Jordan Peterson - The Intellectual We Deserve

[panamaican]

I'm looking at how many people have more citations and how many have less. Imagine 9000 score being something like 90th percentile, meaning it is more citations than 90% of psychologists have.

To be clear, I don't know the real percentile rank, I just wanted to show that someone that's above average can't be shit tier. Shit tier, for most people, means totally unaccomplished, one of the worst. That would be the fighter who can't even get to the ufc.

Edit: i just looked at google scholar, when you sort researchers by their field (clinical psychology for JP), he is 52nd. So 9000 or more is the number about 50 people in the field will have. Hope that puts it in perspective.

Can you send me the link or the link terms. I'm curious about that.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Can you send me the link or the link terms. I'm curious about that.

I hope this works

https://scholar.google.com/citation...sychology&before_author=aLH__wlwAAAJ&astart=0

 

[panamaican]

I hope this works

https://scholar.google.com/citation...sychology&before_author=aLH__wlwAAAJ&astart=0

Thanks, gonna read some abstracts.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Your old avatar now makes complete sense.

Yeah, when you actually start looking at the data and studies regarding race inequality, you almost can't help becoming a huge SJW/Marxist/white genocide enthusiast.

 

[Bullitt68]

Time to make good on that IOU.

Exactly, these are "all nonsense" in the sense that they're all on the side you don't like and therefore you dismiss them all together.

No, they're "all nonsense" in the sense that they all lack sense, i.e. they all have no sense, i.e. they are all nonsense. Like I said: I don't care about "sides." I come at shit philosophically, not politically, but even if there's a political discussion to be had, I don't treat it like a team sport. I don't have a team that I blindly side with regardless of case-specific issues to say nothing of my own independent judgment. I've read that stuff and I've found it to be nonsensical garbage. If, having said that, that makes it easier for you to tar and feather me with some choice label or other, then you can have your fun, but I don't bother with shit like that. It's boring in and of itself and it's nowhere near as fun when compared to actually dealing with the nitty-gritty of discrete arguments.

That's not very effective when you're trying to have a serious discussion on what these ideas mean.

It's a good thing that I don't do it, then

And it's certainly paranoia because of the graveness that he attaches to it. I search "Jordan Peterson Marxism" on Youtube and see over a dozen videos of him talking about how absolutely atrocious and dangerous Marxism is.

If you're actually watching those videos, then you should also see the evidence that he brings up to support his arguments about how and why Marxism is (and has already historically proven itself countless times to be) atrocious and dangerous.

Underlined: WTF?

No one on the left (let's face it, "the left" is basically what all this is railing against) is saying let's topple all institutions and live in chaos.

You strike me as the Left-wing equivalent of the Right-winger who denies that there are actually Bible-thumping Nazi nutjobs on his "team." And I don't say that as an insult. It may, for all I know, speak to a sense of naive optimism on your part, or a strong faith in the righteousness of your "side" (I say that given your emphasis on sides), not necessarily ignorance (willful or not). But it comes with the risk of being unaware of what people who claim to stand for the same things that you stand for really stand for - which, interestingly, connects to @Jack V Savage's correct observation about Right-wingers and which also serves as one example among the countless possible examples out there of how everyone who plays the "sides" game is equally stupid for the exact same reasons.

The point being that: Yes, people on the left absolutely do say and absolutely are saying "let's topple all institutions and live in chaos."



They're out there (and, if you think that they're as nuts as I do, which seems to be the case, then, "sides" aside, this should be a point on which we can agree). Thankfully, they seem to be pretty much confined to academia (and, thankfully again, pretty much confined to the humanities). Jack is right when he points out that, in terms of actual mover-and-shaker power, this brand of Leftist insanity is not (yet) operative at levels where it could actually create huge waves in day-to-day living. But there doesn't seem to be much stopping the rising tide. Hence what you call Peterson's paranoia and what others call his prudence.

They're saying, institutions reflect existing power structures and perpetuate existing inequalities, and that should be changed.

Changed to what? To institutions that are more fair and democratic. For example, the criminal justice system should focus more on rehabilitation and prevention, instead of on retribution and punishment. Less targeting of minorities, less harsh jail sentences, no death penalty.

But advocating for things like this is a slippery slope, according to Peterson. You can go from this to Nazism.

I gather that the reasons that you have no direct quotes from Peterson himself here are (1) because you didn't even bother with trying to find evidence to support the building of this straw man and (2) because, had you bothered with trying to find evidence, you would've realized that there isn't any and you would've then had to be upfront about the fact that what you were doing was building a straw man.

Peterson himself has actually spoken about how terrible the criminal justice system is and would be on your side on every point that you raised on that front. He also strikes me as the type to not be a fan of the death penalty, though I don't recall ever seeing/reading anything with him addressing it directly. In any case, Peterson doesn't think that suggesting that the emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation in the criminal justice system is one step removed from Nazism, and just writing in at the end "according to Peterson" doesn't change the fact that you're attacking a straw man of your own creation.

I'm very skeptical of your 9/10 professors self-identifying as Marxist postmodernists thing.

As I mentioned above, I think that this speaks more to you as a person (for better or worse - I'm just describing, not judging) than to the actual state of affairs.

Unlike the vast majority of people here, I was actually in a doctoral program in a subject that should be rife with postmodernists: sociology.

I'm currently in a doctoral program in a department of media and cultural studies, two disciplines that are rife with postmodernists. I wish that I could say that I pulled that out of my ass, but I didn't.

Yet in my entire grad school career, at two schools, I met a grand total of ONE.

Slightly off topic: I don't think he's a fascist or even genuinely very political [...] it doesn't seem like he had a lot to say about these things for most of his career. He focused more on beliefs, meaning, myths and similar things.

The problem here is that you're presupposing that these things are mutually exclusive, or at least not intimately connected. Peterson has explained countless times when discussing his personal history that he flirted with politics early in his life, then shifted over to law, and then finally found that the answers to the types of questions that he wanted to ask wouldn't be found in either politics or law and that psychology and philosophy were more interesting to him because they were more fundamental.

But this is not to deny that everything that Peterson has been researching, writing, and lecturing about with respect to archetypal relationships with ideals, for example, or with respect to the psychological insights regarding personality discernible from studying Nazism and communism, for another example, is completely disconnected from what he's talking about today. Even on the quickest skim of Maps of Meaning, you may have to double-check that it's actually that 20-year-old text that you're looking at and not something from recent years, because everything that Peterson has been interested in his entire academic career is all inextricably linked.

But just around the time when white males everywhere are feeling threatened, attacked, and are on the defensive, he starts ranting against feminism, Islam, "identity politics", Marxism, and starts lauding "traditionalism" and the virtues of inequality. Impeccable timing!

Of course, he'll probably claim that times are more urgent now than before because Cultural Marxists are a bigger threat now than ever, but I don't buy it.

That's your call. I think that Peterson's efforts (should) have earned him the benefit of the doubt with respect to this type of cynicism regarding his motives. But if you won't buy from anyone who isn't on your "side," then there isn't anything else to be said.

Surely you know that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

That shit that I wrote in reference to the Gad Saad video that I posted works well enough for the purposes of this debate, so I'm going to use that as my proof and respond to your refutation. Before I do that, though, I need to clarify that...

So please, tell me how gender liberation movements (which go back to the late 1800s), and ethnic liberation movements (which go back to 1492) are postmodern.

...I said very clearly that contemporary identity politics are rooted in postmodern philosophy. For my purposes, "contemporary" means the last half century, not the last half millennium. Anyway, continuing on...

If issues of gender and race/ethnicity have taken great importance starting in the second half of the 20th century, (and they certainly have) and there are philosophers, historians, novelists, etc., that have interesting things to say about these subjects, why should their inclusion in academic curricula be so controversial?

That's not the issue. The issue is the revisionist history according to which the contribution of women to philosophy is being (implicitly but no less grossly) exaggerated on silly political grounds. If you're teaching Philosophy 101 and you've got 15 weeks to somehow fit in the Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle for the old school; Augustine, Boëthius, and Aquinas for the not-quite-as-old-but-still-old-school; Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Hegel for the new generation; and then a grab bag of pragmatism, positivism, phenomenology, ordinary language philosophy, structuralism and poststructuralism, etc., those 15 weeks are going to feel like absolutely nothing. And that's just shit off the top of my head, and that just limited to "Western" philosophy. It's hard enough to do that at all. But now imagine being forced to cut out 40% of the material that you're already struggling to fit in just because the history of philosophy to this point in human history has been dominated by penis-possessing people.

If you're doing a class on 20th Century philosophy, I still don't like the quotafication shit, but I get wanting to make sure that it's not a sausage fest. But forcing 40% for purely political reasons is ridiculous on its face and it distorts actual human history for the sake of a political agenda fueled by identity politics crap.

Lol. C'mon man.

This something Peterson would say: Sack up, show some spine, some courage. Your opinions are very clearly in line with the reactionary right, so own it.

As I've said, I don't play these silly games. I let those who do play such games "place" me on whatever "side" makes them feel all warm inside as they dismiss what I have to say. For my part, I just care about the ideas. If anything, I should be telling you to sack up and show some spine and courage by forgetting about "sides" and "teams" and all that and to just come at shit honestly and openly regardless of where you might fall on someone's spectrum having voiced whatever you honestly think and feel.

Been ABD for years now

(ABD = all but dissertation)

Since we're supposed to be "enemies" right now, this might make you want to just tell me to fuck off, but, as I told someone in Mayberry recently, cherish the writing process. It's so much more fun than when you have to pick your head up from the books and the computer and actually deal with the academic bureaucracy machine.

I only just finished mine and I already miss just reading stuff and writing stuff.

I'm poking at the idea that there must be some floor level of universal organization before one can wade into a specific area. This is more relevant when we're discussing social movements and students.

To switch back to room cleaning - you learn to clean your room by doing it. By having a room become dirty, recognizing that it's dirty and then learning various techniques for cleaning until you settle on the methodology that you prefer. It's an experience of trial and error honed over years.

I'm sure that this wasn't intentional on your part, but I have to point out that you've just proven Peterson's point. Exactly what you've said here is all that Peterson's ever said: That "cleaning your room" - and especially being a proficient "room cleaner" - takes time and that teenagers by and large are not proficient room cleaners not because of some inherent flaw in their Being but simply because they haven't yet had the time to become proficient room cleaners.

As Der Eisbär put it:

"Handling responsibility" is an issue of mental development. That's agreeable enough right? Yeah, typically a 40 year old handles paying the water bill better than a 4 year old does. And a 40 year old better than a 20 year old. So in general people do handle responsibility better as they get older. But everyone develops mentally at a different pace and we live in the age of the perpetual adolescent. Where young people taking on responsibility is a rarity. Where youthful beauty is worshipped and enshrined on every billboard, every magazine, and every commercial. Responsibility and the typical benchmarks of adulthood are being attained at later and later periods. The data actually shows this.

Point being, is that 18, 19 and 20 year olds, in a culture that is pushing off maturity, development and responsibility to later and later periods, typically do not have their lives together and their admission to college indicates nearly nothing.

I'm not understanding how this is in any way, shape, or form a confusing/contentious/controversial issue.

A man ranting about Mao and Stalin when talking about socialism someone like Bernie Sanders or Corbyn represents is just cartoonish for me and its depressing to see it taken seriously.

It's still weird seeing SMDers anywhere that isn't the SMD, but here we are. And imagine my surprise as I realize that moreorless is a commie



Seriously, though, Peterson talking about what people like Sanders and Corbyn say is what's depressing to you? What people like Sanders and Corbyn actually have to say isn't depressing to you?

Not even a little depressing?

 

[Der Eisbär]

Time to make good on that IOU.





No, they're "all nonsense" in the sense that they all lack sense, i.e. they all have no sense, i.e. they are all nonsense. Like I said: I don't care about "sides." I come at shit philosophically, not politically, but even if there's a political discussion to be had, I don't treat it like a team sport. I don't have a team that I blindly side with regardless of case-specific issues to say nothing of my own independent judgment. I've read that stuff and I've found it to be nonsensical garbage. If, having said that, that makes it easier for you to tar and feather me with some choice label or other, then you can have your fun, but I don't bother with shit like that. It's boring in and of itself and it's nowhere near as fun when compared to actually dealing with the nitty-gritty of discrete arguments.



It's a good thing that I don't do it, then



If you're actually watching those videos, then you should also see the evidence that he brings up to support his arguments about how and why Marxism is (and has already historically proven itself countless times to be) atrocious and dangerous.



You strike me as the Left-wing equivalent of the Right-winger who denies that there are actually Bible-thumping Nazi nutjobs on his "team." And I don't say that as an insult. It may, for all I know, speak to a sense of naive optimism on your part, or a strong faith in the righteousness of your "side" (I say that given your emphasis on sides), not necessarily ignorance (willful or not). But it comes with the risk of being unaware of what people who claim to stand for the same things that you stand for really stand for - which, interestingly, connects to @Jack V Savage's correct observation about Right-wingers and which also serves as one example among the countless possible examples out there of how everyone who plays the "sides" game is equally stupid for the exact same reasons.

The point being that: Yes, people on the left absolutely do say and absolutely are saying "let's topple all institutions and live in chaos."



They're out there (and, if you think that they're as nuts as I do, which seems to be the case, then, "sides" aside, this should be a point on which we can agree). Thankfully, they seem to be pretty much confined to academia (and, thankfully again, pretty much confined to the humanities). Jack is right when he points out that, in terms of actual mover-and-shaker power, this brand of Leftist insanity is not (yet) operative at levels where it could actually create huge waves in day-to-day living. But there doesn't seem to be much stopping the rising tide. Hence what you call Peterson's paranoia and what others call his prudence.



I gather that the reasons that you have no direct quotes from Peterson himself here are (1) because you didn't even bother with trying to find evidence to support the building of this straw man and (2) because, had you bothered with trying to find evidence, you would've realized that there isn't any and you would've then had to be upfront about the fact that what you were doing was building a straw man.

Peterson himself has actually spoken about how terrible the criminal justice system is and would be on your side on every point that you raised on that front. He also strikes me as the type to not be a fan of the death penalty, though I don't recall ever seeing/reading anything with him addressing it directly. In any case, Peterson doesn't think that suggesting that the emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation in the criminal justice system is one step removed from Nazism, and just writing in at the end "according to Peterson" doesn't change the fact that you're attacking a straw man of your own creation.



As I mentioned above, I think that this speaks more to you as a person (for better or worse - I'm just describing, not judging) than to the actual state of affairs.



I'm currently in a doctoral program in a department of media and cultural studies, two disciplines that are rife with postmodernists. I wish that I could say that I pulled that out of my ass, but I didn't.

The problem here is that you're presupposing that these things are mutually exclusive, or at least not intimately connected. Peterson has explained countless times when discussing his personal history that he flirted with politics early in his life, then shifted over to law, and then finally found that the answers to the types of questions that he wanted to ask wouldn't be found in either politics or law and that psychology and philosophy were more interesting to him because they were more fundamental.

But this is not to deny that everything that Peterson has been researching, writing, and lecturing about with respect to archetypal relationships with ideals, for example, or with respect to the psychological insights regarding personality discernible from studying Nazism and communism, for another example, is completely disconnected from what he's talking about today. Even on the quickest skim of Maps of Meaning, you may have to double-check that it's actually that 20-year-old text that you're looking at and not something from recent years, because everything that Peterson has been interested in his entire academic career is all inextricably linked.



That's your call. I think that Peterson's efforts (should) have earned him the benefit of the doubt with respect to this type of cynicism regarding his motives. But if you won't buy from anyone who isn't on your "side," then there isn't anything else to be said.



That shit that I wrote in reference to the Gad Saad video that I posted works well enough for the purposes of this debate, so I'm going to use that as my proof and respond to your refutation. Before I do that, though, I need to clarify that...



...I said very clearly that contemporary identity politics are rooted in postmodern philosophy. For my purposes, "contemporary" means the last half century, not the last half millennium. Anyway, continuing on...



That's not the issue. The issue is the revisionist history according to which the contribution of women to philosophy is being (implicitly but no less grossly) exaggerated on silly political grounds. If you're teaching Philosophy 101 and you've got 15 weeks to somehow fit in the Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle for the old school; Augustine, Boëthius, and Aquinas for the not-quite-as-old-but-still-old-school; Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Hegel for the new generation; and then a grab bag of pragmatism, positivism, phenomenology, ordinary language philosophy, structuralism and poststructuralism, etc., those 15 weeks are going to feel like absolutely nothing. And that's just shit off the top of my head, and that just limited to "Western" philosophy. It's hard enough to do that at all. But now imagine being forced to cut out 40% of the material that you're already struggling to fit in just because the history of philosophy to this point in human history has been dominated by penis-possessing people.

If you're doing a class on 20th Century philosophy, I still don't like the quotafication shit, but I get wanting to make sure that it's not a sausage fest. But forcing 40% for purely political reasons is ridiculous on its face and it distorts actual human history for the sake of a political agenda fueled by identity politics crap.



As I've said, I don't play these silly games. I let those who do play such games "place" me on whatever "side" makes them feel all warm inside as they dismiss what I have to say. For my part, I just care about the ideas. If anything, I should be telling you to sack up and show some spine and courage by forgetting about "sides" and "teams" and all that and to just come at shit honestly and openly regardless of where you might fall on someone's spectrum having voiced whatever you honestly think and feel.



Since we're supposed to "enemies" right now, this might make you want to just tell me to fuck off, but, as I told someone in Mayberry recently, cherish the writing process. It's so much more fun than when you have to pick your head up from the books and the computer and actually deal with the academic bureaucracy machine.

I only just finished mine and I already miss just reading stuff and writing stuff.




I'm sure that this wasn't intentional on your part, but I have to point out that you've just proven Peterson's point. Exactly what you've said here is all that Peterson's ever said: That "cleaning your room" - and especially being a proficient "room cleaner" - takes time and that teenagers by and large are not proficient room cleaners not because of some inherent flaw in their Being but simply because they haven't yet had the time to become proficient room cleaners.

As Der Eisbär put it:



I'm not understanding how this is in any way, shape, or form a confusing/contentious/controversial issue.



It's still weird seeing SMDers anywhere that isn't the SMD, but here we are. And imagine my surprise as I realize that moreorless is a commie



Seriously, though, Peterson talking about what people like Sanders and Corbyn say is what's depressing to you? What people like Sanders and Corbyn actually have to say isn't depressing to you?

Not even a little depressing?

Yikes, I never knew Bernie said that.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Seriously, though, Peterson talking about what people like Sanders and Corbyn say is what's depressing to you? What people like Sanders and Corbyn actually have to say isn't depressing to you?

Talking not of course as a leader at that point but he's correct in that inequality was significantly reduced under Chavez pre planned Saudi oil dumping killing the economy. I mean the idea that this viewpoint represents some kind of establishment force Peterson is fighting against is almost impossible to support I would say when you look at media coverage and establishment political reactions on Venezula. Look just recently for example at Corbyn criticized for denouncing all violence in Venezula, a considerable amount of with it coming from the US backed opposition keeping up the long tradition of interventions in South America backing highly questionable and often blood soaked right wing political movements.

The reality for me is that most of Petersons criticism is actually best directed at politicans and business interests that are inherently right wing and hawkish, using identity politics as window dressing to present themselves as an alternative to typical conservatives. Ultimately a lot of the weakness of identity politics tends to come down to that because we don't see a shift in economics to back it up, bigotry naturally effecting the poorest most strongly.

People like Corbyn and Saunders in reality bar not subscribing to strong interventionism are actually notable in that the economic viewpoints there pushing would not have been considered remarkable at all 50 years ago before the rise of neoliberial globalism, just the era were told was a golden age. Lest we forget....

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, they're "all nonsense" in the sense that they all lack sense, i.e. they all have no sense, i.e. they are all nonsense. Like I said: I don't care about "sides." I come at shit philosophically, not politically, but even if there's a political discussion to be had, I don't treat it like a team sport.

You strike me as the Left-wing equivalent of the Right-winger who denies that there are actually Bible-thumping Nazi nutjobs on his "team." And I don't say that as an insult. It may, for all I know, speak to a sense of naive optimism on your part, or a strong faith in the righteousness of your "side" (I say that given your emphasis on sides), not necessarily ignorance (willful or not). But it comes with the risk of being unaware of what people who claim to stand for the same things that you stand for really stand for - which, interestingly, connects to @Jack V Savage's correct observation about Right-wingers and which also serves as one example among the countless possible examples out there of how everyone who plays the "sides" game is equally stupid for the exact same reasons.

The point being that: Yes, people on the left absolutely do say and absolutely are saying "let's topple all institutions and live in chaos."

They're out there (and, if you think that they're as nuts as I do, which seems to be the case, then, "sides" aside, this should be a point on which we can agree). Thankfully, they seem to be pretty much confined to academia (and, thankfully again, pretty much confined to the humanities). Jack is right when he points out that, in terms of actual mover-and-shaker power, this brand of Leftist insanity is not (yet) operative at levels where it could actually create huge waves in day-to-day living. But there doesn't seem to be much stopping the rising tide. Hence what you call Peterson's paranoia and what others call his prudence.

See your earlier point, though. Yes, there are some who call themselves "leftists" who do want to topple all institutions and do have extreme views on left-wing identity politics, but as someone who identifies on the left myself, I do not consider those people to be on my "side."

I'm not convinced that the tide is actually rising (I think it's a pretty steady thing that occasionally has a little boil-backlash-retreat cycle), but what would stop it if it were is that there aren't actually many people who agree with it. I think identity politics is a more natural fit on the right (particularism is inherently valued on the right and opposed by the left, for one thing) and so I don't see it ever dominating on the left.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

See your earlier point, though. Yes, there are some who call themselves "leftists" who do want to topple all institutions and do have extreme views on left-wing identity politics, but as someone who identifies on the left myself, I do not consider those people to be on my "side."

I'm not convinced that the tide is actually rising (I think it's a pretty steady thing that occasionally has a little boil-backlash-retreat cycle), but what would stop it if it were is that there aren't actually many people who agree with it. I think identity politics is a more natural fit on the right (particularism is inherently valued on the right and opposed by the left, for one thing) and so I don't see it ever dominating on the left.

Again the obvious examples are indenity politics being weaponised against Sanders and Corbyn by the more right wing established elements of the Democrats and Labour.

Honestly Peterson himself I think enguages in similar tactics when it comes to labling a certain demographic as oppressed(white males) yet offers solutions based on values rather than highlighting the economic reality that can negatively effect this group.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Again the obvious examples are indenity politics being weaponised against Sanders and Corbyn by the more right wing established elements of the Democrats and Labour.

Can't comment on Corbyn, but that's not something that actually happened with Sanders. He was the favored choice of both the right- and left-wing elements of the party, with Clinton taking the center. And both candidates took heat from the identitarian left.

 

[Bald1]

See your earlier point, though. Yes, there are some who call themselves "leftists" who do want to topple all institutions and do have extreme views on left-wing identity politics, but as someone who identifies on the left myself, I do not consider those people to be on my "side."

They're not on your "side". But the unfortunate truth is they've found a home on the left side of the spectrum. Look at it this way, I remember you calling people who supported Trump out of spite of Clinton "Trump tolerators". That stuck in my mind because it rang true. It's the same principle here. There are some who are willing to abandon their principles and discard objectivity in the pursuit of winning their ideological war. Their unwillingness to engage in debate in the pursuit of objective truth places them close to the authoritarian right, but they provide cannon fodder against a more unified opposition so their toxic nature is ignored.

While I'm much more liberal than anything else, at least in a social way, I think Bullits approach is the best. Divorce yourself from ego in an effort to find the truth instead of winning an argument, analyze ideas and philosophies, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Jack V Savage]

They're not on your "side". But the unfortunate truth is they've found a home on the left side of the spectrum. Look at it this way, I remember you calling people who supported Trump out of spite of Clinton "Trump tolerators". That stuck in my mind because it rang true. It's the same principle here. There are some who are willing to abandon their principles and discard objectivity in the pursuit of winning their ideological war. Their unwillingness to engage in debate in the pursuit of objective truth places them close to the authoritarian right, but they provide cannon fodder against a more unified opposition so their toxic nature is ignored.

While I'm much more liberal than anything else, at least in a social way, I think Bullits approach is the best. Divorce yourself from ego in an effort to find the truth instead of winning an argument, analyze ideas and philosophies, and let the chips fall where they may.

This is a matter that we're starting to see debated on the left a bit.* My take is just that those guys are bad but they are fully contained and get wildly disproportionate media coverage in part because the identitarian right has a strong interest in signal-boosting them and the means to accomplish that.

* Example:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...rse-than-the-left-on-free-speech-so-what.html

 

[Bald1]

This is a matter that we're starting to see debated on the left a bit.* My take is just that those guys are bad but they are fully contained and get wildly disproportionate media coverage in part because the identitarian right has a strong interest in signal-boosting them and the means to accomplish that.

* Example:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...rse-than-the-left-on-free-speech-so-what.html

Does a problem have to reach "crisis" levels before we acknowledge that action needs to be taken? Is containment enough, or should we strive to eradicate intolerance wherever it comes from? The quip "I can't stand intolerance" is a bit of a puzzle for this guy.

I remember well the fallen from grace preachers, the PMRC crap, the hypocrisy and the controlling nature of the right. I find it disturbing that elements within the ranks of my "side" are adopting the same methods and ideas. The following paragraph sums up my thoughts quite well, and is the reason I'm more vocal in condemnation of the alt-left than the right.


"That’s why it misses the point for so many progressives to dodge complaints about left-wing dogmatism by pointing fingers at the right. The impulse to close ranks against the larger political enemy encourages overlooking unhealthy habits on one’s own side. Is the right worse? Yes, of course — and we have to keep it that way. If your only response to your side’s shortcomings is the comparative evil of the other side, then eventually the level of your standards will sink to theirs."

 

[Possum Jenkins]

No, they're "all nonsense" in the sense that they all lack sense, i.e. they all have no sense, i.e. they are all nonsense. Like I said: I don't care about "sides." I come at shit philosophically, not politically, but even if there's a political discussion to be had, I don't treat it like a team sport. I don't have a team that I blindly side with regardless of case-specific issues to say nothing of my own independent judgment. I've read that stuff and I've found it to be nonsensical garbage. If, having said that, that makes it easier for you to tar and feather me with some choice label or other, then you can have your fun, but I don't bother with shit like that. It's boring in and of itself and it's nowhere near as fun when compared to actually dealing with the nitty-gritty of discrete arguments.

It's impossible to have an opinion on a political issue and not have a side. You may not have a team that you personally identify with but you agreeing with and energetically defending Peterson's political positions puts you squarely in team right-wing whether you like it or not. Hard right wing.

If you're actually watching those videos, then you should also see the evidence that he brings up to support his arguments about how and why Marxism is (and has already historically proven itself countless times to be) atrocious and dangerous.

Yeah, he confuses Marxism for Stalinist/Leninist/Maoist totalitarianism. That's a standard mistake and not a huge deal. What is alarming and embarrassing is that he ties this totalitarianism to gender pronouns, fight for racial justice, multiculturalism, feminism, etc.

THAT is the stuff of hacks.

You strike me as the Left-wing equivalent of the Right-winger who denies that there are actually Bible-thumping Nazi nutjobs on his "team." And I don't say that as an insult. It may, for all I know, speak to a sense of naive optimism on your part, or a strong faith in the righteousness of your "side" (I say that given your emphasis on sides), not necessarily ignorance (willful or not). But it comes with the risk of being unaware of what people who claim to stand for the same things that you stand for really stand for - which, interestingly, connects to @Jack V Savage's correct observation about Right-wingers and which also serves as one example among the countless possible examples out there of how everyone who plays the "sides" game is equally stupid for the exact same reasons.

The point being that: Yes, people on the left absolutely do say and absolutely are saying "let's topple all institutions and live in chaos."



They're out there (and, if you think that they're as nuts as I do, which seems to be the case, then, "sides" aside, this should be a point on which we can agree). Thankfully, they seem to be pretty much confined to academia (and, thankfully again, pretty much confined to the humanities). Jack is right when he points out that, in terms of actual mover-and-shaker power, this brand of Leftist insanity is not (yet) operative at levels where it could actually create huge waves in day-to-day living. But there doesn't seem to be much stopping the rising tide. Hence what you call Peterson's paranoia and what others call his prudence.

Links, please.

Direct me to leftist academics saying that institutions should be toppled and replaced with nothing.

(This should be fascinating to the max since, as you're certainly aware, to achieve an academic position you HAVE to play by the rules of several institutions- notably those of higher learning- for literally decades. So they'd be essentially calling for the dissolution of their careers and a large part of their identities.)

Furthermore, the only ones that I can recall saying something even remotely similar to this are right-wing libertarians. We should remember that Ron Paul gained a huge following largely on his "End the Fed!" mantra. But of course, ending the state's central bank isn't alarming or insane. Adding a couple of women to the class reading list is.

Peterson himself has actually spoken about how terrible the criminal justice system is and would be on your side on every point that you raised on that front. He also strikes me as the type to not be a fan of the death penalty, though I don't recall ever seeing/reading anything with him addressing it directly. In any case, Peterson doesn't think that suggesting that the emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation in the criminal justice system is one step removed from Nazism, and just writing in at the end "according to Peterson" doesn't change the fact that you're attacking a straw man of your own creation.

I forgot, right-wingers are starting to turn on their long-held beliefs that more jails and more punishment are what's needed. Good for Peterson.

But before he spouts off some more about "leftist insanity!" he should realize that leftists have been at the forefront of criminal justice reform for decades. They're the ones campaigning to end the death penalty, lessen jail time, end solitary confinement, end torture, etc. You know, your standard society-destroying shit.

I'm currently in a doctoral program in a department of media and cultural studies, two disciplines that are rife with postmodernists. I wish that I could say that I pulled that out of my ass, but I didn't.

To paraphrase Chomsky: "That's fine for a comparative lit department at Yale. No one pays attention to that..."

Postmodernism isn't going to destroy society with the 5-6 professors at a university writing gibberish that no one cares about or pays attention to. And no, there's no slippery slope.

The problem here is that you're presupposing that these things are mutually exclusive, or at least not intimately connected. Peterson has explained countless times when discussing his personal history that he flirted with politics early in his life, then shifted over to law, and then finally found that the answers to the types of questions that he wanted to ask wouldn't be found in either politics or law and that psychology and philosophy were more interesting to him because they were more fundamental.

But this is not to deny that everything that Peterson has been researching, writing, and lecturing about with respect to archetypal relationships with ideals, for example, or with respect to the psychological insights regarding personality discernible from studying Nazism and communism, for another example, is completely disconnected from what he's talking about today. Even on the quickest skim of Maps of Meaning, you may have to double-check that it's actually that 20-year-old text that you're looking at and not something from recent years, because everything that Peterson has been interested in his entire academic career is all inextricably linked.

Of course his academic interests and political statements aren't "completely disconnected." There's some slight, possible, overlap.

But to go from researching "meaning" and archetypes to ranting about how inequality is great, multiculturalism is evil, and feminism is a threat is a bit of a stretch.

That's your call. I think that Peterson's efforts (should) have earned him the benefit of the doubt with respect to this type of cynicism regarding his motives. But if you won't buy from anyone who isn't on your "side," then there isn't anything else to be said.

I'm certainly not cynical for people like Ben Shapiro, Stephen Miller, David Brooks or William F. Buckley, even though they're all on Peterson's side and I find all their views deplorable.

Why not? Because they have a long, consistent track record. They've been political and conservative their whole careers, some even as teens. They didn't wait until they were in their 50s, had tenure, and the political climate was just right to realize that, oh yeah, feminism is destroying society, multiculturalism is a sham, and white privilege doesn't exist.

That shit that I wrote in reference to the Gad Saad video that I posted works well enough for the purposes of this debate, so I'm going to use that as my proof and respond to your refutation. Before I do that, though, I need to clarify that...

I searched your posts and couldn't find a Gad Saad video.

That's not the issue. The issue is the revisionist history according to which the contribution of women to philosophy is being (implicitly but no less grossly) exaggerated on silly political grounds. If you're teaching Philosophy 101 and you've got 15 weeks to somehow fit in the Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle for the old school; Augustine, Boëthius, and Aquinas for the not-quite-as-old-but-still-old-school; Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Hegel for the new generation; and then a grab bag of pragmatism, positivism, phenomenology, ordinary language philosophy, structuralism and poststructuralism, etc., those 15 weeks are going to feel like absolutely nothing. And that's just shit off the top of my head, and that just limited to "Western" philosophy. It's hard enough to do that at all. But now imagine being forced to cut out 40% of the material that you're already struggling to fit in just because the history of philosophy to this point in human history has been dominated by penis-possessing people.

If you're doing a class on 20th Century philosophy, I still don't like the quotafication shit, but I get wanting to make sure that it's not a sausage fest. But forcing 40% for purely political reasons is ridiculous on its face and it distorts actual human history for the sake of a political agenda fueled by identity politics crap.

I don't like quotas either, to be honest. However, the articles do say that these changes have been "requested" and the "reading lists" are what are changed. We all know that not all readings on the syllabus get an equal amount of classroom attention. So it's perfectly possible that an Intro to Philosophy course is largely unchanged.

Question is, when does an action change from "purely political reasons" to something valid? When does a curriculum reflect the true political/social/philosophical climate of a time period as opposed to something that's done to keep another group happy?

You're kind of assuming that ANY attempt at changing a syllabus is "political" if it includes women and nonwhites because philosophy and knowledge being the sole domain of white males is as factual as the wind or the color of the sky.

As I've said, I don't play these silly games. I let those who do play such games "place" me on whatever "side" makes them feel all warm inside as they dismiss what I have to say. For my part, I just care about the ideas. If anything, I should be telling you to sack up and show some spine and courage by forgetting about "sides" and "teams" and all that and to just come at shit honestly and openly regardless of where you might fall on someone's spectrum having voiced whatever you honestly think and feel.

It's far, far sillier to state a series of very strong opinions on inherently political issues like Marxism, equality, gender and racial relations, and then pretend you're not taking a political position.

You're not married to your political position, you don't even have to be 100% consistent on this position, but you can't deny that it IS an actual position.

Since we're supposed to "enemies" right now, this might make you want to just tell me to fuck off, but, as I told someone in Mayberry recently, cherish the writing process. It's so much more fun than when you have to pick your head up from the books and the computer and actually deal with the academic bureaucracy machine.

I only just finished mine and I already miss just reading stuff and writing stuff.

Thanks, a lot of people say the same thing about writing.

Congrats on finishing though.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Time to make good on that IOU.





No, they're "all nonsense" in the sense that they all lack sense, i.e. they all have no sense, i.e. they are all nonsense. Like I said: I don't care about "sides." I come at shit philosophically, not politically, but even if there's a political discussion to be had, I don't treat it like a team sport. I don't have a team that I blindly side with regardless of case-specific issues to say nothing of my own independent judgment. I've read that stuff and I've found it to be nonsensical garbage. If, having said that, that makes it easier for you to tar and feather me with some choice label or other, then you can have your fun, but I don't bother with shit like that. It's boring in and of itself and it's nowhere near as fun when compared to actually dealing with the nitty-gritty of discrete arguments.



It's a good thing that I don't do it, then



If you're actually watching those videos, then you should also see the evidence that he brings up to support his arguments about how and why Marxism is (and has already historically proven itself countless times to be) atrocious and dangerous.



You strike me as the Left-wing equivalent of the Right-winger who denies that there are actually Bible-thumping Nazi nutjobs on his "team." And I don't say that as an insult. It may, for all I know, speak to a sense of naive optimism on your part, or a strong faith in the righteousness of your "side" (I say that given your emphasis on sides), not necessarily ignorance (willful or not). But it comes with the risk of being unaware of what people who claim to stand for the same things that you stand for really stand for - which, interestingly, connects to @Jack V Savage's correct observation about Right-wingers and which also serves as one example among the countless possible examples out there of how everyone who plays the "sides" game is equally stupid for the exact same reasons.

The point being that: Yes, people on the left absolutely do say and absolutely are saying "let's topple all institutions and live in chaos."



They're out there (and, if you think that they're as nuts as I do, which seems to be the case, then, "sides" aside, this should be a point on which we can agree). Thankfully, they seem to be pretty much confined to academia (and, thankfully again, pretty much confined to the humanities). Jack is right when he points out that, in terms of actual mover-and-shaker power, this brand of Leftist insanity is not (yet) operative at levels where it could actually create huge waves in day-to-day living. But there doesn't seem to be much stopping the rising tide. Hence what you call Peterson's paranoia and what others call his prudence.



I gather that the reasons that you have no direct quotes from Peterson himself here are (1) because you didn't even bother with trying to find evidence to support the building of this straw man and (2) because, had you bothered with trying to find evidence, you would've realized that there isn't any and you would've then had to be upfront about the fact that what you were doing was building a straw man.

Peterson himself has actually spoken about how terrible the criminal justice system is and would be on your side on every point that you raised on that front. He also strikes me as the type to not be a fan of the death penalty, though I don't recall ever seeing/reading anything with him addressing it directly. In any case, Peterson doesn't think that suggesting that the emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation in the criminal justice system is one step removed from Nazism, and just writing in at the end "according to Peterson" doesn't change the fact that you're attacking a straw man of your own creation.



As I mentioned above, I think that this speaks more to you as a person (for better or worse - I'm just describing, not judging) than to the actual state of affairs.



I'm currently in a doctoral program in a department of media and cultural studies, two disciplines that are rife with postmodernists. I wish that I could say that I pulled that out of my ass, but I didn't.

The problem here is that you're presupposing that these things are mutually exclusive, or at least not intimately connected. Peterson has explained countless times when discussing his personal history that he flirted with politics early in his life, then shifted over to law, and then finally found that the answers to the types of questions that he wanted to ask wouldn't be found in either politics or law and that psychology and philosophy were more interesting to him because they were more fundamental.

But this is not to deny that everything that Peterson has been researching, writing, and lecturing about with respect to archetypal relationships with ideals, for example, or with respect to the psychological insights regarding personality discernible from studying Nazism and communism, for another example, is completely disconnected from what he's talking about today. Even on the quickest skim of Maps of Meaning, you may have to double-check that it's actually that 20-year-old text that you're looking at and not something from recent years, because everything that Peterson has been interested in his entire academic career is all inextricably linked.



That's your call. I think that Peterson's efforts (should) have earned him the benefit of the doubt with respect to this type of cynicism regarding his motives. But if you won't buy from anyone who isn't on your "side," then there isn't anything else to be said.



That shit that I wrote in reference to the Gad Saad video that I posted works well enough for the purposes of this debate, so I'm going to use that as my proof and respond to your refutation. Before I do that, though, I need to clarify that...



...I said very clearly that contemporary identity politics are rooted in postmodern philosophy. For my purposes, "contemporary" means the last half century, not the last half millennium. Anyway, continuing on...



That's not the issue. The issue is the revisionist history according to which the contribution of women to philosophy is being (implicitly but no less grossly) exaggerated on silly political grounds. If you're teaching Philosophy 101 and you've got 15 weeks to somehow fit in the Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle for the old school; Augustine, Boëthius, and Aquinas for the not-quite-as-old-but-still-old-school; Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Hegel for the new generation; and then a grab bag of pragmatism, positivism, phenomenology, ordinary language philosophy, structuralism and poststructuralism, etc., those 15 weeks are going to feel like absolutely nothing. And that's just shit off the top of my head, and that just limited to "Western" philosophy. It's hard enough to do that at all. But now imagine being forced to cut out 40% of the material that you're already struggling to fit in just because the history of philosophy to this point in human history has been dominated by penis-possessing people.

If you're doing a class on 20th Century philosophy, I still don't like the quotafication shit, but I get wanting to make sure that it's not a sausage fest. But forcing 40% for purely political reasons is ridiculous on its face and it distorts actual human history for the sake of a political agenda fueled by identity politics crap.



As I've said, I don't play these silly games. I let those who do play such games "place" me on whatever "side" makes them feel all warm inside as they dismiss what I have to say. For my part, I just care about the ideas. If anything, I should be telling you to sack up and show some spine and courage by forgetting about "sides" and "teams" and all that and to just come at shit honestly and openly regardless of where you might fall on someone's spectrum having voiced whatever you honestly think and feel.



Since we're supposed to be "enemies" right now, this might make you want to just tell me to fuck off, but, as I told someone in Mayberry recently, cherish the writing process. It's so much more fun than when you have to pick your head up from the books and the computer and actually deal with the academic bureaucracy machine.

I only just finished mine and I already miss just reading stuff and writing stuff.




I'm sure that this wasn't intentional on your part, but I have to point out that you've just proven Peterson's point. Exactly what you've said here is all that Peterson's ever said: That "cleaning your room" - and especially being a proficient "room cleaner" - takes time and that teenagers by and large are not proficient room cleaners not because of some inherent flaw in their Being but simply because they haven't yet had the time to become proficient room cleaners.

As Der Eisbär put it:



I'm not understanding how this is in any way, shape, or form a confusing/contentious/controversial issue.



It's still weird seeing SMDers anywhere that isn't the SMD, but here we are. And imagine my surprise as I realize that moreorless is a commie



Seriously, though, Peterson talking about what people like Sanders and Corbyn say is what's depressing to you? What people like Sanders and Corbyn actually have to say isn't depressing to you?

Not even a little depressing?

An impressively long post/multiquote

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Can't comment on Corbyn, but that's not something that actually happened with Sanders. He was the favored choice of both the right- and left-wing elements of the party, with Clinton taking the center. And both candidates took heat from the identitarian left.

I'm sorry but that's very obviously not the case, juts look at who was getting all the funding from Wall Street, Clinton was the choice of the right of the party and in general. Indeed her failure was mostly because she polled well in Republican heartlands but not well enough to win states whilst loosing votes Obama picked up in the rust belt.

Pretty much all of the disruptions we've seen to western politics in recent years have IMHO been due to not just the aftermath of 2008 but the situation where the establishment offered very little choice in terms of economics, it was right wing neoliberalism or nothing(just with more or less idenity politics added to the recipe) and a lot more effort put towards crushing any shift to the left hence right wing popularism having most success.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm sorry but that's very obviously not the case, juts look at who was getting all the funding from Wall Street, Clinton was the choice of the right of the party and in general. Indeed her failure was mostly because she polled well in Republican heartlands but not well enough to win states.

It is the case. One of those things that might not be obvious to you until you start thinking about it (and looking at polling data--and FYI, right-wingers on Wall Street donate to Republicans). As it was basically a one-person race from the start, Sanders was the choice of people who were dissatisfied with the Democratic Party for any reason--people who thought it was too far left and who thought it was too far right (among other quibbles people may have had). There was no pattern of Clinton doing better in "Republican heartlands," though her stronger support among minorities gave her an advantage in some Southern states.

Pretty much all of the disruptions we've seen to western politics in recent years have IMHO been due to not just the aftermath of 2008 but the situation where the establishment offered very little choice in terms of economics, it was right wing neoliberalism or nothing and a lot more effort put towards crushing any shift to the left hence right ring popularism having most success.

On economics, Trump is a pretty conventional Republican, with a few very minor (and really dumb) additions. Clinton's economic platform was probably further left than any presidential candidate's has been, though not as far left as Sanders'.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Does a problem have to reach "crisis" levels before we acknowledge that action needs to be taken? Is containment enough, or should we strive to eradicate intolerance wherever it comes from? The quip "I can't stand intolerance" is a bit of a puzzle for this guy.

No, a problem doesn't have to be a crisis to be handled. But at the current level, it's pretty insignificant and not growing. I have no problem with calling out stupidity where it arises, but I do think the media coverage and general attention is wildly out of proportion to the level of the threat.

"That’s why it misses the point for so many progressives to dodge complaints about left-wing dogmatism by pointing fingers at the right. The impulse to close ranks against the larger political enemy encourages overlooking unhealthy habits on one’s own side. Is the right worse? Yes, of course — and we have to keep it that way. If your only response to your side’s shortcomings is the comparative evil of the other side, then eventually the level of your standards will sink to theirs."

It's a good point, but I don't think it's addressing the actual argument. People for the most part aren't saying, "right-wing identity politics is worse so left-wing identity politics is cool;" they're saying, "identity politics is more of a problem on the right so that's where energy spent fighting it should primarily be focused."

 

[SRN]

A podcast I listen to said he sounds like Kermit the Frog and now I can't take him seriously.

lol His voice is a problem sometimes, at least for me. He's also monotone, just like Sam Harris, and it can be very annoying/boring to hear a voice like that. But he's able to maintain my attention unlike Harris.

 

[panamaican]

I'm sure that this wasn't intentional on your part, but I have to point out that you've just proven Peterson's point. Exactly what you've said here is all that Peterson's ever said: That "cleaning your room" - and especially being a proficient "room cleaner" - takes time and that teenagers by and large are not proficient room cleaners not because of some inherent flaw in their Being but simply because they haven't yet had the time to become proficient room cleaners.

That wasn't what I said. What I was saying is that skill in one area doesn't mean skill in another area.

I highlighted "room cleaning" as an independent skill that itself takes years to master. But there's no reason to believe that after one has mastered the act of "room cleaning" that you're now at a minimum level to become a metaphorical "doctor".

No one who applied to medical school would point their mastery of room cleaning as evidence that they're ready for the next field. Nor would a doctor point to their mastery of room cleaning as evidence that they're ready to negotiate plumbing contracts. The skills obtained in one area do not necessarily translate to the other.

The only universal floor of ability that we have, right now, is graduating from high school. From that general level of accomplishment, we consider people ready to enter the workforce, to train in collegiate fields of study, to begin vocational training, etc. So, the question I'm raising is "What is the non-metaphorical baseline activity that one must master before one is deemed qualified to protest what they perceive as a flaw in society?"

"Room cleaner" is a metaphor. But people seem to be using the metaphor without ever translating it to the real world. To stay within the metaphors - "Room cleaner" is the first necessary step towards "house cleaner", not towards "mechanic".