Sorry dorgar, but Peterson doesn’t say the patriarchy is individualistic. I don’t think he even believes the patriarchy exists. Citation needed, like all the other pseudovalid accusations against him written on this thread as of yet.
No. He doesn’t “believe” it exists. That would run against his message.
7 Likes
Right, he doesn’t believe it exists. Which disproves your claim that he fashions the patriarchy as individualistic. Can’t have it both ways. What you wrote two minutes ago;
Then he pulls the bait and switch. He plays up patriarchy as somehow individualistic, when in fact it is just the status quo for the dominant tribe currently.
So, which is it? Does JP not think the patriarchy exists, or does JP play up the patriarchy as individualistic? What kind of wrongthink has he committed this time?
No. You’re confusing the message with the medium, I’m afraid.
6 Likes
For what it’s worth, Peterson, like most of his acolytes, believes feminism “is a reprehensible ideology”. Peterson is a feudalist in every sense of the word, once equating a pride March with “murderous equality doctrine”.
7 Likes
Sorry dorgar, you’ve lost me. Peterson can’t play prop up the patriarchy as something good and individualistic and not think it exists at the same time. Perhaps it is just correct that all the accusations raised against him in this thread just don’t level up to scrutiny.
I’ll give two other weird examples on this thread. @fuzzyfungus said;
Would I be correct in understanding that this Jordan Peterson is basically Umar Johnson for white guys? They appear to share quite a few characteristics.
Except nothing in Peterson’s message is targetted for white guys, there’s nothing particularly white or male about his audience in specific. This characterization really was born in the leftist media and hasn’t had any traction with … basically anyone who has been in a lecture hall that JP has spoken in. Or what about this?
Also from that link:
In an interview with Joe Rogan, he congratulated himself for “monetizing SJW’s”, and brags that the more he is attacked by them, the more money he is given through Patreon.
with a reference to a YouTube video which i don’t care to watch
This was actually pretty awesome. I think leftists really can’t understand what’s going on. Peterson says some things that a lot of people, including many intellectuals, enjoy watching, so his Patreon goes up. In order to curb his popularity, some leftists protest him, and as JP says, when that happens his Patreon goes WAY up. It seems to really be some kind of paradox for many leftists. Turns out, when you slander a guy endlessly, and then people see his content for themselves and find out all of it is purely absurd, people tend to side with him. Sounds good to me.
EDIT: @tinoesroho returns and says;
For what it’s worth, Peterson, like most of his acolytes, believes feminism “is a reprehensible ideology”. Peterson is a feudalist in every sense of the word, once equating a pride March with “murderous equality doctrine”.
But we all know JP is talking about the third wave feminist movement, not about equality itself. In the Cathy Newman, everyone knows at this point JP supported equality of opportunity between everyone, including men and women. What JP and almost everyone else opposes, of course, is the third wave feminist movement, which is concerned with pseudoproblems like “mansplaining” and elevator jokes about the womens lingerie department. Lol.
Let me side with you for a moment. I’ll say “leftists” don’t understand what’s going on. Tell me what’s going on, and what it represents to you. Why does Peterson speak to you?
Who is your tribe?
3 Likes
Let me side with you for a moment. I’ll say “leftists” don’t understand what’s going on. Tell me what’s going on, and what it represents to you. Why does Peterson speak to you. Who is your tribe?
Wow, that was the most honest question anyone has actually asked me so far on the JP discussion, especially since … welll … the disaster that this thread turned out to be.
So, this is how I see JP. To preface, I understand JP as completely genuine in what he says and believes. There have been comical accusations in the Macleans magazine of him “huckstering” or doing it for the money, but it’s clearly not true. He has genuinely cried, on camera, multiple times for the things he’s talking about. One example that I found particularly nice;
If Peterson was really doing anything for the money, he would have bought a mansion and a yacht by now, since he no doubt has the money at this point since his book has sold over a million copies in half a year and his Patreon registers over 80K per month. And yet, he continues living in his nice little house and continues working 16 hours a day in order to address his sudden new fame. So that’s one of the more important facts.
JP’s message is pretty clear to me, I think. So far, I’m like four chapters into his book and I’ve watched a lot of his material. He is primarily a psychologist, that’s what he is. He’s a longstanding psychologist with a significant academic stature, being a former associate professor at Harvard (where he won the Levenson Teaching Prize) and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto (where he was ranked by the university as one of the three life changing professors). The most significant influences on him are Freud and Carl Jung, especially Jung, with his highly important psychological work on mythology and archetypes. Peterson conveys, I think, a very important truth that many others haven’t. While many people today dismiss mythologies, like I did very recently, Peterson has pointed to them for the archetypes of ancient mythologies, developed over thousands of years by humans, as revealing serious truths about mankind. This includes the archetypes of chaos and order, the conscience, being, the heroic path, suffering, etc. This was articulated in his 1999 book Maps of Meaning, which was a significant academic success in his career. And this is where his views must be understood in their proper context.
JP, as he says and clearly thinks, is concerned with how people live out their lives and the tragedies that they have to undertake without any support and with few options in the malevolent suffering that the world is. JP knows this firsthand due to his life experience. Earlier in his life, his best friend committed suicide, and his daughter suffered for many years during her late teens from cancers and disabilities that came close to killing her (something like that), and add this on to JP’s clinical experience which he says he has some 25,000-50,000 hours of experience from. JP thinks life is suffering. I think I agree with that, fundamentally. So he wants to know why life is suffering, and what we can do about that. This is where much of his 12 Rules for Life emerges, a great book by any measurement. But JP’s beliefs about suffering, and his decades of research into the catastrophes of the 20th century with the Nazi’s and Stalin have also lead him to battle with a serious political climate. Authoritarianism.
Some of the books JP has pointed to in his lectures, I think, is telling about him and what he understands. I hope to soon read some of these books, such as Ordinary Men, a book about how a Polish battalion in WW2 of ordinary police offers, like the everyday ones you might see, went from their daily lives to being able to drag a naked pregnant women into the middle of the street and shoot her in the back of the dead. And the book documents their transformation, how it was causing them physical breakdowns while they were at it. There are other books, but this is important. JP is highly concerned with authoritarianism, which is where his reprisals against postmodernism, marxism and compelled speech comes from. Interestingly, his stance against compelled speech is why he’s famous.
So, we all know the story. Bill C-16 made it some form of discrimination to fail to use someone’s proper pronoun, and JP’s opposition sparked his claim to fame. Some leftist legal experts came out of the woodworks and claimed JP had misinterpreted the bill, but there’s solid evidence he’s correct at this point. Firstly, many legal experts have supported his interpretation, such as Bruce Pardy from Queen’s University. The University of Toronto sent him two cease-and-desist letters for supposedly violating C16 or something, so one would expert the universities lawyers to be competent, and Bill C-16 was invoked in the quasi-Maoist trial of Lindsay Shepherd at Wilfrid Laurier University (Wilfrid has since apologized after this event). There’s more evidence, but this is apart from the point. This is, essentially, as I understand JP’s message and where he comes from. I think the way he articulates himself is so clear and descriptive and compelling that it’s no wonder he is where he is now. I’d recommend any JP ‘hater’ to watch this older video of JP as one testament to who he is. He genuinely believes in equality, lest it needs to be said.
1 Like
8 Likes
I’m new to Peterson, to be honest. Jung and Freud are old hat. Jung saw some commonalities among religions and mythologies, the archetypes he refers to, and they are important to understand how humans from different walks of life think about things in similar fashions. Taking these then as evident truths, can be a bit of a dangerous leap.
5 Likes
No one takes these at evident truths. Peterson has explained how he thinks Freud is wrong on this, Jung on that, etc. Freud and Jung were foundational psychologists in the field, and many of their ideas have been taken, revised and made even more powerful, some dismissed. JP I think has taken his interpretation in a strong way. I also think you considering that “dangerous” is a bit reactionary.
except that c-16 had nothing to do with pronouns and everything to do with making sure the transgendered have the same rights as every other canadian citizen. in this case, either peterson was deliberately pandering to those who are prejudiced against trans people or he was being incredibly obtuse and unable to understand the plain meaning of the bill.
10 Likes
smiles
Reactionary. That’s a nice strong word, to paint someone with.
6 Likes
I’ve already demonstrated how Peterson actually got C16 right in my previous comment. Simply repeating leftist tropes on how JP got it wrong doesn’t actually address anything.
So, we all know the story. Bill C-16 made it some form of discrimination to fail to use someone’s proper pronoun, and JP’s opposition sparked his claim to fame. Some leftist legal experts came out of the woodworks and claimed JP had misinterpreted the bill, but there’s solid evidence he’s correct at this point. Firstly, many legal experts have supported his interpretation, such as Bruce Pardy from Queen’s University. The University of Toronto sent him two cease-and-desist letters for supposedly violating C16 or something, so one would expert the universities lawyers to be competent, and Bill C-16 was invoked in the quasi-Maoist trial of Lindsay Shepherd at Wilfrid Laurier University (Wilfrid has since apologized after this event).
Bill C16 actually made it discrimination to not use pronouns. Pardy directly quotes the Ontario Human Rights Commission in the following;
Few Canadians realize how seriously these statutes infringe upon freedom of speech. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has stated, in the context of equivalent provisions in the Ontario Human Rights Code, that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity … will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.”
This has been further proven by … more blatant evidence. Such as this video from the CUPE BC (Canadian Union of Public Employees, British Columbia), where the ‘expert’ says;
It’s important to use the appropriate pronouns for trans people for a number of reasons. The first reason is that it’s the law. Recent changes to the BC Human Rights Code and the Federal Human Rights Act make discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression forbidden.
That is irrefutable proof that JP and the legal experts supporting him are right. It just can’t be escaped. So yes, in conclusion from all this evidence, Jordan Peterson was right about Bill C-16 and we need to confront this.
Reactionary. That’s a nice strong word, to paint someone with.
Hey dude, I think saying someone is ‘dangerous’ for thinking Freud or Jung were right is a bit reactionary, eh?
Lets go back to tribalism shall we? That was the rant Peterson was on this morning on the radio.
4 Likes
Peterson is against tribalism, no?
You’re erasing context here. I said exactly how I thought Jung was right.
4 Likes
Could you elaborate more on your point?
Holy fuck. Read GISH GALOPING in the headline please, and come back when you’re cogent.
7 Likes
you’re confusing the responsibilities of a government employee with the requirements for private citizens. of course government employees would be required to pay attention to the pronouns chosen by the citizen appearing before them in their official capacity because it is not the government’s place to tell an individual what pronoun they may or may not choose to use to describe themselves. but the statute does not place that burden on private citizens. although, i would say that anyone who deliberately refuses to use the pronoun an individual has chosen to use when referring to themselves would be impolite to the point of being an asshole which is one of the first things about peterson that convinced me that he was absolutely an asshole.
9 Likes
