Jordan B. Peterson

[Pooooma]

10 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

A warm welcome to phatmass. I think your name and avatar is absolutely ace and I love it. Felines, especially the off-beat and staring variety, are the kind of thing the internet was made for. 

Thank you! Nothing beats a good pooooma.

[Anomaly]

Back to the book and JBP.  I’ve learned his life is currently a train wreck, but heck, one of us points is peoples’ ability  to knowingly do what’s bad for them because it’s easier. 

[Pooooma]

8 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Back to the book and JBP

b-but don't you like pumas?

 

8 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I’ve learned his life is currently a train wreck

Yes, in great deal due to his physical health and undoubtedly due to the stress notoriety has caused him. I can't imagine what it's like having so many people eagerly pick apart every word you've said for the last 25-or-so years. I think that'd do considerable damage to just about everybody. In fact, I'm sure it happens to most people in his caliber; he's just willing to admit it. You probably saw he dropped off the map for quite a while, but he seems to be doing somewhat better now.

 

Also, his all-beef diet sounds nearly insufferable. Whether or not it's more insufferable than the illnesses which caused him to start it in the first place -- I couldn't possibly say.

 

That's one of the things that fascinates me about him. So much of his life is public. It's quite easy to find information about him because he's so open about it. I'm not saying he's special for it in any particular way, but it's fascinating to have such an open and frank look into someone else's life. I think it's easy to let ourselves believe our lives are much more complex than most other peoples'. It's hard to do that with him.

[Anomaly]

Of course I like pumas.  You thought I might be a monster?

 

Being a bit older with adult kids, and a fair amount of life experiences wonderful and tragic, as well as being introspective on practical life philosophy, I do find his book very intriguing.  He’s made one of the best practical and secular argument for a god concept I’ve ever read. 

[Pooooma]

On 10/14/2020 at 7:54 AM, Anomaly said:

Of course I like pumas.

Whew. Scared me for a sec.

[Papist]

On 10/2/2020 at 5:18 PM, 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 great.  Now can you articulate your own thoughts w/o ctrl+v?

[Era Might]

YouTube is mainly where I encounter new intellectual voices and personalities. Never heard of this guy, I'll just say that the market is now overfull of people producing content. They all have a degree to put to work and a story to tell. If you're reading or listening to them, it's almost always because you're their targeted market. Most of these people are just middle class people making a career off thoughts and ideas. They are neither profound nor original and most of them probably aren't even good people. I try to stick with academics or scholars rather than content personalities. Not that academics can't be a waste of time, but usually they're dealing with actual intellectual discourse, not "content" built around a personal brand. News media today is mostly just court lackeys brought on screen to gossip about politics and provide "commentary" (ie, keep you tuned in between commercials). This is true on the left and the right. They're millionaires, many of them, and you're their revenue stream. Just remember that these people are all interested in themselves. Whatever they do, they do first and foremost to make money for themselves. They don't care about you, they're not worried about resolving eternal questions for you. And as I said, if you're reading or watching them, it's largely because they know how to market themselves to people who will pay for what they're selling. Most really interesting thinkers aren't being promoted on the NYT bestseller list or Oprah or popping up in your Facebook feed. This is an exciting time to be a content consumer, lots of independent and truly intelligent voices out there, but never forget that there are massive media organizations whose sole focus 24/7/365 is to get you to consume what they're selling. Very little of what people argue over is actually interesting or intelligent. These people operate inside little industries, they make the book circuit, do the podcasts, etc. Most of them are a waste of time, many of them are wolves in sheep's clothing, especially the ones who come in the name of God. When in doubt, just read your Bible, that's the only book really worth your time.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Era Might

[Era Might]

On 2/1/2021 at 2:25 PM, Era Might said:

YouTube is mainly where I encounter new intellectual voices and personalities.

Speaking of which, I found some great early 90s lectures by a Duke professor named Rick Roderick from West Texas. FWIW I saw someone in the comments section mention Jordan Peterson as a cult-like personality without Roderick's critical intelligence. I highly recommend the lectures.

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Era Might