Jordan Peterson

[Lexicus]

This is the problem with the echo chamber lives we live. His main objection was the institutionalization of created-words brought by legislation, and to the explosion of gender terms.

But that whole thing is just a lie. There was no legislation to force anyone to call anyone by their pronouns. And since his "main objection" was based on a lie, or at the least a misunderstanding of the relevant law, it's rather ironic that you would imply that I'm the one who succumbed to an "echo chamber" here...

As far as I can tell, he's quite happy to use someone's preferred gender pronoun, especially if it's not insanely confusing or ultra-specific. His problem isn't that he's unclear. He's actually reasonably clear.

Right, which is clearly why he completely made up a concern about being "forced" to use certain pronouns. It totally stretches credibility that people who make a big fuss about being "forced" to do a thing (when they are, in fact, not being forced to do that thing at all) are "quite happy" to do that thing.

It's literally the same thing I would say to someone who literally asked me to call them by their nickname at work. If the boss then passed a broad-sweeping policy that would lead to more problems than it would solve, I would object.

That quote is complete nonsense, though. His whole brand suggests to me that he would, obviously, detect a chip on their shoulder or ascribe 'political motives' to them no matter what.

 

[Camikaze]

Speech can be trained. High IQ implies easier training. But Good speech can be trained into lower IQ candidates, it just requires more effort by them and their instructors. Similarly, high IQ coupled with lack of interest and/or lack of instruction will not produce quality speech.

I'm not sure this is true, but in any case, it's worth pointing out that this isn't disagreeing with what was quoted. Kyriakos is saying that the quality of someone's speech (objectively???) is, to some extent, predictive of their IQ. You're saying that those with a higher IQ may have a higher tendency to exhibit good speech. Those two points are in agreement.

 

[Kyriakos]

On the conservative front, he's mostly just providing its (socially useful) immune system of fighting back against the wild diversity of non-viable liberal ideas. Liberals tend to have a bazillion changes they'd like to experiment with, and so require a process by which they're whittled into the good ones.

But, legally, he was pushing back against a terrible mandate being encoded.

I agree with that as general summation, yet the mere simplicity of the statement/issue (about new pronouns etc) is imo making his rise to relevance seem way too ludicrous. Sure, people will clap for a binary option they favour (in this case a no to new pronouns) and they don't have to be non-cretin to be for that option either (true for either of the two options). In so simple matters, and moreso in matters which are expressed in a yes or no (with some commentary, which usually - and in this case too, apparently - is largely trivial) it is pretty meaningless to get something out of, no? Maybe Peterson just liked how he suddenly came to the spotlight, but in reality he is not there now due to some supposed high worth, but due to the current political climate where a sea of trolling has clapping seagulls endlessly on sight.

I'm not sure this is true, but in any case, it's worth pointing out that this isn't disagreeing with what was quoted. Kyriakos is saying that the quality of someone's speech (objectively???) is, to some extent, predictive of their IQ. You're saying that those with a higher IQ may have a higher tendency to exhibit good speech. Those two points are in agreement.

My remark was about a specific trait of speech - namely tone and then other, more automatic ties to speech - and certainly was not a remark about speech being of 'good quality' or not. In fact i even noted that a person with vast intelligence can (for a number of reasons, eg high anxiety) produce very problematic speech. I also referred to how such obscure-er traits of speech are focused upon routinely in situations where noticing how they person talks is equally important to what they say, eg in therapy.

 

[El_Machinae]

But that whole thing is just a lie. There was no legislation to force anyone to call anyone by their pronouns. And since his "main objection" was based on a lie, or at the least a misunderstanding of the relevant law, it's rather ironic that you would imply that I'm the one who succumbed to an "echo chamber" here...

Right, which is clearly why he completely made up a concern about being "forced" to use certain pronouns. It totally stretches credibility that people who make a big fuss about being "forced" to do a thing (when they are, in fact, not being forced to do that thing at all) are "quite happy" to do that thing.

That quote is complete nonsense, though. His whole brand suggests to me that he would, obviously, detect a chip on their shoulder or ascribe 'political motives' to them no matter what.

Nope, echo chamber. Lexicus, you cannot accurately summarize the issue, even when challenged to do so. All you can do is express bias, and then I have to do all the actual work of filtering out your bias in order to see if you have a point..

Honestly, it was easier filtering out useful information from nearly everyone else I have literally traded traded words with on this topic.

 

[Lexicus]

Nope, echo chamber. Lexicus, you cannot accurately summarize the issue, even when challenged to do so. All you can do is express bias, and then I have to do all the actual work of filtering out your bias in order to see if you have a point..

A number of lawyers have pointed out that Peterson misinterpreted the law. I think the real problem here is not my bias or ability to summarize the issues accurately - it is the fact that you actually agree with Peterson's misinterpretation of the law.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, his insistence on not calling trans people by their pronouns is gratuitous nastiness of the sort that quite naturally produces lots of ill will.

I don't think he does insist on that though. He was against being forced to do so by law.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ah. Now value-judgements ...

So, welcome to online debating. Now watch as I internally dial down the utilty of your posts on the topic. Not due to the actual underlying topic, but merely on the style you (try to) force me to glean wheat from chaff.

I recognise it's based on a social resistance to the Alt-Right. It's not like it pushes me towards them, obviously. Just reduces your perceived utilty. Continue to present poorly if you wish. Up to you.

 

[Lexicus]

Ah. Now value-judgements ...

So, welcome to online debating. Now watch as I internally dial down the utilty of your posts on the topic. Not due to the actual underlying topic, but merely on the style you (try to) force me to glean wheat from chaff.

I recognise it's based on a social resistance to the Alt-Right. It's not like it pushes me towards them, obviously. Just reduces your perceived utilty.

There is no value judgment in observing that Peterson claimed the law was going to do something it did not in fact do. Meanwhile, you can take your apparent disdain for value judgments and shove it somewhere inappropriate. Go look up and read what trans and non-binary people have said about how Peterson makes them feel with his crap. Then maybe you can "dial down the utility" of pretending to be unbiased about this stuff.

 

[inthesomeday]

I look at Peterson and his “academic transphobia” as essentially the same thing as race realism and “academic anti feminism”. Essentially they boil down in their actual operational value to the means by which reactionary social and political forces funnel “““moderate””” young cis white men, especially university students, into the Alt-Right. A set of pretty much baseless propositions made by “credible” sources (white men who work at schools) that have no scientific or even logical grounds from which to develop, which are then branded as extremely scientific and logical by virtue of their sponsor’s position and identity, and then pitted against movements for social progress.

The difference with Peterson is that he isn’t even that good at speaking, nor does he even sound very smart at all. His popularity among the target demographic of the product he sells is if anything proof that the Alt Right are really just looking for wealthy white men saying what they already like to hear, without actually attributing any originality or value to what these white men are saying. A lot of folks like to applaud how “charismatic” people like Tomi Lahren and Milo Yiannapoulis are, or even among leftist circles to attribute their success to their ability to speak, but with Peterson there is no charisma or speaking skills, which makes this argument weak and adds evidence to the idea that maybe these ideas are as old as dirt and are just manifested with modernity in the Alt Right, which wanders around like a chicken without a head until it can point to some guy and worship him.

 

[warpus]

Peterson leans to the left, not to the right

 

[inthesomeday]

Peterson leans to the left, not to the right

...Yikes

 

[warpus]

I mean, it's true. I have no idea why you'd think otherwise. Presumably because he disagrees with your own points of view or something?

Go ahead and quote Peterson ever saying that he's conservative or leans to the right. I'd be surprised if you could find a quote like that by him.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Leaning isn't enough on these forums, you have to be horizontal.

 

[warpus]

Politically Peterson is a "Classic British Liberal" (his own words)

Seems to me that some people on the left are saying: "Well I don't like this guy so let's say he's on the far-right".

Sounds about as moronic as saying: "Well I disagree with the above poster so he must be a Nazi"

 

[Manfred Belheim]

To be fair I think he is an advocate of the "tradional" family unit. I believe he's also religious, although he shies away form talking about that. Both of those could be seen as socially conservative positions. Hardly far right, but still.

 

[Farm Boy]

Both of those could be seen as socially conservative positions.

Yes, but that's dumb so I wouldn't bother gratifying it much.

 

[inthesomeday]

Liberalism is not leftism. Peterson is hardly even a liberal. He opposes feminism, trans people, Marxism, socialism, anti-racist and anti-fascist action. He supports market capitalism, race realism, and platforms for fascists.

Literally saying “I like free speech” doesn’t make you a leftist.

 

[warpus]

He's a liberal whether you like it or not.

To consider him to be "far right" is just idiotic. Anyone doing that obviously has an agenda or knows absolutely nothing about this man's positions, or both. If he's right wing then I'm the tooth fairy and you're an ancient Aztec warrior who worships shoe laces.

 

[Narz]

The difference with Peterson is that he isn’t even that good at speaking, nor does he even sound very smart at all. His popularity among the target demographic of the product he sells is if anything proof that the Alt Right are really just looking for wealthy white men saying what they already like to hear, without actually attributing any originality or value to what these white men are saying. A lot of folks like to applaud how “charismatic” people like Tomi Lahren and Milo Yiannapoulis are, or even among leftist circles to attribute their success to their ability to speak, but with Peterson there is no charisma or speaking skills, which makes this argument weak and adds evidence to the idea that maybe these ideas are as old as dirt and are just manifested with modernity in the Alt Right, which wanders around like a chicken without a head until it can point to some guy and worship him.

Wut? Yiannapoulis is charasmatic? I could only take about 60 seconds of him on Rogan.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

He doesn't actually oppose trans people though, that's just a lie. I don't know about the other stuff, but lying about that one things means I have less faith in the other assertions. And I don't think you can really claim that being opposed to Marxism makes you right wing.