What do you think about Jordan B. Peterson

[Relam]

What do you all think about Jordan B. Peterson?

My opinion is that he is the type of "inteligent religious" man and i really respect that.

[acute]

Who?

We need a link.

[Relam]

21 minutes ago, acute said:

Who?

We need a link.

Sorry, i didn't consider that maybe someone won't know who he is. Here is a introduction for you who don't know him.

 

[acute]

[eight bits]

You might also be interested in this thread from last year:

 

[Stiff]

He's a very intelligent guy, there's no doubt about that but what really grinds my gears is the fact that he's a sesquipedalian and way too verbose in his circumlocution.  Even Sam Harris gives him that perplexed look when debating. Other than that I find him intriguing.

 

[papageorge1]

I watched the video and got very little from it. My general impression is not good any that he's a provocateur. 

@Relam  Can we get one particular issue to discuss?

[Farmer77]

2 hours ago, Relam said:

What do you all think about Jordan B. Peterson?

My opinion is that he is the type of "inteligent religious" man and i really respect that.

IMO he has made himself a nice niche as the idiot's intellectual.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Stiff said:

He's a very intelligent guy, there's no doubt about that but what really grinds my gears is the fact that he's a sesquipedalian and way too verbose in his circumlocution.  Even Sam Harris gives him that perplexed look when debating. Other than that I find him intriguing.

 

You seem like a nice enough guy but man, I have to tell ya, I've been in bars where talking like that could get you a beat down.  The last thing you'd hear would be some version of "whutd he call me?" 

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, Relam said:

What do you all think about Jordan B. Peterson?

He's a modern day sophist.

Jordan Peterson is a total moron with legions of idiot followers who see him as an "intellectual" simply because he quickly articulates dumb ass right-wing talking points amidst a see of nonsense fluff words that ultimately mean and say nothing of substance.

The only reason he got popular was due to him choosing to be a transphobic dick to trans people by calling them whatever he wants to call them. 

He's also into a giving a bunch of self-help crap, and if that helps you then fine, but I wouldn't really consider this dude a role model. I mean we're talking about a guy who's complained before about how he's not able to be physically violent against women whenever they say something he doesn't like. The dude's a mess.

[Gwynbleidd]

3 hours ago, acute said:

Who?

We need a link.

@acute Enjoy  

Btw @Relam in response to your question.......I absolutely love Jordan Peterson.  He's probably one of the few people on this entire planet today that speaks common sense and isn't afraid to express his views in this time of absolute outrage culture. 

I personally think a lot of people love JP, but are too afraid to admit it publicly as the fear of getting behind someone like Peterson, offends some of the people in the current culture we're living in. He is not alt-right or alt-left.  He even mentions this in this clip for those that want to argue this.  He's a very, very fair person imo.   

In fact, this thread probably triggered some of those people already!

Edited October 19, 2019 by Gwynbleidd

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

The only reason he got popular was due to him choosing to be a transphobic dick to trans people by calling them whatever he wants to call them. 

I don't understand why his decision to refuse to be shamed or coerced into the PC dogma should be so upsetting.  Seriously.  Does he yell, smirk, snear or such or does he just use the pronoun that seems traditional for the appearance of the individual?

[Aquila King]

19 minutes ago, and then said:

I don't understand why his decision to refuse to be shamed or coerced into the PC dogma should be so upsetting.  Seriously.  Does he yell, smirk, snear or such or does he just use the pronoun that seems traditional for the appearance of the individual?

If I said: "You look like a girl, and therefore I'll address you as such" and called you "her" and "she," you would rightly be deeply insulted and interpret me doing that as a hateful and misinformed slur. If you politely expressed how you are a man, and you asked for me to refer to you as such, but then I just said: "Nope. You're a girl. A female. So I'll be referring to you as a woman from now on, miss." You'd be correct that I'd be intentionally engaging in hateful insulting and bullying behavior.

It's like me preferring to be called Rick instead of Richard or Ricky or whatever else. If you chose to call me Dick despite me expressing my obvious distaste for that name, then you're just being a colossal douche.

Literally the only thing trans people are asking for is for you to refer to them by their preferred pronouns. It hurts absolutely no one to simply respect their wishes. He isn't "brave" or "standing up to" anything by calling people what they don't want to be called. He's just being a total douche for no reason.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Aquila King

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

It's like me preferring to be called Rick instead of Richard or Ricky or whatever else. If you chose to call me Dick despite me expressing my obvious distaste for that name, then you're just being a colossal douche.

Okay, that makes sense.  If he behaves in an intentionally offensive way then I agree he's unnecessarily rude and confrontational.  I've been faced with situations a few times where I've come upon an individual in public and we greet each other.  To my eye that person is obviously female but who is clearly dressing and wearing a hairstyle that is unmistakably masculine.  You have to remember that some of us are old as dirt and these new situations tend to make us uncomfortable IF we were raised to be civil and polite to everyone- and I was.  I desire to be polite and have found the best compromise I can make is to use the expression - while smiling - "what's up guy?"  Or if it's a couple, "What's up guys?"  I can understand how some people wouldn't feel the need at all to be civil and that's their choice.  The only situation I could foresee where I might lose my manners and act the ass would be if the individual I attempt to politely greet decided to go off on me for not guessing the magic pronoun they felt like that day.  Do you see how good manners and civility is a two way street in such circumstances?  This guy may be someone who has experienced that kind of interaction much more regularly and just washed his hands of the effort.

Or, maybe he's just a jerk.

[Gwynbleidd]

5 hours ago, and then said:

I don't understand why his decision to refuse to be shamed or coerced into the PC dogma should be so upsetting.  Seriously.  Does he yell, smirk, snear or such or does he just use the pronoun that seems traditional for the appearance of the individual?

I agree with that completely @and then  Most people attack him because they've got no comeback.  I find him very entertaining, watching his interviews.   

[eight bits]

Well, in last year's thread, I aspired to explain Petersonspeak without being labeled as an advocate for it. Of course, I failed, because I lack the skill required to navigate that narrow channel, and also because, as with so many other people in the public eye, I agree with some of what Peterson says and disagree with other things he says. However, I do generally understand what he says, regardless of agreement or disagreement, because we are both admirers of Carl Jung, both political liberatrians who arrived there from the left, and both cultural Christians.

Naturally, then, here I am, eager to make the same mistake again.

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

If I said: "You look like a girl, and therefore I'll address you as such" and called you "her" and "she," you would rightly be deeply insulted and interpret me doing that as a hateful and misinformed slur.

That's the overall problem which originally brought Peterson to wide public attention. In classical liberalism (Locke, for example), I may permissibly refer to anybody any way I like. For instance, I might refer to somebody as

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

a colossal douche

If the person found out that I'd done so, they would rightly be deeply insulted and interpret me doing that as a hateful and misinformed slur.

In the United States, where AK and I live, there would be no legal interest in this private conflict. The values of classical liberalism are generally the law of the land in the US. The protected private interests in the US do not include any enforceable right not to be deeply insulted. As an American, I have the protected right to speak as I did, and your remedy would not include initiating violence against me, including violence sanctioned by the coercive power of the state.

In Canada, where Peterson lives, rights are granted and withheld as the state disposes, not as Locke & Company prescribed. OK, fine, there is nothing unusual about different peoples having different concepts of what concrete things ought to be treated as enforceable rights, and how to manage the inevitable conflicts of interests that will arise. Something like an enforceable right for specified people not to be deeply insulted was proposed as a law in Canada. Peterson announced that he would disobey such a law. Apparently, Canada doesn't have its southern neighbor's heritage of civil disobedience, either. Bam! Peterson becomes a rock star overnight, first in Canada, and then throughout the English-speaking world.

Of course, the situation is not so clear as suggested by the preceding two paragraphs. I think the summary is fair, however imperfect it is. One thing, though: there are aspects of the case that come up in conversation that simply are not Peterson's position. For instance,

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

If you politely expressed how you are a man, and you asked for me to refer to you as such, but then I just said: "Nope. You're a girl. A female. So I'll be referring to you as a woman from now on, miss." You'd be correct that I'd be intentionally engaging in hateful insulting and bullying behavior.

First, AK has shifted the goalposts. The issue in Canada was choice of third-person pronouns, the sort of thing one says when the person involved is not the person spoken to, and is usually absent. Suddenly the controversy as portrayed above is second-person, I'm talking to the person involved, and it's nouns being fielded, not pronouns. Contrary to fact nouns even ("you" in the example is not, as a matter of fact, a girl or woman, so insisting in saying "you" are a girl or woman is different from referring to "you" as she, communicating to some third party the speaker's estimate of what you look like to the speaker).

So, let's stick with what Peterson actually weighed in on:

If you politely expressed how you are a man, and you asked for me to refer to you as such, but then I just said: "Nope. When I discuss you with other people, I'll be referring to you as she."

Of course, Peterson was asked in many interviews how he'd actually behave in such a situation, aside from the question of civil disobedience. I believe it is a fair summary of his typical reply, that if he were asked politely, then he probably would comply. His objection was to the initiation of violence against him in retribution for doing otherwise, or as prior restraint to compel his compliance.

So, the topic question is what do I think about him (I as in eight bits, not the rude fictional "I" in AK's hypothetical). I enjoy listening to him. He discusses important things, and what he says displays careful thought and much learning. I don't require complete agreement with anybody else in the public arena to listen attentively, and don't see any reason why I'd require that of him.

So shoot me.

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by eight bits

[the13bats]

8 hours ago, Aquila King said:

amidst a see of nonsense fluff words that ultimately mean and say nothing of substance.

Used to be a reg at many of my club shows who in his condescending, I'm better than you voice he always spoke in he would use as many uncommon fluffy words he could string together, he felt it made him look intelligent, but in reality most just nodded rolled their eyes and dismissed him as trying too hard, he wasnt stupid just not smart enough to grasp or care how he was coming off.

One night i was trying to help fix a small crisis some people were having and he pops up due to knowing one person involved with his normal spew, i wasnt in the mood didnt have time for ego driven bs so i slammed him hard basically saying shut the xXxX up its not helping, your help we can use your bs no,

He was wise enough to not let the bruise to his huge fragile ego get in the way of coming down to earth and helping,

I only know this Peterson chap from this thread, which i can tell is enough for me, I get the impression hes some trump type but can turn a phrase more like Barry Champlain.

[Stiff]

11 hours ago, and then said:

You seem like a nice enough guy but man, I have to tell ya, I've been in bars where talking like that could get you a beat down.  The last thing you'd hear would be some version of "whutd he call me?" 

Trust me when I say that if I used that verbiage in most of the bars that I do frequent, I probably would get a beat down.

Saying that, the vast majority of them don't understand much more than grunts and low tone grumbles so they'd probably think I was speaking eastern European, like the barmaids.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Stiff

[XenoFish]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I'm not going to call it a rhino. 

Peterson seems to have a "down to earth" approach. 

Clean up your room. is about self responsibility. I can see why it triggers some people. 

[XenoFish]

[Aquila King]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

In classical liberalism (Locke, for example), I may permissibly refer to anybody any way I like. For instance, I might refer to somebody as

12 hours ago, Aquila King said:

a colossal douche

If the person found out that I'd done so, they would rightly be deeply insulted and interpret me doing that as a hateful and misinformed slur.

In the United States, where AK and I live, there would be no legal interest in this private conflict. The values of classical liberalism are generally the law of the land in the US. The protected private interests in the US do not include any enforceable right not to be deeply insulted. As an American, I have the protected right to speak as I did, and your remedy would not include initiating violence against me, including violence sanctioned by the coercive power of the state.

I realize that you're about to go on to say in this next quote that Peterson is essentially being legally forced to not call people by their preferred pronouns, and I'll address that nonsense in a second.

I just want to make it abundantly clear here that I do not support legally forcing people to not say insulting hateful things to other people. I'm a free speech absolutist. I despise censorship of any kind. The sole exception I can think of being direct threats of / incitement of violence. Besides that however, you reserve the full right to be the most hateful, bigoted, insulting, smug, condescending ass hole on the planet. That doesn't mean you should be an ass, just that you have the right to be.

When I call out Jordan Peterson for being a douche by not calling trans people by their preferred pronouns, I'm not suggesting he should face any legal ramifications for it. Not in the slightest. I'm simply calling him a douche, cause he is one. He has the right to treat trans people like s**t, it's just that he shouldn't.

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

Something like an enforceable right for specified people not to be deeply insulted was proposed as a law in Canada. Peterson announced that he would disobey such a law. Apparently, Canada doesn't have its southern neighbor's heritage of civil disobedience, either. Bam! Peterson becomes a rock star overnight, first in Canada, and then throughout the English-speaking world.

This is a flat out provable falsehood.

Canadian bill C-16 which was to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act simply extended basic civil rights protections to transgender and non-binary people. It did not legally force people to address transgender people with particular pronouns.

Quote

Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act

The law amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination. That makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression to matters within federal jurisdiction, such as the federal government, federal services to the public, or a federally regulated industry. A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code?wprov=sfla1

Jordan Peterson completely misrepresented Canadian law in order to get famous by piggybacking off the right-wing internet anti-SJW hysteria movement.

He isn't brave or profound, he's just a bigoted idiot passing himself off as an intellectual.

[Scholar4Truth]

Radical liberals hate him cause he is not politically correct and tells them things they don't want to hear. 

[Relam]

18 hours ago, Aquila King said:

The only reason he got popular was due to him choosing to be a transphobic dick to trans people by calling them whatever he wants to call them.

Trans people are just ill people and it's not wrong to call them ill, but in this fake brainwashed society  is

[Aquila King]

7 minutes ago, Scholar4Truth said:

Radical liberals hate him cause he is not politically correct and tells them things they don't want to hear. 

1) We don't hate him, we just think he's wrong on most issues.

2) "Not Politically Correct" is usually just a euphemism for "Being an Insulting Dick."

3) I'm open to listening to anyone. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

[Relam]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

1) We don't hate him, we just think he's wrong on most issues.

2) "Not Politically Correct" is usually just a euphemism for "Being an Insulting Dick."

3) I'm open to listening to anyone. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Please go somwere else and don't post on my thread i didn't wanted some snowflake with his radical political views i just wanted to discuss with normal intelligent people about J.B Peterson