Jordan Peterson

[Traitorfish]

I think "liberal" here is being used to mean "conservative, but not in a way that would make things awkward at a dinner party".

 

[inthesomeday]

Authoritarianism refers to one's attitude towards the state. It would be reasonable to characterize a society of slaveholding households as anti-authoritarian.

What even are you talking about?

#1 is not even wrong (what are these principles and where did they come from?).

#2 is true.

#3 is true, but way too vague to be debatable.

#4 is true.

#5 I can't make sense of.

#6 is not true.

#7 is true.

#8 is mostly true. For every genuine benefit revolutionaries have given us, I could point to a dozen catastrophes.

#9 is true.

#10 is true, with the caveat that we're talking about individuals and not corporations.

#11 is true.

#12 is half true, since justice isn't just a matter of policy. There has to be some ideal to follow.

“Guys I swear I’m not a reactionary. Anyway as I was saying heterosexual supremacy is the only way to have a stable society”

 

[Traitorfish]

This thread is reminding me more and more of that Patton Oswalt bit about language and intention and evil [melonfarmers]. (Warning for NSWF language, potato-quality video.)

Point 11 from Peterson's mini-festo could be a direct quote.

 

[inthesomeday]

I also think it’s funny that literally the only agreeable point Peterson proposes— #6, basically the only thing every political ideology at least pretends to agree with— is the only one @Mouthwash dissents on

 

[Bootstoots]

I think "liberal" here is being used to mean "conservative, but not in a way that would make things awkward at a dinner party".

I'm using it as in "liberal democracy", i.e. respecting civil liberties, not believing that there should be substantial limits on free expression, and so forth.

Well, that list of principles from Twitter sure contain a number of points that are totally incompatible with what I think of as liberalism. It's sort of unclear to what extent Peterson agrees with those principles, though.

(Relinking for reference)

Yeah, I'm not clear on that either - I don't know whether he endorses them entirely, or is suggesting that they sort of the distilled essence of modern conservatism while not saying that they are what he believes. They are apparently from a speech he gave to the Ontario Conservatives last year; he may have modified his message to fit their platform.

His #11, if he does fully endorse it, would be the first time I've heard anything remotely homophobic from him. I do believe he thinks that well-functioning two-parent households are preferable to one-parent households - which doesn't seem very controversial - but I am surprised he'd insist that the parents be opposite sex. #3 isn't surprising; he does believe that hierarchies are natural and likes them too much for my taste. #8 and #9 come from a Burkean suspicion of radical change, which he would motivate by bringing up Communism and perhaps the French Revolution. #7 comes from his belief that young people aren't educated very well on responsibility; he doesn't oppose teaching about rights but thinks they're overemphasized.

All of this seems more or less par for the course for someone in the center-right in 2018. If it hadn't been for his alarmism on Bill C-16, I doubt he'd have gotten much attention. I don't see any good reason to consider him far-right, despite his strange appeal to some of the Pepe crowd.

 

[miaasma]

the line between center-right and far-right becomes more blurred every day

 

[Farm Boy]

Things look smaller the farther away from them one gets.

Also, long time!

Hiyadere!

 

[Kyriakos]

the line between center-right and far-right becomes more blurred every day

An example of that being the two main US political parties ^_^

 

[Mouthwash]

Are we just saying random things now? I love lamp!

No, I meant that ideologies can transform themselves pretty radically in a few decades. I had cornflakes without milk for breakfast.

I am curious to to know what you think the word "authority" means.

Authoritarianism explicitly refers to state power, dude.

It's also worth picking up on the fact that although point #11 is overtly homophobic, it isn't just homophobic, because it also functions as an attack on single parents, on multi-generational households, and on co-resident extended families. That these sorts of family arrangements are markedly more prevalent among black, brown and Indigenous people in North America, and among recent immigrants, strikes me as something less than a coincidence.

Do you know *anything* about modern-day conservatism? Peterson has actually avoided emphasizing that, and I think he shouldn't. The fact that those groups have high rates of poverty, violence and crime is a direct result of an unhealthy family structure. Pointing that out is the best way to resist parts of the right who think genetics are responsible, and is the only way to actually help those groups in the long-term.

Whether or not Peterson intended it as an equation of citizenship with straight white householding men, that's certainly how it is going to be read by a substantial part of his audience. "Not racist, but #1 with racists" and all that.

Haha no. The genuine racists don't like black or brown people because of who they are, not their bad family practices. Richard Spencer supports abortion because he thinks its prevalence among blacks will lower their numbers (I don't think it's a coincidence that he supports gay marriage as well).

Number 11 is absolutely terrifying to me. It's about three steps from there to branding people who aren't part of "intact heterosexual two-parent families" "antisocial elements" who are a danger to the health and stability of the polity, and shipping them off to camps.

All it means is that heteronormativity is a good thing. Which is still compatible with gay marriage and adoption.

Well, that list of principles from Twitter sure contain a number of points that are totally incompatible with what I think of as liberalism. It's sort of unclear to what extent Peterson agrees with those principles, though.

I think "liberal" here is being used to mean "conservative, but not in a way that would make things awkward at a dinner party".

So he supports the basic principles of liberalism, but doesn't think they should be completely applied to every aspect of human existence? That's only, like, 99% of the history of liberalism!

 

[cardgame]

You do know that wikipedia is not a dictionary, right? It defines concepts, including multiple concepts overlapping the same word (see: disambiguation). From your own link: This article is about authoritarianism in political science and organizational studies.

Here's what an actual dictionary says:

the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

• lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others.

But actually, let's set the semantics aside for just a second. I'd be very interested to know how JP's supposed anti-authoritarianism squares away with his gender traditionalism when viewed side by side with this section, again, of your link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#Gender_and_authoritarianism

According to a study by Brandt and Henry, there is a direct correlation between the rates of gender inequality and the levels of authoritarian ideas in the male and female populations. It was found that in countries with less gender equality where individualism was encouraged and men occupied the dominant societal roles, women were more likely to support traits such as obedience which would allow them to survive in an authoritarian environment and less likely to encourage ideas such as independence and imagination. In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held less authoritarian views. It is theorized that this occurs due to the stigma attached to individuals who question the cultural norms set by the dominant individuals and establishments in an authoritarian society as a way to prevent the psychological stress caused by the active ostracizing of the stigmatized individuals.[99]

 

[Mouthwash]

If your definition is the one we accept, than 'anti-authoritarian' is a meaningless label that depends entirely on circumstance. So Peterson really could claim to be anti-authoritarian.

(Unless we only accepted anti-authoritarianism to mean complete and total liberation from authority, in which case only an anarcho-communist could ever be called such. But then we're dismissing pretty much every great liberator in history as authoritarian.)

 

[cardgame]

Authority itself depends entirely on context, but given that #2 and #7 of his principles include sections about rights being less important it certainly leans towards a socially authoritarian bent from my perspective as an idiosyncratic. A practically personal mention against me has more weight than the vague "small government" #10 which I have only ever seen lip service paid to, but no action towards. It might as well not be there for all the attention I will pay #10. Devoid of any meaning.

 

[Lexicus]

His #11, if he does fully endorse it, would be the first time I've heard anything remotely homophobic from him.

It's not even a matter of homophobia. Ultimately the liberal belief is that human relations are legitimate if they are contractual and voluntary. The family unit is neither. Indeed, holding up the family as an ideal for how a polity should work is a hallmark of various kinds of authoritarian political traditions, from theories of absolute monarchy to more modern strains of right-wing nationalism.

#3 isn't surprising; he does believe that hierarchies are natural and likes them too much for my taste. #8 and #9 come from a Burkean suspicion of radical change, which he would motivate by bringing up Communism and perhaps the French Revolution.

Both are totally incompatible with liberal principles, though. Liberalism has been a project of reform and change since the 18th century.

All it means is that heteronormativity is a good thing. Which is still compatible with gay marriage and adoption.

Not really tho? Do you know what the term "heretonormativity" means?
Since you've already quoted wikipedia, here you go:

Heteronormativity is the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (male and female) with natural roles in life. It assumes that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation or the only norm, and that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sex. A "heteronormative" view therefore involves alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity and gender roles. Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia.[1]

If your definition is the one we accept, than 'anti-authoritarian' is a meaningless label that depends entirely on circumstance. So Peterson really could claim to be anti-authoritarian.

No, ironically, the position that slaveholders can be "anti-authoritarian" is what reduces the term to meaninglessness.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's not even a matter of homophobia. Ultimately the liberal belief is that human relations are legitimate if they are contractual and voluntary. The family unit is neither. Indeed, holding up the family as an ideal for how a polity should work is a hallmark of various kinds of authoritarian political traditions, from theories of absolute monarchy to more modern strains of right-wing nationalism.

No, all it's saying is that there are certain realms in which liberalism should not dictate everything.

Heteronormativity is the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (male and female) with natural roles in life. It assumes that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation or the only norm, and that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sex. A "heteronormative" view therefore involves alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity and gender roles. Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia.

I'm defining it as heterosexual relations being considered the norm. Period. There could still be homosexuals and even trans people, but they wouldn't occupy the same social role (see: third-genders).

 

[Lexicus]

I'm defining it as heterosexual relations being considered the norm. That's it. There could still be homosexuals and even trans people, but they can't occupy the same social role (see: third-genders).

So what does it mean, "they can't occupy the same social roles"?

 

[Mouthwash]

They would be seen as kind of a special class, with different roles.

 

[Lexicus]

They would be seen as kind of a special class, with different roles.

Would they be forced to wear little pink triangles?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

They would be seen as kind of a special class, with different roles.

did you go to a "special class", mouthwash?

im really sorry for this, i just couldnt resist

 

[Mouthwash]

Would they be forced to wear little pink triangles?

Why not?

"Originally intended as a badge of shame, the pink triangle (often inverted from its Nazi usage) has been reclaimed as an international symbol of gay pride and the gay rights movement, and is second in popularity only to the rainbow flag."

 

[Lexicus]

Why not?

"Originally intended as a badge of shame, the pink triangle (often inverted from its Nazi usage) has been reclaimed as an international symbol of gay pride and the gay rights movement, and is second in popularity only to the rainbow flag."

You're literally talking about turning these people into second-class citizens. You're talking about forcing them to wear the same symbol the Nazis forced them to wear, so that we can identify them readily as being unable to form "the basis of a stable polity" or however Peterson put it.

And then you have the nerve to mention the reclamation of that symbol by the gay rights movement as a way of saying that these things would be just fine?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefugeInAudacity