Jordan Peterson

[El_Machinae]

Fair enough - I'll take your word for it. As I said above, I think that fascists like him because of the content of his talks or whatever it is that he does, so I don't see "fascists like him" as a problem from the other problems I have with him.

They like him for a variety of reasons, but not all because he's triggering their latent fascism. He's not like Trump, purely a hateful-demagogue, and he's best not treated like that. Like I imply, there's wheat in the chaff. It's why it's more useful to excise the issue rather than silence the discussion when the opportunity arises.

Lexicus, go back to the very start of our conversation, where I pointed out the risks of the echo chamber. Your original statements (that I were replying to) were inaccurate. And not in a useful way, but because you were expressing your bias while (I presume) battling what you see as a social ill. The problem with your inaccuracy is either (a) you didn't recognize it or (b) that you don't care if you're inaccurate. But the social problem with your inaccuracy was that every single partisan opponent you have immediately judges that you don't know what you're talking about. So, you're then yelling into the chamber, where any inaccuracies you present out of reason (b) are just at risk of devolving the conversation further.

 

[Micheal Corvinus]

Cultural Marxism, and Globalists as used today by the far-right (Peterson included), are dog whistles for antisemitism

I don't think that's going to cut it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinairy evidence. Lets talk specifics... whatcha got?

 

[Farm Boy]

Like I said, the main problem with him is that the fascists like him.

Fair. Though to be honest, I'm getting a lot more intentional and deliberate malice out of this whole thing than you seem to be. I might just need to keep working on patience.

 

[Lexicus]

Your original statements (that I were replying to) were inaccurate.

Yeah, see, I still don't agree with this.

But the social problem with your inaccuracy was that every single partisan opponent you have immediately judges that you don't know what you're talking about.

I wear this as a badge of honor.

 

[inthesomeday]

I don't think that's going to cut it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinairy evidence. Lets talk specifics... whatcha got?

What? What are you talking about exactly? You want evidence of how the far-right uses dog whistles?

 

[Lexicus]

What? What are you talking about exactly? You want evidence of how the far-right uses dog whistles?

I think he wants a signed statement to the effect that "I, Jordan Peterson, actually mean Jews when I'm talking about Cultural Marxists."

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, see, I still don't agree with this.



I wear this as a badge of honor.

You shouldn't. Regarding issues like this, you have a moral obligation to be a persuasive communicator. The alt right is a social ill that will cause an entire generation of damage

 

[Traitorfish]

You shouldn't. Regarding issues like this, you have a moral obligation to be a persuasive communicator. The alt right is a social ill that will cause an entire generation of damage

I tend to feel that if persuasion was going to work on these guys, it would have started working sometime around 1922.

 

[Robo-Star]

You shouldn't. Regarding issues like this, you have a moral obligation to be a persuasive communicator. The alt right is a social ill that will cause an entire generation of damage

Any tips for being a persuasive communicator to someone who immediately judges that you don't know what you're talking about regardless of the accuracy of what you say e.g. a partisan opponent?

 

[Kozmos]

I tend to feel that if persuasion was going to work on these guys, it would have started working sometime around 1922.

So what one does with such people? Presumably a part of the population will always be biologically wired to be that way and inclined to authoritarian power structures.

 

[inthesomeday]

So what one does with such people? Presumably a part of the population will always be biologically wired to be that way and inclined to authoritarian power structures.

No, no they won’t. Fascism is definitely not biological, it’s cultural. So ideally we’d get to a point socially where the conditions that enable it don’t exist anymore.

 

[Lexicus]

You shouldn't. Regarding issues like this, you have a moral obligation to be a persuasive communicator. The alt right is a social ill that will cause an entire generation of damage

I think you have a moral obligation to support socialist policies that prevent people from falling into the kind of existential despair for which fascism so readily provides a remedy. I think that works rather a bit better than "persuasion" at preventing fascism.

 

[El_Machinae]

I tend to feel that if persuasion was going to work on these guys, it would have started working sometime around 1922.

Well, your feelings are wrong, almost obviously so. Everyone is affected at the individual level, and conversation happens at the individual level. Especially with someone who gleans any useful insights from Peterson. As soon as that person think that you're less reasonable that those who are latently alt-right, you've done very little to help.

If you're putting too many of 'these people' into a box that cannot be talked to, then honestly, I don't know what to say to you next. They're gonna vote next time, regardless of how you drive them away from reasonable discourse.

 

[inthesomeday]

If you're putting too many of 'these people' into a box that cannot be talked to, then honestly, I don't know what to say to you next. They're gonna vote next time, regardless of how you drive them away from reasonable discourse.

Frankly their vote is not the most frightening thing about them

 

[Lexicus]

Well, your feelings are wrong, almost obviously so. Everyone is affected at the individual level, and conversation happens at the individual level. Especially with someone who gleans any useful insights from Peterson. As soon as that person think that you're less reasonable that those who are latently alt-right, you've done very little to help.

If you're putting too many of 'these people' into a box that cannot be talked to, then honestly, I don't know what to say to you next. They're gonna vote next time, regardless of how you drive them away from reasonable discourse.

I think it might be instructive to throw this here:

"If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called “a mob”. Regrettably too many “fair-minded” people didn’t either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over ... People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests."

-Franz Frison, Holocaust survivor

 

[Chose]

If you come out and state that Peterson is a trans-phobic fascist, without feeling the slightest need to actually give an argument or provide some evidence of why, you have revealed yourself to be merely a name-calling ideological hack, and have absolutely no credibility on this topic.

To show someone is a fascist, or trans-phobic, you don't need a letter signed by them saying they are. If someone asks for evidence, and that is your response, great, you have revealed that you in fact have no actual evidence. Obviously you wouldn't get any push back if Peterson would agree with the labels you are giving him, but he doesn't. He explicitly rejects those labels. This means you now have the burden of proof to show, from the most charitable and plausible interpretation of his words, that those labels are accurate.

The fact is, the vast majority of people who have actually listened to him or read him, and don't live within a isolated echo chamber, have not come away with that conclusion. I have listened to Peterson on a few occasions and haver never heard him say anything to suggest he is fascist, or even trans-phonic. I don't know everything he said, and I presume most of you guys don't know either.

So far, the only evidence I have seen about his alleged trans-phobia is that he opposition bill C-16. But he is opposed to it on the grounds that he thought it was government compelled speech when viewed in light of the corresponding relevant documentation. This is not evidence of someone being trans-phobic. Even if his understanding of the bill is incorrect, which I don't believe it is, and there has been a lot of debate about this, that still wouldn't constitute evidence he is trans-phobic. If you think it does, I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

His summary of the bill was rather incorrect, so the better question would be whether he's changed his criticism of it when exposed to new information.

I think it might be instructive to throw this here:

The majority of the people you will discuss Peterson with are not going to be fascists. Their ambivalence towards your insights will determine whether they end up being allies or not. If you come across and angry-and-uninformed, then not only will they dismiss your opinion, but they will also associate your ideas with people like you. It's okay to be associated with good ideas, but I don't think it's ideal to drag them down.

Think about it, I read your sentences, and said that they were inaccurate. That was my first impression. It's because they're poorly phrased, and so they will be immediately dismissed with anyone who's not already biased towards your opinion. You will dislike my feedback, but it's gonna be necessary if you want to improve your crafting.

As the quote says

Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds

 

[Narz]

The majority of the people you will discuss Peterson with are not going to be fascists. Their ambivalence towards your insights will determine whether they end up being allies or not. If you come across and angry-and-uninformed, then not only will they dismiss your opinion, but they will also associate your ideas with people like you. It's okay to be associated with good ideas, but I don't think it's ideal to drag them down.

This explains the cultural divide right here. It's probably mostly due to the Internet. It's easy to find the shrillest, most idiotic characature of what one is arguing against and then paint everyone who sounds the least bit like them with that brush. A feminist chastises you for 'mansplaining' after asking you to explain your opinion = all feminists are idiots, a libertarian states 'tax is theft' = libertarians are idiots.

People are lazy & stereotype, it's easier than ever to find examples of absolutely repulsive/out-of-touch behavior from your enemies

 

[Lexicus]

As the quote says

The quote is actually referring to pearl-clutching over direct action taken by students and faculty against a Nazi speaker invited to Trinity College in Dublin in 1989.

You will dislike my feedback, but it's gonna be necessary if you want to improve your crafting.

Your assumption is that I have the same goals in my discourse about Jordan as you would. In light of the fact that that assumption is false, you should pay attention to my feedback, which is that when you say these kinds of things it simply makes me feel angry and condescended to. You should, uh, "improve your crafting."

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I didn't know Peterson jumped on the cultural marxist train. It's good though that he comes out as a closet antisemite. Makes it that much easier to know what he is really about. As for anyone denying that "cultural marxism" is a dogwhistle for "international jewry", at least read the damn wikipedia entry. It's not even subtle, the narrative of cm is quite literally that Jews are trying to destroy "western civilization", it's values and traditions, via the frankfurt school or critical theory.

Your entire post feels like an argument made in such a bad faith I really can't wrap my head around this.

The guy points out a fact* and you conclude, "ergo, he secretly wishes to commit genocide by sterilization". WTH?

*It can be debated whether it is a fact, i.e. whether people with IQ of 80 can be gainfully employed or not. However, you aren't saying he is wrong, you're saying it must be taboo to mention it, no matter the truth value of this statement.
This is a horrible stance which imho puts you in a morally indefensible position. It implies that people should be lied to, because they can't be expected to handle truth. It also implies you don't wish to risk making an argument that people have worth beyond their economic utility, so you attempt to preempt the whole argument with a false dogma.
With a lot of people increasingly worried (and with a good reason) about whether those of us with perfectly normal IQ are going to be "productive" enough to support themselves in a generation or so, we urgently need a solution to this problem.
And this false dogma comes in the way of finding that solution.

EDIT: To be clear, I know nothing about Peterson, except I watched that one video where some interviewer was constantly trying to put words into his mouth.

how in the ever living did you get that out of my post?.. and why do you even bother to reply when you obviously don't know anything about pete, like what's the point?

I gave a rough genealogy of the schools of thought that put "productivity" and "biological capability" at the forefront and showed how peterson perfectly fits the bill, just that he has adapted to a more modern audience. a tenured, successful college professor will obviously be aware that talking about eugenics will be hugely problematic for him. what pete really thinks deep down is unknowable for us. otoh what he says on the surface is very revealing. that was the entire gist of my post. analyzing what he talks about in interviews and his own YouTube videos, rather than lectures, paints a vivid picture of his worldview.

your post is so scattered I barely know what to reply to. "it also implies you don't wish to risk making an argument that people have worth beyond their economic utility, so you attempt to preempt the whole argument with a false dogma." why would I even have to make such an argument? it should be obvious to anyone with a brain, infact it is the point I am moving toward. the kind of "scientists" that grade people only on their (economic) "utility" are knowingly being reductionist in order to drive forward an agenda. "With a lot of people increasingly worried (and with a good reason) about whether those of us with perfectly normal IQ are going to be "productive" enough to support themselves in a generation or so" not once in my life have I heard anyone form that thought. it seems more like You are worrying about this, not the whole world.