That a statement like “we had to destroy the town to save it” was ever taken seriously is a result of the fact that a lot of people are linear thinkers* who can only see a single path from point A to B (there’s also a mass of sequential thinkers who don’t perceive any cause and effect at all, but apart from some momentary nodding at a person who seems wise to them they’re apathetic to grand solutions like Peterson’s).
This is why the callow and unsophisticated audience Peterson has targetted for his “12 Rules” would find Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance” so confusing. Spurred on by a charlatan who portrays himself (and the alt-right) as a victim of censorship by politically correct “postmodernist neoMarxists” and other non-existent conspiracies, they believe that free speech is an end in and of itself rather than what Enlightenment thinkers envisioned it to be: a necessary vehicle for progress and what we now call social justice. If Peterson’s followers were systematic thinkers they could process what Popper (or Justice Holmes, for that matter) was saying about free speech, but such people are thin on the ground amongst American conservatives in general these days.
For 60 years in the West, this sort of dim-witted thought process wasn’t an existential problem for democracy; its effects were dampened by an anomalous general prosperity combined with skin and gender privilege, and right-wing extremism and calls for things like “enforced monogamy for life” were relegated to the fringes where they belong. That time has ended and in politics and the media charlatans and grifters and authoritarians looking to exploit these newly insecure but still entitled linear and sequential thinkers are striking while the iron is hot.
Final warning for this topic: Do not reply to or engage users who have asked not to be engaged. That sort of harassment receives permanent retribution, and I’ve already commented on it above.
Not only did it have a bad case of lobsters, but I just found out the Toronto Star has now also published a short letter about it also explaining more of its faults.
The Sun? May as well be Pravda; a veritable sea of shot and hatred hath that outlet and its many suboffices spewed. No greater hive of bile towards women, minorities, LGBTQ, and the poor can one find short of a visit to the UK’s edition of it.
I would be loathe to cite a Sun article on flea market trading, let alone one of it’s boring screed-as-defense columns.
Edit:
Partway through, Schiff reveals the true nature of his grievance. His daughter is trans, making him naturally sensitive to trans issues and susceptible to misconstruing Peterson’s position.
See, this victim-blamey, gaslighting tripe is exactly what I expected.
It’s like saying @anon61833566 shouldn’t be allowed to speak as to his experiences as a parent in a multi cultural family in a public hearing.
Jordan Peterson’s bullshit is blatant misogynistic, islamophobic, transphobic crap.
EDIT2:
The Sun has no honour, nor do the many lobsters upgoating transphobic comments on Peterson’s Facebook post on the column from Schiff.
The Sun? May as well be Pravda; a veritable sea of shot and hatred hath that outlet and its many suboffices spewed. No greater hive of bile towards women, minorities, LGBTQ, and the poor can one find short of a visit to the UK’s edition of it.
Ad hominem fallacy: rejecting an argument because of the person who made the argument (or in this case, who published it)
The Toronto Sun is a mainstream newspaper, so far as I’m concerned (I’m Canadian). So there’s no need to try to get around the facts by using ad hominems. The Toronto Star has now published a short letter explaining its faults, and the Toronto Sun a fuller devastating refutation.
That sort of thing is common with cults of personality, as I’m sure you’re familiar with from what I recall is your own research into $cientology and its methods. After a certain point the followers don’t have to be organised to defend their guru – they just do it as a knee-jerk response.
I believe that’s the NY Post-like tabloid that so often goes to bat for the odious Ford family in its news coverage and op-eds, and held out the longest on the crack story about the late* Rob Ford.
With the Internet, there’s no cult compound where members can be isolated and sleep-deprived until they accept the guru’s red-pill. No Stasi-like system of Knowledge Reports on fellow members who might be wavering. No forced disconnection/disfollowshiping of friends and family who have contrary beliefs. No flirty-fishing, so they’re not getting laid, I think.
So… Not a cult as we’ve understood it before, but it still quacks.
Thanks for the clarifying info. I was talking more about cults of personality/charismatic cults in general where an individual leader (often a politician) is worshipped almost without question by his most devoted followers. Your point is well-taken, though, and I also wouldn’t argue that the traditional trappings of religious cults you list here are present with Peterson’s followers:
These characteristics seem to fall for the most part into Milieu Control, Dispensing of Existence, Confession, and Demands for Purity.
From what I can see, with Peterson’s followers there is no Milieu Control, a certain degree of Mystical Manipulation (Jordaddy’s just-so stories), some limited Demands for Purity, no real Confession (except perhaps for voluntary sharing and commiseration in private Internet forums), definite Sacred Science, definite Loaded Language, an unclear degree of Doctrine Over Person, and (especially when linked to alt-right ideologies) some degree of Dispensing of Existence.
I tend to give community topics wider latitude than posts linked to front-page posts because they just are seen by you, the BBS community, who tend to be a group of happy mutants.
However, this particular topic has been locked several times, primarily for one reason: Because remarks about members, rather than their viewpoints or opinions, are being made.
Let me share some hard-won wisdom: This topic, like all others, can’t be “won”. The likelihood that you will change someone’s mind is very small. You are welcome to try, of course, and IMHO these sorts of discussions are beneficial to those who are undecided on a subject, but there isn’t going to be a point where anyone is “defeated” or you can claim some sort of victory.
Why do I bring that up?
Because posting about a person, rather than their position, very often is exactly that behaviour - trying to, somehow, show that you have “bested” each other in some sort of verbal fencing. It’s not going to happen, and worse, it turns people away from your intended message to begin with. No one wants to read a bunch of posts interspersed with bullying “Ha Ha! point” messages in them.
If that sort of behaviour continues, Not only will this topic end up locked permanently, but it will be pretty clear that despite multiple warnings, anyone still behaving in such a way clearly has no intention of engaging in civil discourse about ideas, versus taking pot shots at people, and will be asked not to return.
