by their preferred pronoun, whether it's on the grounds of pure petulance ("You can't make me!"), or of some biological essentialism ("HE, because Y chromosome").
So unless you have any examples of people being attacked for a single, innocent mistake, I'm inclined to see this as a strawman (straw-person?) argument.
At some point, what someone literally says they are or aren't against starts to pale in comparison to the perception of their stance. And if that perception persists, at some point, one has to call into question their sincerity.
A lack of condemnation can, not unreasonably, be construed as a tacit endorsement.
So he more or less had to create a controversy out of nothing. The great majority of people consider the question a matter of courtesy and hold no strong feelings.
This is a pretty low resolution summary of their correspondence. It’s also pretty easy to argue that his behavior is better described as refusing to play the victim. For him, the loss of his rights is more impactful than the consequences of not complying, so he refused to play a part in the quiet loss of his rights.
From my understanding, it is purely the attempt to compel behavior from him that is his issue.
Well, this is now enshrined in Canadian law, so it doesn't matter much what the great majority of people feel. It only matters how courts will interpret the law.
Well, something is enshrined in Canadian law, but the heat of the debate over whether what Peterson claims Bill C-16 does is a desirable thing for a law to do sometimes obscures the fact that people—including people who are experts in law, which Peterson is not—have challenged his characterization of what the law actually does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM
Camille is OG feminist, the real deal. Not the 3rd wave Feminists, that are lying around in the media and academia now a days.
I find this response from her hysterical:
https://twitter.com/100millionbooks/status/91309969607542784...
After watching that interview I've tried to make my body language more expressive like hers.
I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rUPatnXSE
Good video where he discusses these things in terms of political correctness.
The only way I can make some sense of it is by drawing a correspondence between postmodernism’s “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions” and marxism’s class warfare.
"Decolonize Science" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXMG7YajHA0
While postmodernism claims it rejects metanarratives, like the one in Marxism, the derived ideologies share a lot of parallels in effect. They both result in opposing groups which can't effectively talk to each other, so must coerce each other by force. (Doesn't this remind you of the Intersectional "Stack Ranking" and the "Oppression Olympics?") They both effectively result in a rejection of logic. They both effectively create their own forms of obscurantist alternative "logic." The ideological effect of both Marxism and Social Constructionism is to come up with a pretext for rejecting existing standards and tearing society apart -- one which is ideologically sealed against negotiation, logic, and adaptation to evidence.
It's still great to read but rereading I noticed at the core the same oppression narrative that seems to appear out of all postmodern discourse at some point and which JBP associates with Marxism. Here the programmer is oppressed by stuck up programming languages, Perl reverses the roles and is happy to be like a butler/slave. Which is fine for a programming language, but offers problems when reversing the oppressor/oppressed roles is the only solution you can think of, the only interpretation you wish to dwell on however flimsy the interpretation is (which seems to be where postmodernism went wrong / taken over by Marxists), and each side involves real people.
That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just change the language.
Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).
So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed.
This, anyway, is the line of thinking, though it isn't my own view of the world. To say that everything is linguistic seems unlikely. When I was in grad school in English (note: don't do this: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befo... ) and would hear this argument, I liked to observe that everyone, given the choice between getting punched in the face or having someone say something mean to them, chooses the latter. This would seem to me to argue that not everything can be reduced to language, even apart from all the other very good and obvious-seeming arguments along those lines.
> Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed."
Those aren't really separate stands, the latter is a consequence of the former: if language (or, rather, beliefs which is transmitted between people by language) is the defining factor in reality, then the ultimately meaningful differentiation between people is whether they are influential in shaping belief (powerful) or not (powerless).
It's also directly contrary to the central theme of Marxism, which makes the association of these particular postmodernist viewpoints with Marxism bizarre. (Certainly, there are people who moved from Marxism to this kind of postmodernism, just like there are people who have moved from Marxism to capitalism or from Marxism to democratic socialism or from Trotskyism to neoconservatism.
And yet, activists who claim to be Marxist seem to be very well aligned with others who claim postmodernist derived ideologies.
Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his most vocal enemies.
He sounds like a hardcore libertarian but I think it's a smokescreen for ideologically-driven oppression under another name.
(Not necessarily saying Peterson is a fascist or a racist, but that's a separate question.)
> Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).
> So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed.
Same thing applies here. Take note of who is applying these -ist labels, and who they are being applied to: anyone in the outgroup.
I would be floored to discover if the majority of these strawmen "fascists" and "racists" are a collective by any definition other than "not on board with the cause."
Because they aren't very bright and also don’t pay attention when he tell them how stupid their ideology is?
He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.
And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
If you don't use my 'floop' pronoun you're an asshole and a bigot, just apologize to me and I will forgive you.
In all seriousness, I have no issue with people who want to be referred to by traditional pronouns that they choose for themselves. I do have an issue when people make up pronouns and demand that you use them, and if you don't use them then it makes you a bigot and an asshole (as you mention yourself). There are enough difficulties in remembering things as it is, why do I need to remember what made up pronoun you want me to use?
You don't need to. You can choose to or not to. And they can choose to think you're an asshole. That's their choice.
You can't control what they think of you just as they can't control what you call them.
If the "floop" thing is just wantonly imposing your will over how others speak, then the pendulum has swung the other way: you're now falling afoul of "don't be an asshole".
If you're demanding to be called a floop when you don't see yourself as a floop, just so you can mock those who don't call you floop as an ironic metaphor for people who are actually serious about their pronouns, then you're not a floop. You're an asshole.
And trust me as someone who has a lot of friends with unusual gender identities - if you're sincere, they won't be calling you an asshole and a bigot when you sometimes screw up, because they know you're trying, and they know it's hard. It's refusal that gets you called out, not accidents.
"Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time. These things come about through consensus and if there isn't some consensus that that's the way things are, then those attempting to impose new norms are ironically also "being assholes."
When you have moral society in recent decades changing very rapidly in terms of what is being considered acceptable or not (whether or not you consider that positive progress), it's going to feel like whiplash to people who are not on the vanguard of the latest new definition of what's acceptable. People say, "Wait a second, I was taught to be a decent person, I think I'm a decent person -- who are these people telling me that I'm now a hateful person for doing or not doing what seemed reasonable up until a couple years ago? Do the people telling me this have moral authority in my eyes?"
Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.
Yeah, it's hard for us. Hell, I'm 52. I have a lot of adjustment to do. But I try to do it, because I respect my friends. (Patton Oswald did a really excellent speech about this, btw.)
For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being asked to be nice to others. So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he's being oppressed by the evil forces of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use preferred pronouns... I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he's a victim. And when he doubles down and says people shouldn't get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then he's a hypocrite. And an asshole.
But you've never heard that. You've only heard him reject being coerced to do that. He's even on the record as saying he's fine with addressing people as they'd like to be addressed, so long as it's all done civilly. What you're doing is projecting a caricatured position onto him.
For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being asked to be nice to others.
A law that empowers kangaroo courts isn't "simply asking nice." A law that empowers those courts to use an unscientific "unconscious bias" test that claims to get into your head isn't "simply asking nice." A law that can result in dismissal from your job isn't "simply asking nice."
I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he's a victim.
He doesn't claim he's a victim. What he claims is that the law is a potential abridgement of freedom. You could make a claim that Lindsey Shepherd claims to be a "victim" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFUvfAvKs4 -- but then you'd be presenting evidence that Dr. Peterson's assertions about the law are correct.
And when he doubles down and says people shouldn't get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then he's a hypocrite. And an asshole.
A coworker at my work announced her transition, and everyone just started using the feminine pronoun. Everyone was civil about it, and everything was fine. (And I am certain that she was happier and a more vibrant and complete person for making the change.) Again, you are misrepresenting his position. More accurately, a person exists within society (and hopefully a community) and identity is something which is effectively negotiated between the person and society. It's the parties who are being emotionally dishonest, playing games with emotional blackmail, and being crappy people who are "being assholes." From where I'm sitting, it's a lot of emotionally imbalanced trans "activists" who fit that description. Jordan Peterson gets mail from trans people, the majority of whom are supporters or sympathetic to him. Their collective position is that they just want to not be singled out and live their lives in peace.
I'd like to underline this statement. Making this into a law that will impact employment, sentencing, etc., is not a polite request. It's the power of the state. When that involves a certain way of speaking, or thinking, a lot of us civil libertarian types get very uneasy, regardless of the merits of the issue at hand.
My actual godddamned POINT is that, whatever the logical merits of Peterson's position coming from him, the practical effect is for a hundred thousand red-pill assholes to share excerpted clips around, and thinking it means that a wise philosopher agrees with their joy in being mean to people over their gender identity.
The solution is to have reasoned dialogue. If you follow Peterson's message, he seems to have explicitly decided to minister to lost young clueless right-wing men, by urging them to clean their rooms, and live worthwhile, responsible lives. In fact, I remember the video where he talks about becoming aware that so many of his followers were effectively Alt-Right, and seeing him hesitate, then say he didn't know what to make of that.
He also talks about the mechanisms by which a crowd can suborn a speaker, so I think he's actively fighting against that.
thinking it means that a wise philosopher agrees with their joy in being mean to people over their gender identity
It seems to me that a lot of people did exactly that, coming from the far Left, in the name of Intersectionality. It was also done with racial identity. (Google "Feminist Cringe" & "Dartmouth College Library Activists")
Which in no way means intersectionality is a Bad Idea. Intersectionality is a major advance in the understanding of oppression.
I hope Peterson can actually wake up some of his red-pill followers, and do more harm than good in the long run. But for now, he really needs to apply that intellect to dealing with something he wasn't ever prepared to deal with - being a symbol of intellectual authority to a movement that stands for things he no doubt despises.
Freudian slip? As George Orwell noted in Road to Wiggan Pier, leftists often don't so much as love the poor, but hate the rich.
But for now, he really needs to apply that intellect to dealing with something he wasn't ever prepared to deal with - being a symbol of intellectual authority to a movement that stands for things he no doubt despises.
For one thing, I can imagine him basically paraphrasing that sentence. How come I don't often hear anything like that kind of introspection coming from the left about the depredations of unbalanced followers? When it does come, why is it that others on the Far Left then try to kick them out of the Left? Then too, I hear and read things like, "It's okay to hate your oppressors." I think I know what it means when people start to say it's okay to hate on a group of people based on outward and inherent characteristics. I grew up being on the receiving end of that.
And I'm quite sure he'd agree with my assessment here.
No. It's one thing to advocate that everyone should be nice and say "hello." It's an entirely different thing to advocate for a law that says you will be dragged before a kangaroo court for failing to say "hello," where a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" will be used as evidence of your guilt. Either your bias is showing, or you're missing the distinction.
So in Peterson's worldview, the difference between being asked to use ze and zim by someone, and sending Solzhenitsyn to a Siberian death camp, is merely a matter of degree, not of kind.
If you study the detailed legal history of the Weimar Republic, then you'd be prone to agree. The Nazis didn't have to change the Weimar laws a whole lot, because the Left-leaning Weimar republic left loopholes in the law that basically amounted to, "...unless the state deems it for the common good."
If you let "activists" erode due process and create "crimes" of "unconscious bias," then you are creating legal means for people to engage in the sorts of accusations which sent people to the Gulag. The Magna Carta and particularly Habeas Corpus came about because laws which were about one thing were abused out of poltical expedience.
And it's yet another thing to criticize a law for saying that when, in fact, the law says nothing of the sort.
To your point, failing to accommodate this, and expecting everyone to immediately change because you have, is its own flavor of "being an asshole."
Q: WHAT DO I SAY TO MY SON'S GAY FRIEND BOB'S LOVER AT MY SON'S WEDDING???
A: How do you do? My name's Judith.
https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=21m39s
23m16s is where he states he would use preferred pronouns.
And yet, a hundred thousand assholes gleefully share the video clip of him getting in the face of someone confronting him about pronouns, him talking about how it's oppressive, and they take it as the intellectual seal of approval for their refusal to use preferred pronouns, based on their contempt for those who ask for it.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Would you consider writing what someone has specifically done wrong, rather than the insult? It’d be more clear, and we wouldn’t need to guess whether your overall assessment of people is reliable.
So imagine the typical college professor. They've got what? Three or four classes of up to 50 or 60 students?
So you want them remember not only each student's name, but also which of these new pronoun class they prefer, as well as the proper declination of that pronoun class?
And if someone prefers not to do this, it's because they're an asshole?
My guess is that Peterson would have been happy to try to use preferred pronouns for his students, if only he weren't being forced to do so by some human rights act about pronouns and coerced by various activists groups. He's basically said as much before.
For the record, I'm in favor of most transgender rights issues (re: employment, anti-violence, identity documents, etc). But you can't go passing laws to force changes in attitude. US lawmakers did the right thing by passing civil rights laws in the 1960s, but those lawmakers didn't then go and outlaw the use of the n-word. That would have been a bridge too far. People have to learn from those around them what is and isn't appropriate. You can't just force them to think and speak the way you want by force of law.
Or at least, we don't typically try to do that in free societies.
1. http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/
We're not talking about 200 students in this case. We're talking about one on one conversation with one person. That's when pronouns matter.
Being unhappy about coercive regulation is an entirely separate issue from trying to do the decent and not terribly difficult thing. And using the coercion as justification for not doing it is, bluntly, an excuse. It's turning around and claiming yourself the victim of what you do to others.
Professors never engage in one-on-one conversation with their students? And they never refer to their students in the third-person within the classroom?
> And using the coercion as justification for not doing it is, bluntly, an excuse. It's turning around and claiming yourself the victim of what you do to others.
I don't think Peterson sees himself as a victim, at all. I think he's alarmed and outraged that proscriptive laws governing his speech have been passed. And as an American who's pretty happy with our 1st amendment, I agree with him.
I mean, forget for a moment that this is concerning transgender rights. If a country like Canada continues to outlaw certain ways of speaking, at what point would that concern you? Or would it ever?
Just because he doesn't use the word "oppression" in that context doesn't mean it isn't his broad meaning. Coercion and oppression are more or less interchangeable.
AFAIK, he does use preferred pronouns.
Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.
If one is faced with oppressive ideologues who refuse to engage in dialogue and just want to coerce you, the proper response is to stand up to them.
He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
I genuinely think that the critiques of Postmodern Social Construction are thoughtful and interesting. I also think they provide intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism, dressed up as "activism."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj28qAS8MWU
Let me ask you, do you think requests for preferred pronouns are rooted in a correct understanding of human nature? Or are you merely accommodating something you believe to be mistaken so as to not hurt someone who likely be (on net) hurt by a more honest approach?
I'm utterly shocked (not really) how many people proudly wave a flag of liberty, but are quite content for society to denounce and punish harmless individual expression, if they aren't comfortable with that expression.
That's actually not true and not workable. A very obvious example is a criminal who identifies as a good, upstanding person.
IMHO there are actually two kinds of identity (at least). They are separate things, but related and often confused.
1. Self-identity: the identity that someone applies to themselves based on their own thoughts and aspirations. This is very closely related to one's inner life. This is the identity that you're referring to above.
2. Applied-identity (for lack of a better term): the identity that each person applies to someone else based on their own thoughts, beliefs, and experiences with that person. Someone's reputation is an example.
If you try to force everyone's applied-identity of you to conform with your self-identity, that's also a form of oppression. What and how they think of you is their own business.
My question was whether you think such identity claims are true.
Now maybe you don't think it matters, and that we should use preferred pronouns regardless. But at that point you are saying that people should lie for the sake of politeness. The request isn't just "Please don't say that"; it's "Please say this other thing even if you don't believe it's true".
But I think I disagree with your third paragraph. People who have thoughtful, interesting things to say should say them. (They should also take care to specify what they don't mean, to discredit "followers" who run off in bad directions. Or else, if they agree with those followers, non-followers will conclude that the bad directions taint the thoughtful and interesting things.)
And even then, people will hear what they want to hear. However carefully Peterson speaks his thoughts on this manner, there will still be a lot of people who now think it's the intellectual thing to do to beat up a dude in a dress. Which makes speaking one's mind, however truthfully, an ethical dilemma.
This is the hole below the waterline in the sinking ship of radical honesty. This is why "Don't be an asshole" is more complicated than it sounds.
I kind of hate to beat on Peterson too hard for this, though. He's suddenly acquired a large and unexpected following that he didn't actively pursue. But he needs to deal with the ugly reality of what kind of people make up the bulk of that following, and how his words and ideas affect them. It's an ongoing learning experience.
You can make it harder for them. But you can't stop them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA
Many people see him as an enemy because of his conservative viewpoints. His most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.
Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.
> Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.
Seems like he has no love for the alt-right:
> But when [Peterson has] been lumped in with what’s come to be called the alt-right, as happens fairly regularly, Peterson has pushed back, calling it "seriously wrong." The erstwhile socialist considers himself a classic British liberal, and he has castigated the far right for engaging in the "pathology of racial pride."
Well, given that Peterson has repeatedly pissed them off by saying that ethnic nationalism is an idiotic ideology (I'm paraphrasing), I'm not sure how many of those followers he now has left.
He definitely has a very vocal cult-like following among a certain type of young adult. While they can be annoying, they're not typically the fascist/racist type. Far from it.
I forget if it was this article or the interview (the two of which constitute my entire familiarity with the man, so I'm not strongly for or against him), but he makes the point that he has had many letters from left and right extremists who have reported that Peterson's teachings have moved them to the center. So my inner optimist would like to believe that his far right (and left) fans are in flux, mwaning it's socially ideal for these people to be in the ranks of his "followers". Although the notion of a philosopher with followers does sort of creep me out, rightly or wrongly.
It's interesting to note that Chomsky was at a point also targeted by the postmodern "left", when he defended free speech.
One thing I think Peterson could do better (though I imagine he wouldn't do this purely on principle, if he was even capable) is adapting his speech and rhetoric to meet his target audience. He was answering her questions in a calm and well-meaning manner, but just the tone and vocabulary of his explanations was going completely over her head, making her draw the wrong conclusions from what he was saying. That is, assuming that she wasn't trying to be combative on purpose.
But is JP really the one who is controversial and polarizing?
- JP is against the Pomo stuff that passes for scholarship now a days. https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en
- We have professors university calling for violence against his political opponents. http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-professor...
- We had a Antifa professor who nearly killed a guy hitting someone with a heavy bike lock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg (WARNING: GRAPHIC)
Is JP really the one who is polarizing and extreme here? The left academic really dropped the ball not pointing out their own dirty laundry and cleaning out their own cesspool of fake academics and violent thugs.
He is controversial and polarizing: many people hate him and many people love him.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes/ are kind of cultish. It's a very ironic cult, but a bit of a cult nonetheless.
Mine was The Road Less Traveled, by I Forgot--Actually M. Scott Peck. It was written by a M--edical Dr. so it carried weight at the time. It started off with, "Life is hard." Yes--it is, so why not apply yourself in life/school/career? How do you argue with that?
It was also filled with stuff that fits perfectly with a upper middle class white family. Oh yea, and God. Can't leave out God when your making obscene amounts of money.
(The first month he received $600, which was enough to help purchase better equipment to film his lectures. But the amount kept growing and, at last count, topped $60,000 per month (Peterson now keeps the amount he’s raising private)
Anyhoo--my advice is get through life without busting a mental gasket. Yes, I had a breakdown in my twenties, and gave never been the same. My only sense that stayed in tack was indentifing charlatans, and filthy greedy Lookers. I don't care what this guy is spouting. It sounds like a rail against the status quo--which will evolve on it's own--in most cases.
Our rights our being stomped on by the wealthy, and we are reading about some old fool who objects to gender pronouns?
Now--that's crazy.
1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures. But if you don’t „follow“ and instead analyze what he is saying and how he forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less conclusive.
2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)
3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.
2. and 3. put his followers in a depressed state where he can uplift them with 1. No wonder he has a sect like following.
His conservative debates are more to the point but I‘m not sure if it is not just advertising for his „religious lectures“.
That’s what I find dangerous about him.
I’m sure he does help some of his followers. But I doubt that most of his followers profit long term from him. At some point they should move on for their own good.
Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language and to use metaphors. Also, they advise you to throw in sentiments to which your audience will agree.
2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)
Do you actually think he says that life is only suffering? Sorry, but that seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of his views. What evidence do you have that Dr. Peterson is anti-joy? Here's an exercise: find evidence in what he says that shows he values joy.
3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.
Let's go right for the most disturbing: The Gulag Archipelago. It's disturbing as an indictment of the worst human beings can do, while those same people are spouting the most positive sounding utopian ideology. It's not going to depress anyone in the West, unless they have already tied up their identity and self worth in a similar ideology.
As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life -- strikes me as a worthwhile and positive message.
So intellectual pop chords and power riffs...
As for the quasi-alt-right flirtation a while back I started calling a lot of that stuff "intellectual edgelording." Some on the left are guilty of it too, but the far right has really mastered it.
2. Fair enough. I shall try if I ever hear his stuff again. With all the metaphors flying around it shouldn’t be to difficult. But can you point out where he says it’s so great to be alive?
3. If you call „I survived the gulag where thousands perished“ as a silver lining you must have a pretty grim world view.
You agree that the Gulag Archipelago is not a relevant reference point to 95% of his western audience. If you don’t find it depressing you must have a very strong character, I would assume a good portion gets depressed (in mood; clinical depression is out of my judgment).
In that they are public speaking and they are not a thesis. They are public speaking, and those aren't logical and conclusive. The point you're trying to make could only stand if all the speakers you like and feel represent your world view have 100% logically rigorous speeches.
But can you point out where he says it’s so great to be alive?
I don't need to, to refute your silly assertion that he's somehow anti-happiness. None of these videos are direct statements about joy, because they are from talks where he is making an entirely differnt point, but it's clear that he's like any human being who thinks children are wonderful, and likes to have fun and laugh.
Talking about the potential of children, and of a pristine relationship with one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg9TY8uwaSY
Humor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyWwuv1UkRg
Stoner Comics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jisfAwMOhrQ
3. If you call „I survived the gulag where thousands perished“ as a silver lining you must have a pretty grim world view.
Again, not what I said. You said that he put forward books to depress his audience. That's obviously not true. The Gulag Archipelago is meant to alarm and meant to make a personal, emotional connection to the magnitude of the possible evil of such flowery sounding utopian ideologies.
If you don’t find it depressing you must have a very strong character
Or, one could be sure that one is in opposition to such ideologies. My father's older brother disappeared due to one regime with a collectivist ideology. My family here in the US is only here because the US military defended their lives from another regime with a collectivist ideology. Why should The Gulag Archipelago make anyone depressed, as opposed to angry? As opposed to resolute in the opposition of disguised evil?
I can only imagine it makes someone depressed if they identify with such an ideology.
What's more, I explicitly cite Dr. Peterson's message, "As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life," as a silver lining. I find it problematic that you ignore that and try to stuff a different position in my mouth above.
But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. There are problems with it, and it deserves to be criticized (Peterson would be the first to agree). There are also profound insights that can help elevate your thinking if you can incorporate them. Lots of people don't have the intellectual background or ability to do so. But everyone can form a 2 second hot take on one of his more recent controversial statements, so that is what gets discussed.
You can think of Jordan Peterson as going just a bit farther than Sam Harris, when Sam Harris says that we should learn from religion by practicing things like meditation. Jordan Peterson comes from the position that things like myth and religion co-evolved with human beings and human society. Even if the literal epistemology of religion and myth is dead wrong on the conscious/rational/scientific level, it still contains insights into the nature of human beings' self regulation because of that co-evolution. Often, these things operate at below the level of consciousness, as we would expect such things to, given that they co-evolved with us from a time before sentient consciousness.
I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.
I definitely get frustrated when I hear people on the left call him dangerous. I feel like these aren't even "alt" left people either, it sounds like they are largely plain old liberals who never heard of him, and blindly toss him in with the like of Steve Bannon.
I think he did pander a bit, but then realized how far to the right many of those followers were, so drew a clear line in the sand that pissed off and alienated all the fascists and racists (something about ethnic nationalism being an "idiotic ideology" or words to that effect). Peterson is no alt rightist.
However, if you look at places like /r/JordanPeterson, most of his followers were more alienated centrist and liberals than the alt rightists even before he made clear exactly how he felt about the far right/alt right.
His series on the Bible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&index=1&list=PL2...
is generally regarded (by those I know, at least) as Jordan at his best. He goes through the first few stories in the Bible and tries to bring meaning to them, not from the fundamental Christian lens of "this is absolute truth," but more like:
"Here are some archetypal patterns about the world and how to act in it that our ancestors have discovered over thousands of years and distilled into stories. Maybe they hold truth that isn't the 'word of God' truth, but observations about the world that have utility to us even as a modern, rational, scientific civilization. I'll back this up by tying it to studies on psychology, neuroscience, evolution, and animal behavior, and show that variations of the same archetypal stories appear in non-Judeo-Christian societies all over the world."
You can be a hardline atheist and still get tons of value out of these lectures.
I also found his 2017 Maps of Meaning lectures particularly interesting, and personally more relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Xc2_FtpHI
He does a similar thing with the story of Pinocchio instead of the Bible for the first few lectures, which might be more palatable for some. There's a lot of overlap with the Bible series as well.
Anyway, his lectures for psychology students on youtube are quite nice to listen, even though I find it problematic how often he treats hard facts off-handedly to speak in favor of his overall narrative. I wonder if there are more courses (especially on non-technical subjects) of the same quality freely available on youtube.