Jordan B. Peterson

[Anomaly]

Asking for a friend...  (LOL)

Heard of him?  

Read his book “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos”? 

I’m currently reading him and am curious about opinions.   He pose quite a challenging perspective. 

[chrysostom]

I read the first chapter of 12 Rules. Some friends of mine in a reading group had a lobster dinner after going through it.

[cutenickname]

Enabler of racism. Actual sexist. Actual transphobe. Enabler of homophobia. Reductionist in his philosophical "understandings." Possibly useful for 19 year olds who had no basic parenting and are not in danger of swallowing his right wing oddities. Atheist. Pro-Christian. Drug addict.

[cutenickname]

I will say that insofar as we live in a Post-Christian, rapidly secularising, anti-intellectual world, despite finding Peterson personally distasteful on basically every front you could imagine, I think he is potentially a powerful gateway drug to real Philosophy and Christianity (though he has a following among certain Catholics, I do not think the mission field he is preparing would necessarily be a fertile one for Catholics, but for Confessional Lutherans and Conservative Anglicans. He seems to be in favor of soft individualism and a kind of political quietism that is difficult to reconcile with Catholic Social Justice Teaching, the claims of the Church to be Mater et Magistra and the Social Kingship of Christ insofar as this concept relates to Catholic Social Justice Teaching).

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

Enabler of racism. Actual sexist. Actual transphobe. Enabler of homophobia. Reductionist in his philosophical "understandings." Possibly useful for 19 year olds who had no basic parenting and are not in danger of swallowing his right wing oddities. Atheist. Pro-Christian. Drug addict.

Specifically what has he said that you disagree with, for example? I haven't really heard him say anything that would cause me to think that he is racist, sexist, or a transphobe.

[cutenickname]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

Specifically what has he said that you disagree with, for example? I haven't really heard him say anything that would cause me to think that he is racist, sexist, or a transphobe.

I DO NOT think JP is racist or homophobic.

I think he is a fellow traveler with a lot of racists.

I do think he is sexist and transphobic.

Peterson's basic hostility to the idea of collective action against injustice is inherently against the interests of people who exist at the margins (women, racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities). I will try to find specific quotes, but I doubt you will agree with how I interpret them, I am definitely a creature of the Left on everything non-theological.

Interestingly Peterson was instrumental in my deciding to finally break with Rome (though I think by this time next year it is 50/50 whether or not I will be Catholic, but annoyed and sacramentless again).

Actually @Peace Ima do a copypasta with the political views section on his wiki article. I will highlight the parts that I think illustrate my points:

Peterson has characterized himself politically as a "classic British liberal,"[12][68][69] and as a "traditionalist."[70] However, he has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right-wing.[47] Yoram Hazony wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "[t]he startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation."[71]

The New York Times has described Peterson as "conservative-leaning,"[72] while The Washington Post has described him as "conservative."[73] Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs opines that Peterson has been seen "as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected."[74]

Academia and political correctness

Peterson's critiques of political correctness range over issues such as postmodernism, postmodern feminism, white privilege, cultural appropriation, and environmentalism.[54] His social media presence has magnified the impact of these views; Simona Chiose of The Globe and Mail noted that "few University of Toronto professors in the humanities and social sciences have enjoyed the global name recognition Prof. Peterson has won."[22] Writing in the National Post, Chris Selley said that Peterson's opponents had "underestimated the fury being inspired by modern preoccupations like white privilege and cultural appropriation, and by the marginalization, shouting down or outright cancellation of other viewpoints in polite society's institutions,"[75] while Tim Lott stated, in The Spectator, that Peterson became "an outspoken critic of mainstream academia."[12]

According to his study—conducted with one of his students, Christine Brophy—of the relationship between political belief and personality, political correctness exists in two types: "PC-egalitarianism" and "PC-authoritarianism," which is a manifestation of "offense sensitivity."[76] Jason McBride claims that Peterson places classical liberals in the first type, and so-called social justice warriors, who he says "weaponize compassion," in the latter.[4][11] The study also found an overlap between PC-authoritarians and right-wing authoritarians.[76]

Peterson claims that universities are largely responsible for a wave of political correctness that has appeared in North America and Europe,[22] saying that he had watched the rise of political correctness on campuses since the early 1990s. In his view, the humanities have become corrupt and less reliant on science:

'The humanities in the universities have become almost incomprehensibly shallow and corrupt in multiple ways,' he says. 'They don't rely on science because they are not scientifically educated. This is true particularly in sociology, where they mask their complete ignorance of science by claiming that science is just another mode of knowing and that it's only privileged within the structure of the oppressive Eurocentric patriarchy. It’s appalling. We're not having an intelligent conversation, we are having an ideological conversation. 'Students, instead of being ennobled or inculcated into the proper culture, the last vestiges of structure are stripped from them by post-modernism and neo-Marxism, which defines everything in terms of relativism and power.'[12]

Postmodernism and identity politics

Peterson says that "disciplines like women's studies should be defunded," advising freshman students to avoid subjects like sociology, anthropology, English literature, ethnic studies, and racial studies, as well as other fields of study that he believes are corrupted by the neo-Marxist ideology.[77][78][79] He believes these fields to propagate cult-like behaviour and safe-spaces, under the pretense of academic inquiry.[78][77] Peterson had proposed a website using artificial intelligence to identify ideologization in specific courses, but postponed the project in November 2017 as "it might add excessively to current polarization."[80][81]

In regard to identity politics, while "[t]he left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride," he considers them "equally dangerous" and that what should be emphasized, instead, is individual focus and personal responsibility. [82] He has also been prominent in the debate about cultural appropriation, stating that the concept promotes self-censorship in society and journalism.[83]

Peterson's perspectives on the influence of postmodernism on North American humanities departments have been compared to Cultural Marxist conspiracy theories.[36][84][85][86] Due to his opposition against identity politics, several writers have associated Peterson with the "Intellectual Dark Web," including Bari Weiss, who was among the first to bring this characterization of him into recognition.[87][88][89][90][91]

Bill C-16

Main article: An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

On 27 September 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled "Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law."[8][92][21] In the video, he stated he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty, saying it fell under compelled speech, and announced his objection to the Canadian government's Bill C-16, which proposed to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to similarly expand the definitions of promoting genocide and publicly inciting hatred in the hate speech laws in Canada.[a][93][92][94]

Peterson speaking at a Free Speech Rally in October 2016

He stated his objection to the bill was based on potential free-speech implications if the Criminal Code is amended, claiming he could then be prosecuted under provincial human-rights laws if he refuses to call a transgender student or faculty member by the individual's preferred pronoun.[95][96] Furthermore, he argued the new amendments, paired with section 46.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, would make it possible for employers and organizations to be subject to punishment under the code if any employee or associate says anything that can be construed "directly or indirectly" as offensive, "whether intentionally or unintentionally."[95] According to law professor Brenda Cossman and others, this interpretation of C-16 is mistaken, and the law does not criminalize misuse of pronouns.[96][97][98][99]

The series of videos drew criticism from transgender activists, faculty, and labour unions; critics accused Peterson of "helping to foster a climate for hate to thrive" and of "fundamentally mischaracterising" the law.[100][8] Protests erupted on campus, some including violence, and the controversy attracted international media attention.[101][102][103] When asked in September 2016 if he would comply with the request of a student to use a preferred pronoun, Peterson said "it would depend on how they asked me.… If I could detect that there was a chip on their shoulder, or that they were [asking me] with political motives, then I would probably say no.… If I could have a conversation like the one we're having now, I could probably meet them on an equal level."[103] Two months later, the National Post published an op-ed by Peterson in which he elaborated on his opposition to the bill, saying that gender-neutral singular pronouns were "at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."[104]

In response to the controversy, academic administrators at the University of Toronto sent Peterson two letters of warning, one noting free speech had to be made in accordance with human rights legislation, and the other adding that his refusal to use the preferred personal pronouns of students and faculty upon request could constitute discrimination. Peterson speculated that these warning letters were leading up to formal disciplinary action against him, but in December the university assured him he would retain his professorship, and in January 2017 he returned to teach his psychology class at the University of Toronto.[8][105]

In February 2017, Maxime Bernier, candidate for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, stated he shifted his position on Bill C-16, from support to opposition, after meeting with Peterson and discussing it.[106] Peterson's analysis of the bill was also frequently cited by senators who were opposed to its passage.[107] In April 2017, Peterson was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant for the first time in his career, which he interpreted as retaliation for his statements regarding Bill C-16.[19] However, a media-relations adviser for SSHRC said, "Committees assess only the information contained in the application."[108] In response, Rebel News launched an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign on Peterson's behalf,[109] raising C$195,000 by its end on 6 May, equivalent to over two years of research funding.[110] In May 2017, as one of 24 witnesses who were invited to speak about the bill, Peterson spoke against Bill C-16 at a Canadian Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs hearing.[107]

In November 2017, Lindsay Shepherd, the teaching assistant of a Wilfrid Laurier University first-year communications course, was censured by her professors for showing, during a classroom discussion about pronouns, a segment of The Agenda in which Peterson debates Bill C-16 with another professor.[111][112][113] The reasons given for the censure included the clip creating a "toxic climate," being compared to a "speech by Hitler,"[10] and being itself in violation of Bill C-16.[114] The censure was later withdrawn and both the professors and the university formally apologized.[115][116][117] The events were cited by Peterson, as well as several newspaper editorial boards[118][119][120] and national newspaper columnists[121][122][123][124] as illustrative of the suppression of free speech on university campuses. In June 2018, Peterson filed a $1.5-million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University, arguing that three staff members of the university had maliciously defamed him by making negative comments about him behind closed doors.[125] As of September 2018, Wilfrid Laurier had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying it was ironic for a purported advocate of free speech to attempt to curtail free speech.[126]

Gender relations and masculinity

Peterson has argued there is an ongoing "crisis of masculinity" and "backlash against masculinity" in which the "masculine spirit is under assault."[3][127][128][129] Peterson has argued the left characterises the existing societal hierarchy as an "oppressive patriarchy" but "don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence."[3] Peterson has said men without partners are likely to become violent, and has noted male violence is reduced in societies wherein monogamy is a social norm.[3][127] He has attributed the rise of Donald Trump and far-right European politicians to what he says is a negative reaction to a push to "feminize" men, saying "If men are pushed too hard to feminize they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology."[130] He attracted considerable attention over a 2018 Channel 4 interview in which he clashed with interviewer Cathy Newman on the topic of the gender pay gap.[131][132] Peterson disputed the contention the disparity was solely due to sexual discrimination.[132][133][134]

If @dUSt would allow me to edit that last post which has been merged to the first I would format it to be readable.

@Peace I do not expect you to necessarily agree and am comfortable with the disagreement, but this section of the Wikipedia while not being the source of my opinions does a decent enough job stating the critique.

[Peace]

41 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

I DO NOT think JP is racist or homophobic.

I think he is a fellow traveler with a lot of racists.

I do think he is sexist and transphobic.

Peterson's basic hostility to the idea of collective action against injustice is inherently against the interests of people who exist at the margins (women, racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities). I will try to find specific quotes, but I doubt you will agree with how I interpret them, I am definitely a creature of the Left on everything non-theological.

Interestingly Peterson was instrumental in my deciding to finally break with Rome (though I think by this time next year it is 50/50 whether or not I will be Catholic, but annoyed and sacramentless again).

Actually @Peace Ima do a copypasta with the political views section on his wiki article. I will highlight the parts that I think illustrate my points:

Peterson has characterized himself politically as a "classic British liberal,"[12][68][69] and as a "traditionalist."[70] However, he has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right-wing.[47] Yoram Hazony wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "[t]he startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation."[71]

The New York Times has described Peterson as "conservative-leaning,"[72] while The Washington Post has described him as "conservative."[73] Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs opines that Peterson has been seen "as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected."[74]

Academia and political correctness

Peterson's critiques of political correctness range over issues such as postmodernism, postmodern feminism, white privilege, cultural appropriation, and environmentalism.[54] His social media presence has magnified the impact of these views; Simona Chiose of The Globe and Mail noted that "few University of Toronto professors in the humanities and social sciences have enjoyed the global name recognition Prof. Peterson has won."[22] Writing in the National Post, Chris Selley said that Peterson's opponents had "underestimated the fury being inspired by modern preoccupations like white privilege and cultural appropriation, and by the marginalization, shouting down or outright cancellation of other viewpoints in polite society's institutions,"[75] while Tim Lott stated, in The Spectator, that Peterson became "an outspoken critic of mainstream academia."[12]

According to his study—conducted with one of his students, Christine Brophy—of the relationship between political belief and personality, political correctness exists in two types: "PC-egalitarianism" and "PC-authoritarianism," which is a manifestation of "offense sensitivity."[76] Jason McBride claims that Peterson places classical liberals in the first type, and so-called social justice warriors, who he says "weaponize compassion," in the latter.[4][11] The study also found an overlap between PC-authoritarians and right-wing authoritarians.[76]

Peterson claims that universities are largely responsible for a wave of political correctness that has appeared in North America and Europe,[22] saying that he had watched the rise of political correctness on campuses since the early 1990s. In his view, the humanities have become corrupt and less reliant on science:

'The humanities in the universities have become almost incomprehensibly shallow and corrupt in multiple ways,' he says. 'They don't rely on science because they are not scientifically educated. This is true particularly in sociology, where they mask their complete ignorance of science by claiming that science is just another mode of knowing and that it's only privileged within the structure of the oppressive Eurocentric patriarchy. It’s appalling. We're not having an intelligent conversation, we are having an ideological conversation. 'Students, instead of being ennobled or inculcated into the proper culture, the last vestiges of structure are stripped from them by post-modernism and neo-Marxism, which defines everything in terms of relativism and power.'[12]

Postmodernism and identity politics

Peterson says that "disciplines like women's studies should be defunded," advising freshman students to avoid subjects like sociology, anthropology, English literature, ethnic studies, and racial studies, as well as other fields of study that he believes are corrupted by the neo-Marxist ideology.[77][78][79] He believes these fields to propagate cult-like behaviour and safe-spaces, under the pretense of academic inquiry.[78][77] Peterson had proposed a website using artificial intelligence to identify ideologization in specific courses, but postponed the project in November 2017 as "it might add excessively to current polarization."[80][81]

In regard to identity politics, while "[t]he left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride," he considers them "equally dangerous" and that what should be emphasized, instead, is individual focus and personal responsibility. [82] He has also been prominent in the debate about cultural appropriation, stating that the concept promotes self-censorship in society and journalism.[83]

Peterson's perspectives on the influence of postmodernism on North American humanities departments have been compared to Cultural Marxist conspiracy theories.[36][84][85][86] Due to his opposition against identity politics, several writers have associated Peterson with the "Intellectual Dark Web," including Bari Weiss, who was among the first to bring this characterization of him into recognition.[87][88][89][90][91]

Bill C-16

Main article: An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

On 27 September 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled "Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law."[8][92][21] In the video, he stated he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty, saying it fell under compelled speech, and announced his objection to the Canadian government's Bill C-16, which proposed to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to similarly expand the definitions of promoting genocide and publicly inciting hatred in the hate speech laws in Canada.[a][93][92][94]

Peterson speaking at a Free Speech Rally in October 2016

He stated his objection to the bill was based on potential free-speech implications if the Criminal Code is amended, claiming he could then be prosecuted under provincial human-rights laws if he refuses to call a transgender student or faculty member by the individual's preferred pronoun.[95][96] Furthermore, he argued the new amendments, paired with section 46.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, would make it possible for employers and organizations to be subject to punishment under the code if any employee or associate says anything that can be construed "directly or indirectly" as offensive, "whether intentionally or unintentionally."[95] According to law professor Brenda Cossman and others, this interpretation of C-16 is mistaken, and the law does not criminalize misuse of pronouns.[96][97][98][99]

The series of videos drew criticism from transgender activists, faculty, and labour unions; critics accused Peterson of "helping to foster a climate for hate to thrive" and of "fundamentally mischaracterising" the law.[100][8] Protests erupted on campus, some including violence, and the controversy attracted international media attention.[101][102][103] When asked in September 2016 if he would comply with the request of a student to use a preferred pronoun, Peterson said "it would depend on how they asked me.… If I could detect that there was a chip on their shoulder, or that they were [asking me] with political motives, then I would probably say no.… If I could have a conversation like the one we're having now, I could probably meet them on an equal level."[103] Two months later, the National Post published an op-ed by Peterson in which he elaborated on his opposition to the bill, saying that gender-neutral singular pronouns were "at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."[104]

In response to the controversy, academic administrators at the University of Toronto sent Peterson two letters of warning, one noting free speech had to be made in accordance with human rights legislation, and the other adding that his refusal to use the preferred personal pronouns of students and faculty upon request could constitute discrimination. Peterson speculated that these warning letters were leading up to formal disciplinary action against him, but in December the university assured him he would retain his professorship, and in January 2017 he returned to teach his psychology class at the University of Toronto.[8][105]

In February 2017, Maxime Bernier, candidate for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, stated he shifted his position on Bill C-16, from support to opposition, after meeting with Peterson and discussing it.[106] Peterson's analysis of the bill was also frequently cited by senators who were opposed to its passage.[107] In April 2017, Peterson was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant for the first time in his career, which he interpreted as retaliation for his statements regarding Bill C-16.[19] However, a media-relations adviser for SSHRC said, "Committees assess only the information contained in the application."[108] In response, Rebel News launched an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign on Peterson's behalf,[109] raising C$195,000 by its end on 6 May, equivalent to over two years of research funding.[110] In May 2017, as one of 24 witnesses who were invited to speak about the bill, Peterson spoke against Bill C-16 at a Canadian Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs hearing.[107]

In November 2017, Lindsay Shepherd, the teaching assistant of a Wilfrid Laurier University first-year communications course, was censured by her professors for showing, during a classroom discussion about pronouns, a segment of The Agenda in which Peterson debates Bill C-16 with another professor.[111][112][113] The reasons given for the censure included the clip creating a "toxic climate," being compared to a "speech by Hitler,"[10] and being itself in violation of Bill C-16.[114] The censure was later withdrawn and both the professors and the university formally apologized.[115][116][117] The events were cited by Peterson, as well as several newspaper editorial boards[118][119][120] and national newspaper columnists[121][122][123][124] as illustrative of the suppression of free speech on university campuses. In June 2018, Peterson filed a $1.5-million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University, arguing that three staff members of the university had maliciously defamed him by making negative comments about him behind closed doors.[125] As of September 2018, Wilfrid Laurier had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying it was ironic for a purported advocate of free speech to attempt to curtail free speech.[126]

Gender relations and masculinity

Peterson has argued there is an ongoing "crisis of masculinity" and "backlash against masculinity" in which the "masculine spirit is under assault."[3][127][128][129] Peterson has argued the left characterises the existing societal hierarchy as an "oppressive patriarchy" but "don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence."[3] Peterson has said men without partners are likely to become violent, and has noted male violence is reduced in societies wherein monogamy is a social norm.[3][127] He has attributed the rise of Donald Trump and far-right European politicians to what he says is a negative reaction to a push to "feminize" men, saying "If men are pushed too hard to feminize they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology."[130] He attracted considerable attention over a 2018 Channel 4 interview in which he clashed with interviewer Cathy Newman on the topic of the gender pay gap.[131][132] Peterson disputed the contention the disparity was solely due to sexual discrimination.[132][133][134]

If @dUSt would allow me to edit that last post which has been merged to the first I would format it to be readable.

@Peace I do not expect you to necessarily agree and am comfortable with the disagreement, but this section of the Wikipedia while not being the source of my opinions does a decent enough job stating the critique.

THat's a whole lot of stuff. Can we just choose 1 statement and start with that?

FYI - I basically give no credence to what people have said about another person. I need to see what the person has said himself, and then make my own judgment on it. I want to see what the person actually said, rather than another person's opinion on what he said.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Peace

[cutenickname]

This is one of the highlighted paragraphs from that wall of text I posted:

"In regard to identity politics, while "[t]he left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride," he considers them "equally dangerous" and that what should be emphasized, instead, is individual focus and personal responsibility. [82] He has also been prominent in the debate about cultural appropriation, stating that the concept promotes self-censorship in society and journalism.[83]"

1) The idea that an "identity politics" which centers the interests of oppressed groups is morally equivalent to to white nationalism is a species of moral autism (I'm not woke, so nope, I do not feel bad about using "autism" like that).

2) The logical result of individualizing the concerns of oppressed groups is that you continue oppressing the vast majority of members of said groups, but you end up with an elite from those groups who can participate in the oppression of their group of origin at the service of the dominant group.

3) The idea that asking people to not dress up as "gypsies," for instance, for halloween is a form of self-censorship, as opposed to recognizing that cultures are not costumes and that members of dominant groups mining oppressed groups for stuff they find interesting while continuing to actively oppress members of the culture of origin for exhibiting those traits is problematic. An example of this, would be a white person being considered edgy and interesting for wearing their hair in box braids or cornrows, but a melanated person with Afro-textured or curly hair being considered thuggish, ghetto, unkempt, etc for the same hairstyle.

4) I am not convinced Peterson actually holds all of these positions. I just think they logically flow from his shallow and Eurocentric thinking. (I do not think he is particularly smart or consistent philosophically, for instance, he rants about post-modernism, but he is basically a post modernist himself. I don't think he is being dishonest when he says he isn't I just think he hasn't read enough to know he is.)

@Peace

Edited October 2, 2020 by cutenickname

[Peace]

1 hour ago, cutenickname said:

This is one of the highlighted paragraphs from that wall of text I posted:

"In regard to identity politics, while "[t]he left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride," he considers them "equally dangerous" and that what should be emphasized, instead, is individual focus and personal responsibility. [82] He has also been prominent in the debate about cultural appropriation, stating that the concept promotes self-censorship in society and journalism.[83]"

@Peace

OK. I found the actual quote:

https://time.com/5175974/jordan-peterson-12-rules-book-interview/

You never worry about things that are said by your fans? Oh, sure.

I worry about them. But I have irrefutable evidence that I’ve pulled thousands of young men away from the attractions of the “alt-right.” Part of the core information that I’ve been purveying is that identity politics is a sick game. You don’t play racial, ethnic and gender identity games. The left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let’s say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride. I think they’re equally dangerous. The correct game, as far as I’m concerned, is one where you focus on your individual life and try to take responsibility for your actions.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Peace

[Peace]

1 hour ago, cutenickname said:

This is one of the highlighted paragraphs from that wall of text I posted:

1) The idea that an "identity politics" which centers the interests of oppressed groups is morally equivalent to to white nationalism is a species of moral autism (I'm not woke, so nope, I do not feel bad about using "autism" like that).

Well he wrote that left-leaning "identity politics" and right-leaning "nationalism and ethic pride" are "equally dangerous". He didn't say that they are morally equivalent. Myself, I would probably disagree that they are "equally dangerous" but I think that they can both be dangerous and misused for harmful purposes. It does not strike me as a particularly egregious statement, honestly.

1 hour ago, cutenickname said:

2) The logical result of individualizing the concerns of oppressed groups is that you continue oppressing the vast majority of members of said groups, but you end up with an elite from those groups who can participate in the oppression of their group of origin at the service of the dominant group.

I don't really understand this. What exactly do you mean by "individualizing the concerns of oppressed groups" and what alternative do you propose? Can you give a concrete example of the point you mean to illustrate here?

1 hour ago, cutenickname said:

3) The idea that asking people to not dress up as "gypsies," for instance, for halloween is a form of self-censorship, as opposed to recognizing that cultures are not costumes and that members of dominant groups mining oppressed groups for stuff they find interesting while continuing to actively oppress members of the culture of origin for exhibiting those traits is problematic. An example of this, would be a white person being considered edgy and interesting for wearing their hair in box braids or cornrows, but a melanated person with Afro-textured or curly hair being considered thuggish, ghetto, unkempt, etc for the same hairstyle.

What does this have to do with what Peterson stated above?

I would agree that it would be better if there was a widespread cultural recognition that it is not good to use certain ethnic groups as mascots, rather than asking individual people not to dress up as ethic mascots ("Redskins" for example).

But what do you want to do? Draft a law that prohibits white people from wearing braids?

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make, honestly.

 

[cutenickname]

1) Whether or not it strikes you as egregious is not something I am concerned with. I am stating my position not attempting to convert you to anything.

2) Individualizing the concerns of oppressed groups would look like convincing yourself that systemic racism doesn't exist because member x of minority a has achieved y. OR seeing a specific instance of injustice say an injured black child not allowed to go to a white hospital in 1950 and addressing the injustice done that child by getting him in in some way but leaving the rot that keeps others out intact.

3) I have described and objected to cultural appropriation. I have offered no particular solution for it, but nothing I have said should make you suspect that I am about establish a leftist Gestapo to stop white people from getting butt implants and wearing box braids. I do not know how to state these things in a clearer manner.

Peterson here says that cultural appropriation is nonsense, I have expressed my disagreement with him:

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by cutenickname

[Anomaly]

I shoulda knowed better. 

[cutenickname]

"White people" I here feel the need to say, as people bring a strange energy to brown people saying anything that touches on race, I have no quarrel with white people. Most of my friends, most of my neighbors, most of my intellectual, and spiritual heroes have been white people. The man I love is a blue eyed "white looking" Salvadoran/Mexican of Italian, German, and Spanish descent my objecting to white supremacy and centering the experiences of black and brown people is not a declaration of war, cultural Marxism (which isn't real, but I'm not getting into it), or anything else.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

1) Whether or not it strikes you as egregious is not something I am concerned with. I am stating my position not attempting to convert you to anything.

Heh. You seem to like to do that. I think you will find that most of the oldheads here on Phatmass love to argue. Person 1 states X. Person 2 agrees or disagrees with X. Then they have a nice little discussion about who is correct. That's usually how it goes here in my experience.

I don't think you'll often find folks just stating an opinion for the sake of it, but that's cool. Sometimes just knowing where someone else stands can be of benefit.

2 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

2) Individualizing the concerns of oppressed groups would like convincing yourself that systemic racism doesn't exist because member x of minority a has achieved y. OR seeing a specific instance of injustice say an injured black child not allowed to go to a white hospital in 1950 and addressing the injustice done that child by getting him in in some way but leaving the rot that keeps others out intact.

OK. I agree with what you wrote above. Maybe that is how you understand Peterson, but I don't see anything that he has stated that would suggest that. I remember one interview he had - he acknowledged that discrimination against women exists, for example, but took the position that discrimination does not account for the entire wage gap between men and women (in other words, that there are also other, non-discriminatory factors that cause the wage gap).

2 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

3) I have described and objected to cultural appropriation. I have offered no particular solution for it, but nothing I have said should make you suspect that I am about establish a leftist Gestapo to stop white people from getting butt implants and wearing box braids. I do not know how to state these things in a clearer manner.

Peterson here says that cultural appropriation is nonsense, I have expressed my disagreement with him:

Heh. We can pass a law against butt implants if we also pass one against weave!

[cutenickname]

1 minute ago, Anomaly said:

I shoulda knowed better. 

You asked for opinions. I assure you most people here probably love Peterson to bits.

Debates are good, but I don't have the personality type for them. I do better hearing people and chewing on ideas. Which is why I don't qualify as woke. I'd generally rather hear people out.