It’s like fucking Groundhog’s Day; with none of the laughs.
14 Likes
Being a traditionalist is fine. Supporting discrimination against others because one styles oneself a traditionalist is not. You know what throws up red flags for me? When a self-styled traditionalist starts talking about a “transgender agenda” (or a “gay agenda” or a “Jewish agenda”, etc., etc.) and starts meddling in politics and the law on that basis.
I label Peterson mainly as someone who panders to the alt-right, even if the more extreme environs of that swamp reject him (as Nazis are wont to do). I don’t really blame him for it, since that part of American society is chock full of marks for his intellectual grift. But it’s not admirable by a long shot.
17 Likes
I think he is using the term to mean, “A characterization of a group that I personally disagree with”. As opposed to “misrepresenting the opponent’s argument in order to refute the misrepresentation, instead of the original argument”.
3 Likes
Oh, so that was really just a figure of speech all along? Sorry, but just today, I met two anthropology teachers who literally claimed Jordan Peterson was a cult leader, and that he exhibits the anthropological signs of a cult (their claim, of course, refuted by their own work). I’m much more reluctant to take seriously your claim that this fellow was just using a ‘figure of speech’.
EDIT: Did you delete your comment? For some reason, I can’t see it.
I’ve seen posts disappear for a while now in this thread.
Tread lightly. One newbie got banned outright.
7 Likes
I was so glad to find this video. I find myself in a weird place with this Peterson, often thinking the takedowns are pretty off-base and wishing someone would deliver on something more incisive. I think ContraPoints does a great (and hilarious) job.
11 Likes
You’re probably right. The comment probably got taken down by a mod.
One fail-trolley got banned for posting flagrant hatred; that’s as it should be.
This ain’t 4chan…
14 Likes
Mods must have got it right away, I didn’t see anything ban-worthy from them.
4 Likes
There’s a record of it.
It was a misgendering slur from an account that was immediately eaten.
12 Likes
Oh honey no no no what have you done… abandon ship! ABANDON SHIP!
11 Likes
How odd to find such a comment in a thread discussing Jordaddy (“but he and his followers are honourable men”)
12 Likes
My understanding is there’s been a recent thread on this, and even if there hadn’t, I don’t think any conversation here is likely to result in changing anyone’s opinion about whether Peterson is an important defender of rights or just a run-of-the-mill dick who has decided to devote their seemingly prodigious intellect to create elaborate arguments to justify being discourteous (because that’s the most important issue we’re facing).
But if you show up just to say “didn’t read/watch, but it’s wrong” then you might as well be an anti-vaxxer or a climate change denier. Actually rationally pursuing the truth involves hearing the best version of all arguments, not finding a single line by which they can be dismissed. Pointing out what you feel is a logical fallacy and walking away is philosophy 101 nonsense.
Like I said, it makes perfect sense that a person who feels they have sufficiently exposed themselves to detractors will at some point say, “enough of that, I’m moving on with my life.” That’s not a logical position, it’s just good sense. I guess I find the idea that you’ve been sufficiently exposed to counterargument incompatible with the position that: it’s worth watching a minute and a half of the video, finding an excuse to dismiss it, then posting in a forum about how you didn’t watch the video, thereby exposing yourself to more of the same old arguments you’ve already read, and then responding to those arguments, inviting (and reading) more.
ETA: I don’t want to gaslight anybody by pretending I didn’t write the above, so I’m not editing it, but rereading it I think it was needless confrontational/aggressive. I don’t get the urge to not watch the video and then comment on not watching the video. But I don’t mean to act like I’m the gatekeeper of the forums or like other people’s posts need to make sense to me.
19 Likes
Animosity and blind resentment of Others only breed more of the same.
Frankly, I can’t fuck with anyone who actually thinks “all leftists are X,” or “all rightists (is that even a thing?) are Y.”
It’s divisive, primitive thinking, used to keep us all at each other’s throats, perpetually, while the powers that be keep fucking over everyone who isn’t them… whether they happen to be useful tools to their agenda or not.
There have been no less than three before this one.
13 Likes
“agenda” seems a bit conspirational, but any organized movements have an “agenda” (goals, objectives, whatever you may want to call them), and I see no big deal in referring to that in this way. I haven’t seen Peterson defending discrimination against any groups, although I can see why some might consider that maintaining the status quo is a form of defending discrimination, but I don’t think it’s deserving of the “boogy man” status he’s been attributed.
I’ve heard him explicitly refuse any association with the alt-right, and condemning any such politics.
All in all, I think the hate on him is way over the top, he seems to be a pretty moderate guy, and I don’t agree with the slandering.
1 Like
That’s not by happenstance.
There are plenty of trans people not in an organised movement who just want to live their lives and be treated with a modicum of respect (e.g. being addressed by the pronoun of their choice). That last, at the very least, is apparently too much for Peterson.
He and his wife used his influence to fight against Ontario’s “All Families Are Equal Act”, a measure intended to prevent discrimination against trans and gay people and others in non-traditionalist families in regard to parental rights. He achieved his current fame opposing Bill C-16. People who oppose discrimination against other groups typically support such legislation.
Explicitly, yes. Implicitly he gives frequent shout-outs to alt-right talking points, not necessarily because he supports them but asking us to give these long-discredited ideas a fair hearing supposedly in the name of free speech. They eat it up.
Also, as I said above, many of his own “traditionalist” views are almost identical to the kind of garbage you’ll hear from MRAs and incels in the manosphere sector of the alt-right.
I laid this all out to a young man I know at a family dinner the other night. He followed what I was saying about Peterson immediately, but then he’s a smart and studious and respectful kid who has his act together (unlike the entitled twits who think he’s the second coming).
15 Likes
being addressed by the pronoun of their choice). That last, at the very least, is apparently too much for Peterson.
If I recall correctly, he explicitly said he did not have a problem addressing people by their pronouns, and has always done that, but that he opposes that such a thing be rendered into law, and potentially turned into a hate crime.
I get your points, they are all fine reasons for not liking the man if you wish to do so. I’m not saying I agree with everything he says, but I don’t disagree with everything either.
There are many other people who are more worthy of collective outrage, and I think the level of hate towards the guy is absolutely unreasonable, and undeserved.
I laid this all out to a young man I know at a family dinner the other night. He followed what I was saying about Peterson immediately, but then he’s a smart and studious and respectful kid who has his act together.
Unnecessary. Keep it civil.
3 Likes
Odd how he only sprung into action the moment existing protections in the same limited contexts were extended to trans people (the same people he earlier worried about having a nefarious “agenda” in regard to parenting rights). One might be forgiven for seeing a pattern in his concerns here that transcend “coerced speech.”
I amended it immediately before you replied to make it clear I was not talking about you.
7 Likes
Odd how he only sprung into action the moment existing protections in the same limited contexts were extended to trans people
I don’t have enough context there, so I’ll take your word for it.
One might be forgiven for seeing a pattern in his concerns here that transcend “coerced speech.”
For sure they transcend that, it connects to his whole view of how the world and society are supposed to work. But equating traditionalism or conservatism with hate and evil is very misguided and unproductive.
I amended it immediately before you replied to make it clear I was not talking about you.
Thanks, appreciate it.
2 Likes
You don’t have to.
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Before C-16, prohibited grounds of discrimination included: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
Given that these protections were enshrined for a long time without objection from him, he felt that a law asking a university professor or housing official not to call an unmarried woman “Mrs.” or a black man “boy” in a demonstrably hostile way (e.g. by repetition despite requests to the contrary) was acceptable. An amendment asking that same teacher or official not to call a trans woman “he” in a demonstrably hostile way, however, was awful “coerced speech” and must be fought.
16 Likes
