Jordan B Peterson: Gish Galloping Simpleton, Simpering Surrogate Father Figure

wrath
85

The only thing you’ve demonstrated is that you’re incapable of reading comprehension.

Jordan’s most extreme claims - that accidentally misgendering somebody - are patently false.

I don’t think you can actually understand the meaning of written words, so here’s a video instead.

Oh my god, we can’t be an asshole to people! We can’t repeatedly call people at home when they’ve asked to, we can’t call people nicknames on their skin colour, and now we can’t be dicks to trans people. THIS IS TYRANNY AND THE GULAG IS COMING!!1 /s

I’mma jump back to a point you raised in an earlier post:

Quoting is slander? Stating his positions is slander? Oh, go clean your room already.

Jordan’s reached market saturation point already for the Male Reactionary Army; every racist and bigot who was rah-rah GamerGate is also rah-rah JBP. No normies - to borrow a 4chan term, which JP would be familiar with - are interested in his agitprop, nor is any apolitical normie interested in his “self help” (him helping himself to your money, via his many packages, tours, VOIP sessions, etc.)

Jordan B doesn’t support equality of opportunity, at all. For equal opportunity to exist, everyone needs equal footing. He isn’t interested in redressing poverty (that way lies Marxism!). He isn’t interested in ensuring the people of all genders and races receive an adequate education (cultural Marxism!). He’s only interested in ensuring that men retain an advantage, white men disproportionately so. The following article has a nice breakdown:

[quote=“more_below_click_link”]The reason (most) progressives posit the gender-wage gap — or racial disparities in incarceration, or income inequality — as self-evident testaments to injustice is not that they are committed to “equality of outcomes.” Rather, it is that they believe that in a society as racist, sexist, and economically stratified as our own, it is safe to assume that such inequalities are not solely rooted in meritocracy or social utility.

Jordan Peterson’s default assumption is that in “Western societies” such inequalities primarily reflect “hierarchies of competence” that redound to benefit of the public as a whole. The left, by contrast, assumes that the gender-wage gap (at least partially) reflects the fact that women have been so thoroughly and durably subordinated in the United States, men in Oklahoma and North Carolina still had the legal right to rape their wives as recently as 1993.

Progressives also feel it safe to say that the economic chasm between black and white households might have something to do with the fact that, for most of American history, chattel slavery, Jim Crow laws, and discriminatory housing policies barred the vast majority of African-Americans from the opportunity to accrue wealth. And liberals are also fairly confident that “hierarchies of competence” do not fully explain the disparate market incomes of the one percent and middle class, in a nation where beloved public school teachers live on the edge of poverty, and Donald Trump lives in the White House.[/quote]

I noticed that you apparently didn’t read the thread. Maybe we should have made a video instead?

10 Likes
86

His own lawyer for that, I believe. Can you cite who the rest of this “many” are?

10 Likes
87

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

ETA: Oops. I meant to reply to @Korvexius

4 Likes
88

I have read that book and, from discussions here, believe others have, too. Its broad thesis is that the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 did what they did was in part the result of being propagandised through peer pressure to believe that: 1. the killing they were doing was fine because Germans like them were also being “persecuted” (for example by being bombed by the enemy in the context of war); 2. that the Jews they hunted were Others not in the sense of being diabolical puppetmasters or even as the supposed prime functionaries of the enemy Red Army (per the “Commissar Order”) but rather as being simple animals and vermin in the context of the unit’s mission and field of operations (which became akin to hunting coyotes or wolves on a ranch); and 3. that not to participate in these killings along with the other members of the unit would be “cowardly” and not in the spirit of teamwork and solidarity with their comrades.

In other words, according to Browning this was a case of people of bad will with the anti-Semitic motives we’re more familiar with (i.e. the unit commander Trapp and his superiors) using their authority and basic military discipline to manipulate their followers by preying upon their insecurities and weaknesses as “ordinary men.”

Now of course it would be the height of irony if that happened today. In our more enlightened times, who would target a group of privileged yet insecure men, draw them into a sense of common purpose and solidarity using common-sense exhortations and a narrative of false victimhood, and then use that to have them enable a bigoted worldview?

One of these things is not like the other…

Neither postmodernism nor Marxism are inherently authoritarian, and indeed it would be quite a feet to imbue the former with any sort of tyrannical characteristics what with its constant questioning and mockery of authority. Academic Marxism these days is usually focused on Marx as diagnostician rather than as clinician, and in university departments you’ll see only a handful of tankies and other apologists for the Stalinist and Maoist perversions of Marx’s prescriptions.

This puts aside the fact that Peterson also refers to a bogeyman called “postmodern neoMarxism”, which is a nonsensical and self-contradictory term (put briefly, Marxism of any sort, including neoMarxism, rests on a distinctly modernist pedestal). It also puts aside the fact that both postmodernism and Marxism are both Western philosophies, and arguably both are offshoots of the Western Enlightenment (along with feminism and the LGBTQ rights movements and other civil rights movements that Jordaddy feels are suppressing the potential of the poor, put-upon white cisgender males who make up the bulk of his fanbase).

It certainly brought him to prominence and exposed him to a potential new audience of suckers for his muddled philosophy of life. The sort of free-speech absolutist who asks us to give a serious hearing to long-discredited and hateful speech would definitely find an affinity with Jordan, and he’s responded in kind by giving them regular shout-outs. The man has to sell his books and spread his gospel where he can.

In any case, the idea of compelled speech is just another imaginary thing he feels that he and his acolytes are currently being attacked by. While I disagree strongly with Peterson on many issues, in an academic context I would by default call him “Dr. Peterson” or “Professor Peterson” because those forms of address describe who he is in that context. If he asked his students to “just call me Jordan” I’d do the same. I highly doubt that Peterson would find it acceptable for students in the lecture hall to address him as “hey, you” or “Jordaddy”.

Similarly, using a preferred pronoun or chosen name to describe a trans person is also describing them as who they are (in contexts both public and private). C-16 is, in its language, not compelling speech in the manner Peterson describes but simply ensuring (and not in its specifics) that the deliberate use of the incorrect pronoun or name as a bigoted aggression is not permitted in certain contexts (including teacher-student interactions) when it comes to trans people – a rubric that was already in place in Canada for people of colour, gay people, etc.

As others have pointed out, Peterson’s problem in this case, and his singling out of C-16, is less about free speech and more about his deep discomfort with trans people. Whether the source of that discomfort is his adherence to “traditional Western Christian values” (despite being an agnostic himself) or the fact that it conflicts with his essentialist conception of the male and female in his over-extension of Jungian psychology, or perhaps a mix of both is as yet unclear to me.

11 Likes
89

Then, assuming Peterson also shares that definition*, why is he presenting it as any kind of “solution” for the problems facing incels? How does he think societal pressure to keep people from polygamy will naturally result in more willing female partners for socially maladjusted young men? Keep in mind that “enforced monogamy” as discussed in the NYT doesn’t reference alphas, betas, Chads, Stacys, Beckys or other tropes of the misogynist subsector of the alt-right.

[* which is really discussing a drive to preserve traditional Judeo-Christian and Western legal conceptions of the family, both of which are by the way slowly evolving to include gay and trans people]

6 Likes
90

“will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.”

How is this different than existing proscription from using slurs against other characteristics in those settings? Is using slurs against Arabs already considered creating a hostile work environment?

Yet - people can use those in their private lives. What free speech difference is there if this applies to one more group in addition to sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, sex, religion etc? Are transgender people somehow less entitled to respect and equal legal protection? If so - why are they less entitled to the same legal status as you are?

If Peterson were being intellectually honest- he would be advocating repeal of the entire law for all people covered as the same supposed free speech limitations applies far more broadly than to just this small population. That he and others don’t is evidence of bigotry.

13 Likes
91

He’s an agent of state, yeah? A public employee?

Now let me ask you a question-- If a professor at a public university openly calls a black student ******, they would face discrimination charges. Does Jordaddy have issues with the law which compels him not to refer to his black students as such?

ETA: and obviously this point has been raised by others before me, because of course.

10 Likes
92

He’s an employee of a semi-public institution that falls under anti-discrimination regulations, which makes C-16 and the basic statement of human rights it enhances applicable. So your question is definitely valid.

8 Likes
93

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.

The evidence I cited elsewhere suggests that this also applies to citizens. You later state Peterson is an “a–hole” for not using pronouns. Actually, as he’s said, he has used pronouns, he just wont accept to use them if the government is trying to compel him to do so. So he’s no ‘a–hole’, he actually is fine by your own standards. And being impolite is obviously not the same as being an ‘a–hole’. So one less reason you have to not like him, eh?

In other words, that is right, from the link above Jordan says he has actually used trans pronouns when asked and the only thing stopping him are people trying to compel it. Doesn’t everyone here agree with that?

@tinoesroho gives me the usual response, just namecalling with little substance behind all of it. Tino also posts a video to CallOfDusty’s “response” to JP on Bill C-16, where of course Dusty fails to address any of the evidence I actually posted. If anyone seriously takes CallofDusty seriously on anything that hasn’t to do with the most obvious truths, they may have to do some rethinking. Here’s a recent video where some of Dusty’s blunders against JP on Bill C-16 along with some other common blunders are addressed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=386&v=R5OZnQ6YwjM

By the way, just as a note, JP has actually cited to this video as a good defense of his views on Bill C-16, so JP agrees with this refutation of Dusty and others.

Anyways, tino goes on to say “Quoting is slander? Stating his positions is slander? Oh, go clean your room already.” If only it was just quoting his views. But no, it is actual slander, from the long refuted appalling article by Ari Feldman that accused him of enabling Jew hatred to the NYT article that states his views on ‘enforced monogamy’ without explaining what enforced monogamy actually is, to the words of tino him/herself when tino has called JP a nazi. Yes, slander. Tino goes on a bit more with this absurdly claiming JP is a racist, which obviously is a claim that must be relegated to tino’s imagination.

Jordan B doesn’t support equality of opportunity, at all. For equal opportunity to exist, everyone needs equal footing.

Sure, and Jordan would like that. He said in the Cathy Newman video that “we could get to a place in society where people were treated more fairly.” So he does support equality of opportunity. That Daily Intelligencer article offers no evidence JP does not support equality of opportunity, just a few nonsensical statements here and there that I could easily articulate.

@RickMycroft

His own lawyer for that, I believe. Can you cite who the rest of this “many” are?

What makes you think Bruce Pardy is JP’s lawyer? Another lawyer I’ve seen is D. Jared Brown, I think, who supports JP on this. And I’ve also shown a lawyer in the previous comment for Bill C-16 saying the same thing as JP. I don’t know how many there are, obviously.

And @anon75430791

Gish Gallop - RationalWiki 6

ETA: Oops. I meant to reply to @Korvexius

RationalWiki is probably one of the ideologically bent and incoherent source I’ve ever seen. My God, is that a nice piece of propaganda that strangely applies the term ‘rational’ in the title. Back when I was an editor at Wikipedia (because I was an editor on Wikipedia for a few months once), someone invoked using RationalWiki for one of the pages, and everyone laughed at them because we all knew how badly written and crude the sources and information is on that website. So I do not know why you read it. Anywho, I know what a gish gallop is. Not really sure why that’s relevant. Am I typing too many rebuttals?

94

If you stopped respecting people because of something the government did - yeah - you’re an a-hole.

You’re purposely slurring them for doing nothing to you - and encouraging their disparagement throughout society. That’s an a-hole in my book.

9 Likes
95

And let’s look at what’s part of this law he wants to revoke.

“The law amends the Criminal Code by adding “gender identity or expression” to the definition of “identifiable group” in section 318.[8][9] Section 318 makes it a criminal offence to advocate or promote genocide against members of an identifiable group, which now includes gender identity or gender expression.”

6 Likes
96

Then he’s creating a controversy where there should be none, because if as he claims he is not using incorrect pronouns in a deliberate attempt to antagonise trans people* he might be bigoted against he has nothing to fear from the law as he (incorrectly) interprets it. There’s no honour or nobility in his defending the right of bigots to do so in these settings.

[* I specify them because they’re the subject discussed in C-16 to which Peterson takes particular exception]

Here you go, then:

9 Likes
97

That is the dumbest thing I’ve read all morning.

Here’s why.

Peterson has equated requesting pronoun usage to Stalin’s regime.

Supporting Equality of Opportunity means supporting social support programs. It means supporting human rights laws. It means, in some cases, support reparations. Remember, Jordan B Peterson thinks pronoun usage == Maoism (in spirit, he later goes on to say, as if that helps him at all), and thinks feminism is POST MODERN NEOMARXISM111! so what the fuck does that make actually doing something to provide Equality of Opportunity?

Take a minute to think about what Equality of Opportunity means and what can be done to make it a reality.

12 Likes
98

Redditor Denny_Crane has a great breakdown of Peterson’s anti-woman and anti-divorce statements here.

8 Likes
99

Ah - the Peterson “Peter Meter” test. If he finds a woman attractive- he’ll pretend to respect her.

10 Likes
100

German police, not Polish. They were operating in Poland behind the front lines.

10 Likes
101

Thanks for a bit of a summary on Ordinary Men. Obviously, the actions then could be replicated now since it has been replicated today in society, multiple times. Something that comes to my mind is the torturing of Iraq soldiers or something by the Americans about two decades ago. And a slew of other horror stories since. To believe that the horrors of humanity in the past cannot be replicated today is probably one of the most dangerous mistakes someone could possibly make.

This puts aside the fact that Peterson also refers to a bogeyman called “postmodern neoMarxism”, which is a nonsensical and self-contradictory term (put briefly, Marxism of any sort, including neoMarxism, rests on a distinctly modernist pedestal).

Of course, not only does JP know that the two ideologies actually contradict each other, he has explicitly explained the contradiction and how the postmodernists and marxists don’t understand their contradictory ideas multiple times. Here is JP’s explanation of postmodernism and its relationship to marxism:

JP explains right away when he begins discussing postmodernism that it is actually logically incompatible with marxism;

RELATIONSHIP TO MARXISM

It’s not as if I personally think that postmodernism and Marxism are commensurate. It’s obvious to me that the much-vaunted “skepticism toward grand narratives” that is part and parcel of the postmodern viewpoint makes any such alliance logically impossible. Postmodernists should be as skeptical toward Marxism as toward any other canonical belief system.

You have to give JP a little more benefit of the doubt than that – you know, he’s the one, not us, who has been a professor for decades at some of the worlds finest universities. And JP also knows that both postmodernism and marxism are Western offshoots. Can you suggest to me what he’s said that made you think he didn’t know that? I mean, it’s pretty obvious.

Jordaddy feels are suppressing the potential of the poor, put-upon white cisgender males who make up the bulk of his fanbase

You pulled that right out of a leftist handbook, didn’t know? JP has stated that at least a third of his audience are women. I’m an Arab myself. Anyone who thinks that the bulk of his fanbase is some kind of “white straight cis guy” obviously has never been to, or even seen a JP lecture hall. In the last week, the most popular video on JP to his YouTube is his discussion with Maajid Nawaz which got online like 5 days ago and has some 400,000 views. Highly intellectual discussion, and Maajid is a bit far from what the stereotypes would make out, LOL.

Did everyone already forget when Kanye posted a picture of himself on a computer with a JP tab out? What about JP’s relationship with Dave Rubin, the gay Jew who has appeared with him in most of his lecture tour as an introduction to JP’s lectures himself and in the question period? Do I really need to keep pointing out all the problems with this? Funny enough, earlier in this thread, Camille Paglia’s discussion with JP came up. That is one of the most popular intellectual discussions JP has had, and Camille isn’t quite a guy, or particularly straight for that matter. Lol. Come on, let’s leave behind the nonsense that JP’s audience isn’t spectacularly diverse.

It certainly brought him to prominence and exposed him to a potential new audience of suckers for his muddled philosophy of life

JP’s philosophy is highly complex and logical, and was originally published in Maps of Meaning in 1999 which was published by one of the most reputable academic publishers, Routledge. It has already been cited hundreds of times and has received lavish endorsements from academics in the scholarly community. Perhaps you need to understand his points a bit better.

While I disagree strongly with Peterson on many issues, in an academic context I would by default call him “Dr. Peterson” or “Professor Peterson” because those forms of address describe who he is in that context.

For that, my respect for you has increased. Anyways, you seem to be saying that if a trans asked him to use his pronouns in a class, he should use them. But he has already said he would used them if a trans in his class asked him. It’s in the Cathy Newman interview. And in a more recent video, he has said he has used trans pronouns. So you, me, and JP are on the same page there. So you’re actually utterly wrong when you say “As others have pointed out, Peterson’s problem in this case, and his singling out of C-16, is less about free speech and more about his deep discomfort with trans people.” In fact, this statement sounds so much like what was said to Peterson directly to him in a recent interview that I must point you to the interview itself.

Anyways, the truth is that Bill C-16, from the evidence I’ve referred to earlier which I can repost with ease, actually considers it discrimination to fail to use certain pronouns. I’ve no clue what you mean when you say “traditional Western Christian values” contradict the conception of male and female, or that JP “over-extends” Jungian archetypes. Looks to me as if he’s using them just as he should be using them.

@gracchus

Then, assuming Peterson also shares that definition*, why is he presenting it as any kind of “solution” for the problems facing incels? How does he think societal pressure to keep people from polygamy will naturally result in more willing female partners for socially maladjusted young men? Keep in mind that “enforced monogamy” as discussed in the NYT doesn’t reference alphas, betas, Chads, Stacys, Beckys or other tropes of the misogynist subsector of the alt-right.

Firstly, that’s the only thing he can mean when he says ‘enforced monogamy’, since as we’ve seen, from earlier NYT articles itself to basic anthropological literature, that it just means a societal pressure to keep people from polygamy. So he can’t mean any other thing. It is true that monogamous societies decrease male violence, but as some have pointed out, we’re almost there anyways. If you don’t think JP’s solution fixes marauding incels, that’s a fine disagreement you can have with him. Even I disagree with him on that, I favor Ben Shapiro’s interpretation more. That enforced monogamy doesn’t solve the incel problem is one of the few accurate criticisms of JP I’ve seen as of yet.

@KathyPartdeux

How is this different than existing proscription from using slurs against other characteristics in those settings? Is using slurs against Arabs already considered creating a hostile work environment?

Because the full quote actually says not using certain pronouns is what counts as discrimination. Plus, I’m not sure if it is at all valid to banning slurs against anyone outside of a professional workplace.

If Peterson were being intellectually honest- he would be advocating repeal of the entire law for all people covered as the same supposed free speech limitations applies far more broadly than to just this small population. That he and others don’t is evidence of bigotry.

Except that doesn’t work because the law doesn’t compel anyone to use specific speech for Arabs or women. But it does for trans pronouns. That is the problem. As JP has pointed out, this is the first time a Western nation has ever dared to compel people to use specific speech, which is why he opposed it. No bigotry. JP is not a bigot, he has helped COUNTLESS women and others in his long clinical career get their lives better. You cannot actually claim to have done more for minorities than JP can because of this.

@wait_really

Now let me ask you a question-- If a professor at a public university openly calls a black student ******, they would face discrimination charges. Does Jordaddy have issues with the law which compels him not to refer to his black students as such?

I’ve never heard JP talk about such things, so I can’t offer an actual answer. Do you know if JP has answered this anywhere? My tentative answer would be “no”.

@tinoesroho

Tino returns yet again.

Peterson has equated requesting pronoun usage to Stalin’s regime.

Wrong once again. Peterson has said that Maoist China, Stalin’s regime and trans activists all share the same fundamental philosophy – identity politics. JP has specifically said that despite this parallel, he’s not saying trans activists will lead to the deaths of millions of people.

Supporting Equality of Opportunity means supporting social support programs.

That is one of the most absurd things I have ever read in my lifetime. And what has JP said against social support programs, anyways, besides the racist one known as affirmative action which discriminates against Asians and whites?

103

German police, not Polish. They were operating in Poland behind the front lines.

Oh yeah, that’s right. Thanks.

104

Yes. This is more along the line of Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem articles, where she argues that it’s not some inhuman monsters that do these things, but perfectly ordinary human beings, in part being manipulated by authority figures, making appeals to that authority. It fits nicely with some of the work coming out around this time - the Stanford Prison experiment, the one with the shocking and the lab coat, etc.

11 Likes
106

“ Under the Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution, harassment is defined as:

improper conduct by an individual, that is directed at and offensive to another individual in the workplace, including at any event or any location related to work, and that the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm. It comprises objectionable act(s), comment(s) or display(s) that demean, belittle, or cause personal humiliation or embarrassment, and any act of intimidation or threat. It also includes harassment within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act (i.e. based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and pardoned conviction).“

9 Likes