Jordan Peterson Destroys a Feminist Thirty Years Later

Submitted by Bluesee on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 11:22pm

This is another email to my brother. Background: I can't debate him at all, hate it, don't want to, but I allowed my beloved brother an opening: I told him I am listening to this guy JP on the Joe Rogan Experience podcasts, and he sounds reasonable in his arguments - on the JRE podcast! But put him in a different element and he unleashes what to me is unreasonable argument. See below. I'd like to hear your honest opinions of this guy. THANKS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofmuCXRMoSA&t=3411s
YouTube video of an angry white guy speaking to younger angry white guys about why the concept of white privilege is bunk.

I googled Peggy McIntosh and found this.
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-origins-of-privilege

Well, she seems to lay out the parameters of her approach to feminism and what drove her to write the 46 points of White Privilege. This passage in the link is telling:

I noticed that, three years in a row, men and women in the seminar who had been real colleagues and friends for the first several months had a kind of intellectual and emotional falling out. There was an uncomfortable feeling at the end of those three years. I decided to go back through all my notes, and I found that at a certain point the women would ask, “Couldn’t we get these materials on women into the freshman courses?” And, to a person, the men would say, “Well, we’re sorry, we love this seminar, but the fact is that the syllabus is full.” One year, a man said—I wrote it down—“When you are trying to lay the foundation blocks of knowledge, you can’t put in the soft stuff.”

The thing was, he was a very nice man. All the men who attended the seminars were very nice men—also quite brave men, because they’d catch flak on their campuses for going to a women’s college to do a feminist seminar. And I found myself going back and forth in my mind over the question, Are these nice men, or are they oppressive? I thought I had to choose. It hadn’t occurred to me that you could be both. And I was rescued from this dilemma by remembering that, about six years earlier, black women in the Boston area had written essays to the effect that white women were oppressive to work with. I remember back to what it had been like to read those essays. My first response was to say, “I don’t see how they can say that about us—I think we’re nice!” And my second response was deeply racist, but this is where I was in 1980. I thought, I especially think we’re nice if we work with them.

In other words, nice men can still condescend and doubt a womans' worth unconsciously. Men, living in a man's world (don't need to add the word white), are Taught things at a very young age that aren't necessarily true. Remember the above passage happened in '88. We need to re-consider our attitudes toward women. The point McIntosh is making is quite reasonable, even from a behavioral perspective; i.e., a behavioral scientist would ordinarily be interested in what PM is saying, metrics notwithstanding. This can be creditable qualitative observation, and useful when pondering the problem.

So we take JP's discourse and deconstruct it:

He dissects some of the points. "Methodological critiques", he says at 57:31 (with JP you can’t let a single iota slip by). Here is what a Methodological critique is:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01802358

Methodological criticism may be defined as the critique of scientific practice in the light of methodological principles, and critical methodology as the study of proper methods of criticism; the problem is that of the interaction between the scientific methods which give methodological criticism its methodological character and the critical methods which give it its character of criticism. These ideas and this problem are illustrated by an examination of Karl Popper's critique of Marxian social science. It is argued that though Popper's favorable articulations of Marx are valuable, his unfavorable criticism is invalid, the grounds of my argument being certain ideas in critical methodology relating to the distinctions between theory and practice, between inaccurate and invalid criticism, and between the justification of favorable criticism and the justification of unfavorable criticism.

I love long-form explorations into these topics, and I have listened to at least four hours (ED: probably 6 or more) of discussion between JP and Joe Rogan, sometimes with Bret Weinstein. I want to get a few things straight

- JP is applying Methodological Critique, and I admit that I don't know what that is, but he is attacking it in a traditional manner, treating it (I suppose) like a psychology paper, which it may be, but it may be unwarranted as the points she made are equally as observational as they are scientifically verifiable

- JP is more pissed off at the communists of the Bolshevik Revolution than he is at liberals, and I don't want to get into the specifics, but he is attributing murder to Communism. That's like attributing murder (on a grand scale, to be sure) to Capitalism, isn't it? Just saying..

-Finally, You've got a guy schooling a 79-year-old woman on a tract she wrote 30 years ago, ignorant of the obvious irony of a white male screaming to a dozen (or so) other white males about how wrong a woman is at a TRUMP HOTEL, and practicing the very thing she pointed out in the article I linked, i.e., men judging women by their manly standards. I'm a fucking Scientist. I know the Scientific Method, and I am aware of many testing flaws and bad practices. None of that should be applied here. But her observations are valid sans SciMeth, IMHO.

Maybe JP needs a grant where he can go and show that White Privilege is a false notion, maybe he is blind to his own biases.

You are, by definition, blind to your own biases if you are unconscious of them.

Tags:

JordanPeterson

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Bluesee on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 11:49pm

Apologies for Mindless Editing, etc

I am adding a suggestion made by a brethren of the Orange Place that I read this morning. I consider it weaksauce (the article, not the suggestion), but it is good to be skeptical of this man Peterson. I was originally frankly inspired when first introduced to these ideas, and it is time we were able to discuss them in a "safe space" (which would be a "pod cast" haha).
Here is the video that first introduced me to this guy / these guys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI

Here is the entry from jabberwoky of dkos:

Jordan Peterson needs to go somewhere quiet and knit.

I found this opinion from the guy who hired him at U of T quite interesting.

I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous

Although weak, very revealing. I wonder about this guy now..

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by CB on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 1:18am

That article is a hit piece.

@Bluesee
What the fuck is this statement with following imagery trying to imply?

We should be concerned about his interest in politics. It is clear what kind of country he would want to have or, if he could, lead.

The CBC and Bernard Schiff Tried to Smear Jordan Peterson

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uploaded to YouTube recently an interview with Bernard Schiff, a former colleague of Jordan Peterson’s at the University of Toronto. The clip’s title is: “Is Jordan Peterson Dangerous?” The CBC asked Dr. Schiff on to address this question in part because Dr. Schiff is not only a former colleague but, apparently, a friend of Dr. Peterson’s. In part the CBC asked Dr. Schiff on because he recently published an article titled “I was Jordan Peterson’s Strongest Supporter. Now I Think He’s Dangerous.” The CBC’s interview and Dr. Schiff’s article both are meant as high-minded indictments of Dr. Peterson. Leaving the article aside for the time being, the interview is an object lesson in how the mainstream—the Left as well as, unfortunately, the Right—routinely contorts the character of matters and disingenuously interprets events in order to force reality into its predetermined idea of what reality should be. The irony in this instance is really too much.

Dr. Schiff’s primary argument against Dr. Peterson is not an argument at all. It is what is called an argumentum ad auctoritatem, an argument from authority. He says, in essence, “I’m also a psychologist. I know the man personally. Trust me. His science is bad, and he is dangerous.” Viewers, however, are supposed to take as evidence of Dr. Schiff’s claim a supposed trend in the stances Dr. Peterson has taken in recent months, including a stance he took in a tweet responding to Dr. Schiff’s article. Herein lies the mental sleight of hand that viewers are not supposed to notice and that, perhaps, no one involved in the production of the CBC clip did notice.
...
Next, the pièce de résistance…

Dr. Schiff has a trans “daughter,” and remember, Dr. Schiff and Dr. Peterson were not only colleagues but friends. (This means, then, that Dr. Peterson has known or has known of Dr. Schiff’s daughter for a long while.) After Dr. Schiff published his article, Dr. Peterson tweeted a link to it, and in several subsequent tweets, he defended himself against Dr. Schiff’s attacks in a rather mild and honorable way. After drawing attention to Dr. Peterson’s much-talked-about use of the phrase “enforced monogamy,” the CBC’s interviewer draws attention to the last of Dr. Peterson’s tweets in response to Dr. Schiff. Peterson wrote: “And, finally. I know Bernie to be an indefatigable advocate for his daughter, who has faced serious health problems. As someone who has been in the same situation I can truly sympathize, and presume only that my reaction to C16 cut too close to the bone.” Consider how the CBC and, indeed, Dr. Schiff next misrepresent Dr. Peterson’s tweet in order to strengthen Dr. Schiff’s claim that we should take his word for it that Peterson is dangerous:

As many people are now aware, Dr. Peterson’s notoriety began with his opposition to a piece of legislation that the Canadian government was entertaining and which it has since passed: i.e., bill C16. Bill C16 attempts to compel Canadian citizens to observe the use of the pronouns of choice of people who identify as some other being than their biological sex would indicate. According to Dr. Peterson, he was against the passage of this bill because it compels free individuals to speak, even in violation of their consciences. His detractors, of course, claim that his real motivation is transphobia.
...
This is the truth of our Orwellian media, or at least influential people within it: they convict the opponent of their political agenda of prejudice and covert language games by means of prejudice and covert language games.

Unbelievable!

I have to agree about Christian's descriptor of "Orwellian media" when it comes to the CBC. It's as bad as the BBC and MSNBC.

Here's the backgrounder which explains the "church" Peterson wanted to start.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnLPxPlDetk]

Submitted by k9disc on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 11:00am

Peterson's Science IS Bad. Like REALLY Bad.

He claimed that the intertwined snakes of Chinese iconography were actually a representation of the DNA double helix. Not realizing that intertwined snakes are mating.

He says what weak, selfish white males want to hear. "Man up, Bitch!" when it comes to gays, the poor, and minorities – any leveling spirit or benefit of the doubt is cultural marxism. Unless you're an incel, in which case you should get some cultural assistance in getting laid.
@CB

#1 What the fuck is this statement with following imagery trying to imply? We should be concerned about his interest in politics. It is clear what kind of country he would want to have or, if he could, lead. The CBC and Bernard Schiff Tried to Smear Jordan Peterson The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uploaded to YouTube recently an interview with Bernard Schiff, a former colleague of Jordan Peterson’s at the University of Toronto. The clip’s title is: “Is Jordan Peterson Dangerous?” The CBC asked Dr. Schiff on to address this question in part because Dr. Schiff is not only a former colleague but, apparently, a friend of Dr. Peterson’s. In part the CBC asked Dr. Schiff on because he recently published an article titled “I was Jordan Peterson’s Strongest Supporter. Now I Think He’s Dangerous.” The CBC’s interview and Dr. Schiff’s article both are meant as high-minded indictments of Dr. Peterson. Leaving the article aside for the time being, the interview is an object lesson in how the mainstream—the Left as well as, unfortunately, the Right—routinely contorts the character of matters and disingenuously interprets events in order to force reality into its predetermined idea of what reality should be. The irony in this instance is really too much. Dr. Schiff’s primary argument against Dr. Peterson is not an argument at all. It is what is called an argumentum ad auctoritatem, an argument from authority. He says, in essence, “I’m also a psychologist. I know the man personally. Trust me. His science is bad, and he is dangerous.” Viewers, however, are supposed to take as evidence of Dr. Schiff’s claim a supposed trend in the stances Dr. Peterson has taken in recent months, including a stance he took in a tweet responding to Dr. Schiff’s article. Herein lies the mental sleight of hand that viewers are not supposed to notice and that, perhaps, no one involved in the production of the CBC clip did notice. ... Next, the pièce de résistance… Dr. Schiff has a trans “daughter,” and remember, Dr. Schiff and Dr. Peterson were not only colleagues but friends. (This means, then, that Dr. Peterson has known or has known of Dr. Schiff’s daughter for a long while.) After Dr. Schiff published his article, Dr. Peterson tweeted a link to it, and in several subsequent tweets, he defended himself against Dr. Schiff’s attacks in a rather mild and honorable way. After drawing attention to Dr. Peterson’s much-talked-about use of the phrase “enforced monogamy,” the CBC’s interviewer draws attention to the last of Dr. Peterson’s tweets in response to Dr. Schiff. Peterson wrote: “And, finally. I know Bernie to be an indefatigable advocate for his daughter, who has faced serious health problems. As someone who has been in the same situation I can truly sympathize, and presume only that my reaction to C16 cut too close to the bone.” Consider how the CBC and, indeed, Dr. Schiff next misrepresent Dr. Peterson’s tweet in order to strengthen Dr. Schiff’s claim that we should take his word for it that Peterson is dangerous: As many people are now aware, Dr. Peterson’s notoriety began with his opposition to a piece of legislation that the Canadian government was entertaining and which it has since passed: i.e., bill C16. Bill C16 attempts to compel Canadian citizens to observe the use of the pronouns of choice of people who identify as some other being than their biological sex would indicate. According to Dr. Peterson, he was against the passage of this bill because it compels free individuals to speak, even in violation of their consciences. His detractors, of course, claim that his real motivation is transphobia. ... This is the truth of our Orwellian media, or at least influential people within it: they convict the opponent of their political agenda of prejudice and covert language games by means of prejudice and covert language games. Unbelievable! I have to agree about Christian's descriptor of "Orwellian media" when it comes to the CBC. It's as bad as the BBC and MSNBC. Here's the backgrounder which explains the "church" Peterson wanted to start. [video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnLPxPlDetk]

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by CB on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 12:34pm

Peterson is not an engineer

@k9disc
or a mathematician. He doesn't hold a mechanistic world view. He is a philosopher/psychologist who's logos of the human condition seems to resonate with a very large number of people, male and female, from both the right and left of the political spectrum.

Here he puts his comments on the double helix in context:

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8545&v=Ifi5KkXig3s]

I think he is great - just for the fact of stirring the pot. He certainly has struck a few tender spots. He gets attacked from both the left and the right so he must be doing something right - hehehehe.

PS. I also disagree with some of his views.

Submitted by Bluesee on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 10:20pm

Barriers to Open Discussion

@k9disc What he says wrspt sexuality doesn't seem too controversial to me, I interpret it to mean that the institution of marriage being one man / one woman, as implemented in a society would tend to stabilize it, as opposed to other, less equitable forms. It does promote better social structure and lends itself to being conducive to raising kids, etc..

Mostly he makes me think, and that's a good thing. But some people took that ball and ran it as far as they could with the incel angle. I get it. Life isn't fair, but without the incel angle I can understand the statement "marriage and families lead to stable, more equitable societies", but I didn't read his statement as "we'd better give these maniacs some single women, ignoring the ladies' screams of protest, or the incels will go on rampages". I think you've gotta be pretty stupid (or corrupt) to act like that's what he meant. But there goes another barrier to open dialog about these difficult topics.

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by k9disc on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 5:10am

I Agree With It Too, and Even See It as He Does.

But he is completely obtuse as to how his "leveling spirit" and sexual egalitarianism belies his blistering attack on all things he is not.

Leveling the playing field on sex and the family is super important. But leveling the field on the economic or social justice front is the devil.

As if families and children are not harmed by the poverty and war that capitalism and "freemarkets" are based on.

He is a demagogue.

I, too, like the symbolism of the snakes and the double helix. But that does not mean I would teach it as a fact when I don't understand the culture. What if I said,"Hey man, check out those 2 snakes all wrapped up. That means DNA." It is one thing to say this and think this, but to say it with with the objective clarity of science or the authority of an intellectual in the educational sense?

That would be a bit strange, I think. And if I jumped your shit when you said,"Nah, it's just snakes mating," instead of acknowledging that it was simply an interesting analogy that came to mind.

He speaks with nearly ultimate authority on shit he has no clue on. His feelings are truth. His knowledge of the mind is the way it is. Anything else is cultural marxism.

And I do hold zero respect for the reduction of the human condition to identity politics. He is talking about a topic that IS important but he's grandstanding and bullshitting with it.

@Bluesee

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by Bluesee on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 12:11pm

Sorting through it All

@k9disc I agree with your assessment of his authoritarianism. I think he does have an ax to grind, and I do agree he uses big words to impress sometimes. He has identified a problem with the left, and this Dominance vs. Competence hierarchies discussion is worthwhile.

Humans are complex, and this guy is no exception!

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by Bluesee on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 10:08pm

Thanks, I Read with Suspicion, it was Weird

@CB Haha, pepe the frog is on the screen behind him in the still, but not in the playing. That is funny shit right there!!

If he disappears, just hit f5 and he will come back.

#1 What the fuck is this statement with following imagery trying to imply? We should be concerned about his interest in politics. It is clear what kind of country he would want to have or, if he could, lead. The CBC and Bernard Schiff Tried to Smear Jordan Peterson The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uploaded to YouTube recently an interview with Bernard Schiff, a former colleague of Jordan Peterson’s at the University of Toronto. The clip’s title is: “Is Jordan Peterson Dangerous?” The CBC asked Dr. Schiff on to address this question in part because Dr. Schiff is not only a former colleague but, apparently, a friend of Dr. Peterson’s. In part the CBC asked Dr. Schiff on because he recently published an article titled “I was Jordan Peterson’s Strongest Supporter. Now I Think He’s Dangerous.” The CBC’s interview and Dr. Schiff’s article both are meant as high-minded indictments of Dr. Peterson. Leaving the article aside for the time being, the interview is an object lesson in how the mainstream—the Left as well as, unfortunately, the Right—routinely contorts the character of matters and disingenuously interprets events in order to force reality into its predetermined idea of what reality should be. The irony in this instance is really too much. Dr. Schiff’s primary argument against Dr. Peterson is not an argument at all. It is what is called an argumentum ad auctoritatem, an argument from authority. He says, in essence, “I’m also a psychologist. I know the man personally. Trust me. His science is bad, and he is dangerous.” Viewers, however, are supposed to take as evidence of Dr. Schiff’s claim a supposed trend in the stances Dr. Peterson has taken in recent months, including a stance he took in a tweet responding to Dr. Schiff’s article. Herein lies the mental sleight of hand that viewers are not supposed to notice and that, perhaps, no one involved in the production of the CBC clip did notice. ... Next, the pièce de résistance… Dr. Schiff has a trans “daughter,” and remember, Dr. Schiff and Dr. Peterson were not only colleagues but friends. (This means, then, that Dr. Peterson has known or has known of Dr. Schiff’s daughter for a long while.) After Dr. Schiff published his article, Dr. Peterson tweeted a link to it, and in several subsequent tweets, he defended himself against Dr. Schiff’s attacks in a rather mild and honorable way. After drawing attention to Dr. Peterson’s much-talked-about use of the phrase “enforced monogamy,” the CBC’s interviewer draws attention to the last of Dr. Peterson’s tweets in response to Dr. Schiff. Peterson wrote: “And, finally. I know Bernie to be an indefatigable advocate for his daughter, who has faced serious health problems. As someone who has been in the same situation I can truly sympathize, and presume only that my reaction to C16 cut too close to the bone.” Consider how the CBC and, indeed, Dr. Schiff next misrepresent Dr. Peterson’s tweet in order to strengthen Dr. Schiff’s claim that we should take his word for it that Peterson is dangerous: As many people are now aware, Dr. Peterson’s notoriety began with his opposition to a piece of legislation that the Canadian government was entertaining and which it has since passed: i.e., bill C16. Bill C16 attempts to compel Canadian citizens to observe the use of the pronouns of choice of people who identify as some other being than their biological sex would indicate. According to Dr. Peterson, he was against the passage of this bill because it compels free individuals to speak, even in violation of their consciences. His detractors, of course, claim that his real motivation is transphobia. ... This is the truth of our Orwellian media, or at least influential people within it: they convict the opponent of their political agenda of prejudice and covert language games by means of prejudice and covert language games. Unbelievable! I have to agree about Christian's descriptor of "Orwellian media" when it comes to the CBC. It's as bad as the BBC and MSNBC. Here's the backgrounder which explains the "church" Peterson wanted to start. [video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnLPxPlDetk]

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by Bluesee on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 1:04am

Notes I Made Before Quitting (I had seen it before)

12:21 "Tyranny is the endgame of prosperity" BW
13:23 tic toc tic toc "you are getting sleepy..." I chose to turn the vid off here..
13:40 at this point I learned a good lesson. Don't hate ever.
I bought his book.

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by Centaurea on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 5:34am

I've never heard of Jordan Peterson

I've never heard of Jordan Peterson, so after reading your post, I checked out his website and read some reviews and a discussion of his "12 Rules of Life".

Those rules are nothing new. Much of it could be described as "perennial philosophy". Maybe I'm supposed to be impressed because he's applying "methodological critique" (which to me seems a lot like "mental masturbation").

Not sure what would make Peterson or his work so important that I'd need to be skeptical of him. Are that many people being influenced by what he says?

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 6:27am

You'd be surprised.

@Centaurea He's actually pretty popular among anti-feminist and so-called rational skeptic and militant atheist circles. He hearkens back to a time where women and other 'undesireables' had no say in anything, especially on the internet and in media in general. He's even done a speaking gig for PragerU and it contains all the usual talking points one would expect from your run of the mill right-wing asshole.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by CB on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 10:44am

He has a VERY large following from the left

@The Aspie Corner
probably even larger. Have you read many of Peterson's articles or books?

On the Smearing of Jordan Peterson: On Dialogue and Listening
“Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.”

Two weeks ago, we learned that BBC historian, Dan Snow, lied to his daughters when he told them that the Spitfires were piloted by women flying combat missions during WWII in order to encourage them to “follow their dreams.” We were also told that Jordan Peterson is apparently a flaming “misogynist,” according to two writers who have chopped up quite a bit of Peterson’s words, conveniently situating his ideas into a landscape where they take pot shots at a caricature that they alone have fabricated. While Snow was the subject of light media speculation, Peterson has been held to the fire in recent months from the social justice warrior left to the feminists of all flavors, with most coming at him with rather incoherent critiques. Two men, two different approaches to sexual inequality, and this story unfolds through how their actions are differently interpreted. But I will return to this later.

Am I a fan of Peterson? This is a question I was asked on Facebook recently to which I responded that I am more interested in having an honest discussion over some of the ideas he presents and I am not at all interested in fashioning even more straw man arguments that both The New York Times and Salon have seen fit to print. Need we hate or love Peterson to engage in good faith discussions? These and other articles fail to acknowledge the breadth of social critique that Peterson is undertaking, much less understand what Peterson is actually saying. Inasmuch as people claim to be “worried” and “uncomfortable” with what Peterson ostensibly proposes, I have come across more people who haven’t actually spent any time reading or listening to Peterson and instead have relied on third-party journalistic reviews to make up their minds for them. I have also witnessed the rhetorical bludgeoning of anyone who regards any of Peterson’s commentary as useful. Like Carol Horton, who expresses her fears of speaking about Peterson in her recent Quillette piece, there are many on the left who think that Peterson should not be dismissed:

I don’t buy it. I’ve read and listened to enough Peterson to make up my own mind and that’s not how I see him at all. Rather than being forthright about this, though, I’ve tended to cower silently in my alienated corner, fearful that revealing my rejection of the stock anti-Peterson narrative will cause my progressive friends to denounce me and the social media mobs to swarm.

Predictably, the response to Peterson from many feminist circles has also largely been unimpressive as the arguments range from women mischaracterizing Peterson as a “right-winger,” a “douche,” a “stupid man’s smart person,” to an array of ad hominem, again stemming from third-hand readings of various media hit pieces. I find it interesting that this culture war is targeting Peterson, many are honing in on one man who is in no way the “mystical father figure” that Nellie Bowles crafts in her article, where Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying, among others, are espousing similar views. Why the feminist hatred of Peterson?
...
If we only had two choices of how inequality is framed by men today—that of Dan Snow lying to his daughters about World War II female pilots so they can “dream” or of Jordan Peterson who challenges the feminist boogeyman of “the Patriarchy” while elaborating the nuances of social and political structures in an attempt to move beyond the simplistic short-circuits of identity politics, I know which one I would prefer.

Identity politics is why I've left the current left.

Peterson is certainly not an atheist - more of an agnostic.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0]

Submitted by k9disc on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 11:12am

He is Quite Religious, Although It Might Be Deep Down and He

Doesn't quite realize it :
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn2tNXIvXtg](1:43 - 3:30)

His arrogance is breathtaking.
@CB

#3.1 probably even larger. Have you read many of Peterson's articles or books? On the Smearing of Jordan Peterson: On Dialogue and Listening “Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.” Two weeks ago, we learned that BBC historian, Dan Snow, lied to his daughters when he told them that the Spitfires were piloted by women flying combat missions during WWII in order to encourage them to “follow their dreams.” We were also told that Jordan Peterson is apparently a flaming “misogynist,” according to two writers who have chopped up quite a bit of Peterson’s words, conveniently situating his ideas into a landscape where they take pot shots at a caricature that they alone have fabricated. While Snow was the subject of light media speculation, Peterson has been held to the fire in recent months from the social justice warrior left to the feminists of all flavors, with most coming at him with rather incoherent critiques. Two men, two different approaches to sexual inequality, and this story unfolds through how their actions are differently interpreted. But I will return to this later. Am I a fan of Peterson? This is a question I was asked on Facebook recently to which I responded that I am more interested in having an honest discussion over some of the ideas he presents and I am not at all interested in fashioning even more straw man arguments that both The New York Times and Salon have seen fit to print. Need we hate or love Peterson to engage in good faith discussions? These and other articles fail to acknowledge the breadth of social critique that Peterson is undertaking, much less understand what Peterson is actually saying. Inasmuch as people claim to be “worried” and “uncomfortable” with what Peterson ostensibly proposes, I have come across more people who haven’t actually spent any time reading or listening to Peterson and instead have relied on third-party journalistic reviews to make up their minds for them. I have also witnessed the rhetorical bludgeoning of anyone who regards any of Peterson’s commentary as useful. Like Carol Horton, who expresses her fears of speaking about Peterson in her recent Quillette piece, there are many on the left who think that Peterson should not be dismissed: I don’t buy it. I’ve read and listened to enough Peterson to make up my own mind and that’s not how I see him at all. Rather than being forthright about this, though, I’ve tended to cower silently in my alienated corner, fearful that revealing my rejection of the stock anti-Peterson narrative will cause my progressive friends to denounce me and the social media mobs to swarm. Predictably, the response to Peterson from many feminist circles has also largely been unimpressive as the arguments range from women mischaracterizing Peterson as a “right-winger,” a “douche,” a “stupid man’s smart person,” to an array of ad hominem, again stemming from third-hand readings of various media hit pieces. I find it interesting that this culture war is targeting Peterson, many are honing in on one man who is in no way the “mystical father figure” that Nellie Bowles crafts in her article, where Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying, among others, are espousing similar views. Why the feminist hatred of Peterson? ... If we only had two choices of how inequality is framed by men today—that of Dan Snow lying to his daughters about World War II female pilots so they can “dream” or of Jordan Peterson who challenges the feminist boogeyman of “the Patriarchy” while elaborating the nuances of social and political structures in an attempt to move beyond the simplistic short-circuits of identity politics, I know which one I would prefer. Identity politics is why I've left the current left. Peterson is certainly not an atheist - more of an agnostic. [video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0]

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by CB on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 1:37pm

Yes it is....

@k9disc
Here's his views on Russia, Russia, Russia!. The guy is a rabid McCarthyist.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuB9Q1NV5Gk]

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px4IVoT5RCU]

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfiWSCsDFnA]

The guy has done dozens of anti Russia videos. In fact he now ~~doubling~~ tripling down.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=david+%22pakman%22+russia

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 11:49am

What left? Both political factions today are far-right.

@CB The only difference is one far-right faction tries to come off as less socially authoritarian. Otherwise, they agree on all else.

#3.1 probably even larger. Have you read many of Peterson's articles or books? On the Smearing of Jordan Peterson: On Dialogue and Listening “Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.” Two weeks ago, we learned that BBC historian, Dan Snow, lied to his daughters when he told them that the Spitfires were piloted by women flying combat missions during WWII in order to encourage them to “follow their dreams.” We were also told that Jordan Peterson is apparently a flaming “misogynist,” according to two writers who have chopped up quite a bit of Peterson’s words, conveniently situating his ideas into a landscape where they take pot shots at a caricature that they alone have fabricated. While Snow was the subject of light media speculation, Peterson has been held to the fire in recent months from the social justice warrior left to the feminists of all flavors, with most coming at him with rather incoherent critiques. Two men, two different approaches to sexual inequality, and this story unfolds through how their actions are differently interpreted. But I will return to this later. Am I a fan of Peterson? This is a question I was asked on Facebook recently to which I responded that I am more interested in having an honest discussion over some of the ideas he presents and I am not at all interested in fashioning even more straw man arguments that both The New York Times and Salon have seen fit to print. Need we hate or love Peterson to engage in good faith discussions? These and other articles fail to acknowledge the breadth of social critique that Peterson is undertaking, much less understand what Peterson is actually saying. Inasmuch as people claim to be “worried” and “uncomfortable” with what Peterson ostensibly proposes, I have come across more people who haven’t actually spent any time reading or listening to Peterson and instead have relied on third-party journalistic reviews to make up their minds for them. I have also witnessed the rhetorical bludgeoning of anyone who regards any of Peterson’s commentary as useful. Like Carol Horton, who expresses her fears of speaking about Peterson in her recent Quillette piece, there are many on the left who think that Peterson should not be dismissed: I don’t buy it. I’ve read and listened to enough Peterson to make up my own mind and that’s not how I see him at all. Rather than being forthright about this, though, I’ve tended to cower silently in my alienated corner, fearful that revealing my rejection of the stock anti-Peterson narrative will cause my progressive friends to denounce me and the social media mobs to swarm. Predictably, the response to Peterson from many feminist circles has also largely been unimpressive as the arguments range from women mischaracterizing Peterson as a “right-winger,” a “douche,” a “stupid man’s smart person,” to an array of ad hominem, again stemming from third-hand readings of various media hit pieces. I find it interesting that this culture war is targeting Peterson, many are honing in on one man who is in no way the “mystical father figure” that Nellie Bowles crafts in her article, where Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying, among others, are espousing similar views. Why the feminist hatred of Peterson? ... If we only had two choices of how inequality is framed by men today—that of Dan Snow lying to his daughters about World War II female pilots so they can “dream” or of Jordan Peterson who challenges the feminist boogeyman of “the Patriarchy” while elaborating the nuances of social and political structures in an attempt to move beyond the simplistic short-circuits of identity politics, I know which one I would prefer. Identity politics is why I've left the current left. Peterson is certainly not an atheist - more of an agnostic. [video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0]

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by CB on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 12:56pm

We only hear the loudest ones on each side

@The Aspie Corner
There is a huge number of people that are much more moderate. Unfortunately, political parties have allied themselves with the extremists on each side.

Submitted by Centaurea on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 5:33pm

Which party is extreme left?

@CB Which political party would you say represents the extreme left?

Not the Democrats, that's for sure. They're solidly neoliberal-neoconservative, which puts them center to center-right. They treat anyone to the left of center as Whack-a-Mole.

I don't even see the Green party or Democratic Socialist party being that extreme. The US doesn't have much in the way of extreme leftists.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by CB on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 11:48pm

Sorry.

@Centaurea
I'm not up for a game of Left-Right Semantics. I think most people know what I'm talking about despite the continual historical shifting of their relative juxtaposition.

Submitted by k9disc on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 5:35am

Surely You Can't Be Serious?

There is a huge number of people that are much more moderate. Unfortunately, political parties have allied themselves with the extremists on each side.

And yes, I called you surely...

The Democrats are aligned with the Extreme Left? Is that why they're pushing UBI, a militant peace, and ownership over the powers of production?

And the Republicans are all over the Extreme Right too. I mean, I see them pushing Libertarianism, protectionism, non-interventionism, and pushing back against the preferential regulatory structure to usher in free markets.

Your contention that the parties are beholden to the extreme poles is, IMO, ridiculous.

The parties leverage the poles of our polity; using identity, poverty, and corporate funding to promote the "radical center". The idea that they are beholden to them is bonkers; again, IMO.

@CB

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by Bluesee on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 10:49pm

@CB Great insight in your

@CB Great insight in your quoted passage. Yes, this says it for me:

I am more interested in having an honest discussion over some of the ideas he presents and I am not at all interested in fashioning even more straw man arguments that both The New York Times and Salon have seen fit to print. Need we hate or love Peterson to engage in good faith discussions? These and other articles fail to acknowledge the breadth of social critique that Peterson is undertaking, much less understand what Peterson is actually saying

It was a little embarrassing for me and some of my friends, but I am no longer a card-carrying Dem or Liberal; I'm still what I called myself in the 80s: a John Lennon radical. I can only "imagine" what JP thinks of him!

#3.1 probably even larger. Have you read many of Peterson's articles or books? On the Smearing of Jordan Peterson: On Dialogue and Listening “Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.” Two weeks ago, we learned that BBC historian, Dan Snow, lied to his daughters when he told them that the Spitfires were piloted by women flying combat missions during WWII in order to encourage them to “follow their dreams.” We were also told that Jordan Peterson is apparently a flaming “misogynist,” according to two writers who have chopped up quite a bit of Peterson’s words, conveniently situating his ideas into a landscape where they take pot shots at a caricature that they alone have fabricated. While Snow was the subject of light media speculation, Peterson has been held to the fire in recent months from the social justice warrior left to the feminists of all flavors, with most coming at him with rather incoherent critiques. Two men, two different approaches to sexual inequality, and this story unfolds through how their actions are differently interpreted. But I will return to this later. Am I a fan of Peterson? This is a question I was asked on Facebook recently to which I responded that I am more interested in having an honest discussion over some of the ideas he presents and I am not at all interested in fashioning even more straw man arguments that both The New York Times and Salon have seen fit to print. Need we hate or love Peterson to engage in good faith discussions? These and other articles fail to acknowledge the breadth of social critique that Peterson is undertaking, much less understand what Peterson is actually saying. Inasmuch as people claim to be “worried” and “uncomfortable” with what Peterson ostensibly proposes, I have come across more people who haven’t actually spent any time reading or listening to Peterson and instead have relied on third-party journalistic reviews to make up their minds for them. I have also witnessed the rhetorical bludgeoning of anyone who regards any of Peterson’s commentary as useful. Like Carol Horton, who expresses her fears of speaking about Peterson in her recent Quillette piece, there are many on the left who think that Peterson should not be dismissed: I don’t buy it. I’ve read and listened to enough Peterson to make up my own mind and that’s not how I see him at all. Rather than being forthright about this, though, I’ve tended to cower silently in my alienated corner, fearful that revealing my rejection of the stock anti-Peterson narrative will cause my progressive friends to denounce me and the social media mobs to swarm. Predictably, the response to Peterson from many feminist circles has also largely been unimpressive as the arguments range from women mischaracterizing Peterson as a “right-winger,” a “douche,” a “stupid man’s smart person,” to an array of ad hominem, again stemming from third-hand readings of various media hit pieces. I find it interesting that this culture war is targeting Peterson, many are honing in on one man who is in no way the “mystical father figure” that Nellie Bowles crafts in her article, where Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying, among others, are espousing similar views. Why the feminist hatred of Peterson? ... If we only had two choices of how inequality is framed by men today—that of Dan Snow lying to his daughters about World War II female pilots so they can “dream” or of Jordan Peterson who challenges the feminist boogeyman of “the Patriarchy” while elaborating the nuances of social and political structures in an attempt to move beyond the simplistic short-circuits of identity politics, I know which one I would prefer. Identity politics is why I've left the current left. Peterson is certainly not an atheist - more of an agnostic. [video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0]

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by CB on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 9:22am

Here's the interview

that propelled him to notoriety. Notice that it has almost 12 million views.
It is a very interesting watch.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54]

@Centaurea

Submitted by Bluesee on Thu, 08/16/2018 - 2:53am

@CB Yeah, wow, that

@CB Yeah, wow, that actually is a vid I watched before I knew who this dude was, so this vid is actually the first vid.

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by k9disc on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 10:52am

He's a Hypocrite. Completely Full of Shit.

Cultural Marxism! Postmodernism! Feminists! They're all ruining America!

He got his break by defending his right to not be forced to use the preferred pronouns of the transgendered. He claimed that it was mandated, under penalty of law and fines, in Canada. Never mind the fact that there was no mandate to use the pronoun, IIRC, it was just an anti-discrimination statute.

He really got cranking when he started to defend the incel boys. Young men who were involuntarily celibate. He is a big proponent of enforced monogamy, a strong cultural push to keep men monogamous to protect the family and the self esteem of non-sexy young men.

He is a very outspoken opponent of his perpetual strawman, cultural marxism. Everything is cultural marxism. The Frankfurt School is the devil, and are responsible for nearly all of societies ills. Here is a decent piece on his belief system.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/11/tragic-folly-of-jordan-peterson/
I read about 1/2 the article, and it's a pretty solid, if brief, critique on his ad hoc pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

Here he is showing off his hypocrisy:
[video:https://youtu.be/I4fpZ3vOdm4?t=4m21s]
Funny that his pet issue is a textbook definition of cultural marxism. (4:21-5:45 or so)

He's quite religious, and believes that without GOD a person cannot be whole or have meaning and says that atheists fool themselves and really do believe in GOD.

And lastly, he is EXTREMELY quick to leap to violence to solve problems. Says he has a hard time talking to women because the threat of violence against them if TSHTF is not culturally acceptable which confuses him. "The techniques I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me." (39:15 of the video below).

https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan-peterson-i-dont-think-that-men-c...

U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson has released a nearly two hour-long discussion with Camille Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. In the video, Peterson says that men can’t control “crazy women” because men are not allowed to physically fight them.

The interview was uploaded to his YouTube channel on October 2 and was reported on five days later by Canadian news outlet Press Progress.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2250&v=v-hIVnmUdXM]
Approximately 30 minutes into the video, Peterson and Paglia begin discussing societal gender roles. After the 37-minute mark of the video, Peterson claims that there is an “underlying threat of physicality” in “real conversations” between men which “keeps the things civilized to some degree.”

“Here’s the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is,” he claims. “That’s forbidden in discourse with women and so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it.”

Regarding the necessity of the “underlying threat of physicality,” Peterson says, “If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.”

He threatens violence all the time if discussion breaks down. I say threaten because he is not going to beat anyone's ass. He's a hypocrite there too.

He is, IMO, a very ugly human being.

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by k9disc on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 10:55am

He Also Doesn't Know How to Respond to Joe Rogan.

Because he can't beat his ass if the argument gets nasty.

Man, he's a fucking tool. I really dislike disingenuous intellectuals.
@k9disc

Cultural Marxism! Postmodernism! Feminists! They're all ruining America! He got his break by defending his right to not be forced to use the preferred pronouns of the transgendered. He claimed that it was mandated, under penalty of law and fines, in Canada. Never mind the fact that there was no mandate to use the pronoun, IIRC, it was just an anti-discrimination statute. He really got cranking when he started to defend the incel boys. Young men who were involuntarily celibate. He is a big proponent of enforced monogamy, a strong cultural push to keep men monogamous to protect the family and the self esteem of non-sexy young men. He is a very outspoken opponent of his perpetual strawman, cultural marxism. Everything is cultural marxism. The Frankfurt School is the devil, and are responsible for nearly all of societies ills. Here is a decent piece on his belief system. http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/11/tragic-folly-of-jordan-peterson/ I read about 1/2 the article, and it's a pretty solid, if brief, critique on his ad hoc pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Here he is showing off his hypocrisy: [video:https://youtu.be/I4fpZ3vOdm4?t=4m21s] Funny that his pet issue is a textbook definition of cultural marxism. (4:21-5:45 or so) He's quite religious, and believes that without GOD a person cannot be whole or have meaning and says that atheists fool themselves and really do believe in GOD. And lastly, he is EXTREMELY quick to leap to violence to solve problems. Says he has a hard time talking to women because the threat of violence against them if TSHTF is not culturally acceptable which confuses him. "The techniques I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me." (39:15 of the video below). https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan-peterson-i-dont-think-that-men-c... U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson has released a nearly two hour-long discussion with Camille Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. In the video, Peterson says that men can’t control “crazy women” because men are not allowed to physically fight them. The interview was uploaded to his YouTube channel on October 2 and was reported on five days later by Canadian news outlet Press Progress. [video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2250&v=v-hIVnmUdXM] Approximately 30 minutes into the video, Peterson and Paglia begin discussing societal gender roles. After the 37-minute mark of the video, Peterson claims that there is an “underlying threat of physicality” in “real conversations” between men which “keeps the things civilized to some degree.” “Here’s the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is,” he claims. “That’s forbidden in discourse with women and so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it.” Regarding the necessity of the “underlying threat of physicality,” Peterson says, “If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.” He threatens violence all the time if discussion breaks down. I say threaten because he is not going to beat anyone's ass. He's a hypocrite there too. He is, IMO, a very ugly human being.

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by CB on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 4:54pm

Have you actually watched Rogan's

@k9disc
many conversations with Peterson?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=joe+rogan+peterson

Jordan Peterson on his VICE Interview, Make-up in the Workplace - Joe Rogan:

Rogan: "All the problems I've seen with you, all the problems have been due to editing."

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU6pHBs5rNY]

Here's the VICE hit piece with cut video shown:

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZrSrZpX5l8]

There seems to be a growing industry around bringing Peterson down.

Submitted by Bluesee on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 9:58pm

He Does Show Up the Lame Stream Media LOL!

@CB Yes, that struck me also, that there are hit pieces out there, and I agree with first post, it didn't pass the smell test to me, why I called it 'weaksauce'. Also that his book was not listed on the NYT Best Sellers list because the publisher is Canadian.. I think. Definitive link follows:Keeping that in mind, we approached the Times to ask why Peterson’s book did not make the list when it was so prominent elsewhere. We received an email from Books Editor Pamela Paul, who wrote: “Per the Bestsellers team, we do not include books published in Canada only. Hope that helps!”.

I've listened to so much of him I'm starting to call their favorite sport "Hawky", and the jury is still out for me, sorry those who hate him. I regard him as a complex character, who apparently polarizes people. When he talks with Joe R, he seems quite reasonable and rational, but the video I posted in my essay makes him look like a hypocrite to me, a violation of his expressed desire to discuss the social hierarchy in an open forum (he refers to these podcasts as "long form forums"), with an understanding that we cannot resolve some of these difficulties without dialog. But his rant to those white kids was not that of a reasonable person interested in dialog.

So I'm leaning toward hypocrite, and part of me is wondering if he just wants to complete a jihad against postmodernism, and part of me does not want what he is selling if a return to modernism (think "50s wife", traditional roles, rigid social rules, you remember..).

So my brother is willing to discuss the forms of hierarchy, of which two are salient in his discussions: Competence Hierarchy and Dominance Hierarchy, of which I know very little, except that JP deplores Dominance Hierarchy, of which he accuses the "Marxists" (catchall term used by him for the left) of employing to get their way. The video seems to indicate that there is plenty of energy in that hierarchy discussion, it just seems to have more heat than light in the video, but insights do come out in the long form Joe R (and others) discussions.

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by CB on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 11:09pm

I think you misunderstand Peterson's

@Bluesee @Bluesee
position on Male Dominance Hierarchy and the current post modernism backlash against it.

The following two Joe Rogan videos covers these concepts and Peterson's views on them. They directly relate to the concerns in your post.

Jordan Peterson Explains the Male Dominance Hierarchy - The Joe Rogan Experience:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUiG5_GcMyY]
Jordan Peterson on the Problem with Postmodernists - The Joe Rogan Experience:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCfIuFmULkg]

Added one more video to cover Marxism

Jordan Peterson Explains "Class Based Guilt":
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-SGqRToXYE]

#4.1.1 Yes, that struck me also, that there are hit pieces out there, and I agree with first post, it didn't pass the smell test to me, why I called it 'weaksauce'. Also that his book was not listed on the NYT Best Sellers list because the publisher is Canadian.. I think. Definitive link follows:Keeping that in mind, we approached the Times to ask why Peterson’s book did not make the list when it was so prominent elsewhere. We received an email from Books Editor Pamela Paul, who wrote: “Per the Bestsellers team, we do not include books published in Canada only. Hope that helps!”.

I've listened to so much of him I'm starting to call their favorite sport "Hawky", and the jury is still out for me, sorry those who hate him. I regard him as a complex character, who apparently polarizes people. When he talks with Joe R, he seems quite reasonable and rational, but the video I posted in my essay makes him look like a hypocrite to me, a violation of his expressed desire to discuss the social hierarchy in an open forum (he refers to these podcasts as "long form forums"), with an understanding that we cannot resolve some of these difficulties without dialog. But his rant to those white kids was not that of a reasonable person interested in dialog.

So I'm leaning toward hypocrite, and part of me is wondering if he just wants to complete a jihad against postmodernism, and part of me does not want what he is selling if a return to modernism (think "50s wife", traditional roles, rigid social rules, you remember..).

So my brother is willing to discuss the forms of hierarchy, of which two are salient in his discussions: Competence Hierarchy and Dominance Hierarchy, of which I know very little, except that JP deplores Dominance Hierarchy, of which he accuses the "Marxists" (catchall term used by him for the left) of employing to get their way. The video seems to indicate that there is plenty of energy in that hierarchy discussion, it just seems to have more heat than light in the video, but insights do come out in the long form Joe R (and others) discussions.

Submitted by k9disc on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 5:26am

I Don't Misunderstand Him. I Hear What He is Saying.

@CB The competence vs dominance hierarchy is an interesting angle.

I think he ascribes to the dominance hierarchy most of the time; "I'll smash his face!" Reminds me of WF Buckley.

Funny though when he's interacting with someone who he considers competent, smart, or physically stronger than him he is all about competence and seems to question. But when he's interacting with someone he considers less than him or incapable of "defeating" him, he says fucked up shit and appeals to authority.

When he's speaking on his pet topic it's all about competence. When he's talking about a topic that is not of import to him dominance and illegitimate authority are A-OK. Economics and speech come to mind.

At least Buckley was always an asshole.

The angst from the left and right which many people ascribe to him being in the groove and on point is based upon hypocrisy, not the value of his views.

@CB

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by CB on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 8:50am

From your comments

@k9disc
it is apparent you have no idea what Peterson is actually saying.

I'm through with this conversation.

Submitted by Bluesee on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 12:51pm

Marxists Want to Destroy the Dominance Hierarchy..

@CB Responding to the first video, which I have not seen before.

Let me take a crack at this: he is saying that for 6 million years we have been groomed by a Dominance Hierarchy which may have even given rise to our many religious concepts, but the postmodernists are losers who could never compete in the DH, so they came up with a sneaky strategy to ally with feminists so they could win. But this meant the destruction of the DH, which by extension is the ruination of the 6 million-year-old DH, which is the foundation of our society, and has been for all that time.

Did I get that right? If he believes that (and it would take me a day to digest that thought, so I don't have an opinion on it now), then there is no wonder he is fighting the feminist movement and other "Marxist" movements so hard.

Again, he appears to be a reactionary to want to return to modernism in favor of postmodernism. I see his beef with postmodernism, but here we are, post-postmodernism. Surely no one is suggesting we roll back gains made by feminists and other activists in our quest to right the ship?

This is why I agree that the "sides" need to talk. I am convinced of the excesses of some of the left, credit JP. But I don't know in which direction we should go from here, and I am not entirely trusting - or I don't understand - remedies suggested by JP.

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by k9disc on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 6:31pm

I Am Pretty Much Here With You on This Post.

I do not believe the millions of years of dominance hierarchy. Look at the indigenous peoples for the counter example.

I also agree that modern leftist theory has been taken too far and leveraged towards establishing the very authority it seeks to tear down and used as a tool to split people.

In fact, Peterson uses that tool in his incel arguments for the good of the family and the children. That's a red flag for me.

I speak authoritatively in my field. I also speak rather authoritatively in fields that I'm not expert in, but when I do that I tend to acknowledge that I could be wrong. Mr. Peterson does no such thing.

@Bluesee

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by k9disc on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 5:13am

I Have Seen 2 of the Conversations with Rogan. I'm Kind of a

fan.

I'm down with Rogan, who says and believes many of the same things, shit man, I believe quite a bit of what Peterson says. While Rogan and Peterson can have an amazing conversation, Peterson KNOWS and Rogan questions. HUGE distinction.

@CB

—

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Submitted by Bluesee on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 1:00pm

Authority vs Open Mind

@k9disc I agree he speaks from a position of authority, but I can also give him credit for having a body of knowledge due a man of his position and learning. He always expresses disdain for politics, and says neither he nor his arguments are political, but it cannot be avoided as politics touches everything in this day and age I suppose.

Think of John Locke and all the work he put into understanding how people think, and what words mean, and all the pre-conditions put upon language and dialog before he could start even discussing the nature of reality. Today, the national and global political dialog is rife with deliberate misunderstandings and lies that give a new urgency to a need to have real discussions to debunk the falsehoods. It seems having an open mind is almost a weakness today.

I think it is possible that JP ultimately has an open mind, but I also think it takes a guy like JoeR to get to that part. I don't know that JP has an open mind today. Pretty sure you don't think he does haha.

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 6:13pm

Peterson

reminds me of another virtuous, insufferable know-it-all.

Robespierre.

Who actually did invent his own religion (see Worship of the Supreme Being).

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by White flag the 3rd on Wed, 08/22/2018 - 5:00pm

The IDW

With the intellectual dark web movement, things could shift. These long form discussion podcasts are listened to by millions of people; Joe Rogan maybe 10 million.
I was introduced to Peterson by my son, in his 20’s and he has been changing for the positive since he’s read Petersons book. I looked into it and became aware how prevalent “the movement” is.
The void in the division is being filled, this could very well be what’s filling it.
Should we pay attention?