Jordan Peterson

[ruby sparks]

Ok so hands up who likes what this guy has to say? I suppose I'm mainly talking about his gender politics, but I'm not restricting my interest to that.

Here, for example, is a video of part of a lecture he gave. The title of the video is 'White Privilege isn't real' though I don't think that was the topic of his talk and I don't think he actually says it in the video. Perhaps the person who posted the video on youtube thought it was an appropriate title:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEESNpAu1EU[/YOUTUBE]

I'm gonna put my cards on the table and say that from what I've seen of him, I don't, by and large, like what he has to say. I should qualify that by adding that I like some of what he has to say and by saying that he is articulate and intelligent and often makes accurate and valid points. What worries me is 'where it's all coming from'. To me, it seems that he holds underlying ideas about 'marxist conspiracies' and suchlike, which to me, run the risk of straying into paranoia, over-reaction and fear-mongering. See for example 4:39 in the video where he jokes that 'Intersectionalists' will 'get there' (supposedly to the logical outcome of Identity Politics) 'if they don't kill everyone first'.

If nothing else, I might wonder if his underlying ideologies taint the objectivity of even his valid points, or mean that he tends to make selective (if valid) points to suit his ideologies.

To me, he seems like an ideologue, an apologist and an accomplished sophist. Someone who could polish a turd.

I could take several of his valid points (made here or in other videos I've seen) and agree with him, but I doubt I'd be agreeing with him on the background justifications which underlie them for him.

 

[dismal]

I don't, by and large, like what he has to say.

When I have heard him speak in the past he tends to take a scientific approach and use things like "facts".

Are you sure it's "what he has to say" you don't like or is it "reality"?

 

[Jayjay]

He seems to be some sort of icon for alt right. I don't know much about what he's actually saying, but I know of him because about 90% of my Youtube recommendations are alt right propaganda, and I do my best not to click any of it so that the percentage doesn't go up to 100%.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I could take several of his valid points (made here or in other videos I've seen) and agree with him, but I doubt I'd be agreeing with him on the background justifications which underlie them for him.

So you're saying...

Lol. No seriously though, what you write here sums up my view on him well. He has a lot of excellent points that few others raise and aknowledge, but also seems to be seriously paranoid about Marxism.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't, by and large, like what he has to say.

When I have heard him speak in the past he tends to take a scientific approach and use things like "facts".

Are you sure it's "what he has to say" you don't like or is it "reality"?

It's what he has to say, or more specifically where it's coming from.

Look, everyone and his cousin uses science to add credibility to their points these days. That doesn't mean that even when they're valid they make for a good or balanced case overall.

 

[ruby sparks]

I could take several of his valid points (made here or in other videos I've seen) and agree with him, but I doubt I'd be agreeing with him on the background justifications which underlie them for him.

So you're saying...

Lol. No seriously though, what you write here sums up my view on him well. He has a lot of excellent points that few others raise and aknowledge, but also seems to be seriously paranoid about Marxism.

He's someone about whom I could pick out things I agree with and applaud him for saying and pick out things I disagree with and cringe at.

Overall, I think it's a pity that his views come from where they do, because imo it undermines his valid points, even if only from the pov of view that he may be being selective about his use of them. I have the same reservations about what people on other sides of the issues say when it seems to be unreasonably biased or dogmatic.

Overall, there's a slight whiff of 'things are/were ok the way they are/were' which of course, would by and large suit people of his ethnicity, gender and so on (and mine).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

He's someone about whom I could pick out things I agree with and applaud him for saying and pick out things I disagree with and cringe at.

Overall, I think it's a pity that his views come from where they do, because imo it undermines his valid points, even if only from the pov of view that he may be being selective about his analyses of them.

I agree with that. It also hurts my ears when I listen to his Deepak Chopra-esque self help stuff, as well as his takes on "narratives" and the bible. His interview with Matt Dilahunty must see if you like a train wreck) is horrendous. It was so bad that I felt as bad for Matt in that interview as I felt for Jordan in his interview with Cathy Newman (another must see; but one where Jordan makes a lot more sense).

Overall, there's a slight whiff of 'things is/are ok the way they is/are' which of course, would by and large suit people of his demographic.

That I think you are reading in. The Alt-right tries to push him as their own, despite his many disagreements with them, because they share a few of his key points, and because he gained his fame through his opposition to compelled speech on transgender pronouns and the following Lindsay Shepherd incident that showed his concern to be valid.

Regarding the video that you mentioned about "White Privilege", I don't know if maybe the one you watched is misnamed, but there is one by that name in which Jordan argues that "White Privilege" is a misnomer and is actually just majority privilege, had by majorities anywhere in any regard (race, religion, whatever). I disagree with him on that, and think it is more, since I have been all over Asia and have seen "white" often being held as synonomous with rich and high status (which both makes you instantly respected and instantly a target of scams, crime, and kidnappings if you are white; I can go to Mindanao in the Philippines and blend in a little (though my chinkiness does betray me if they look closely), but my white friends would be targets of kidnappings for ransom).

 

[PyramidHead]

He doesn't actually say much, from what I can tell. I've had a hard time pinning down exactly what his message is, apart from the rhetorical style he employs to deliver it. From what I have heard, he is one of the best examples I know of the "what stupid people think a smart person sounds like" trope, and uses the uncritical acceptance he knows his fans will provide as a license to play fast and loose with his ideas, whatever they may be.

 

[ruby sparks]

... I felt for Jordan in his interview with Cathy Newman (another must see; but one where Jordan makes a lot more sense).

Yes, I've seen that whole (now famous) interview. I agree that Cathy Newman did not do well and that he made many points I would go along with. To be honest, I think cathy Newman was either unprepared, got too involved or just didn't make the points I would like her to have made. She missed the target (and I do think there is a target).

That I think you are reading in. The Alt-right tries to push him as their own, despite his many disagreements with them, because they share a few of his key points, and because he gained his fame through his opposition to compelled speech on transgender pronouns and the following Lindsay Shepherd incident that showed his concern to be valid.

I'm not really all that familiar with him and especially not familiar with any alt-right pushing of him, so while it's true that I might not be reading him correctly, I'm not reading him as being alt-right. So far, I've only heard him saying his own stuff (other than when Cathy Newman was getting him wrong).

Regarding the video that you mentioned about "White Privilege", I don't know if maybe the one you watched is misnamed, but there is one by that name in which Jordan argues that "White Privilege" is a misnomer and is actually just majority privilege, had by majorities anywhere in any regard (race, religion, whatever). I disagree with him on that, and think it is more, since I have been all over Asia and have seen "white" often being held as synonomous with rich and high status (which both makes you instantly respected and instantly a target of scams, crime, and kidnappings if you are white; I can go to Mindanao in the Philippines and blend in a little (though my chinkiness does betray me if they look closely), but my white friends would be targets of kidnappings for ransom).

Yes, I think he's askew when he switches to majority privilege for the same reasons as you do. We probably all agree that in an alternative world with a very different history, we might be talking about black or asian privilege, but that's not by and large the world we're in, so while he may be technically correct about white privilege being majority privilege, in his country and mine and most of the 'west' and in fact as you say in other parts of the world, majority privilege IS white privilege. And it's not so long ago that white privilege was in fact minority privilege in many countries, including those colonised by white 'westerners'. He appears to have a reluctance to admit to white privilege being a phenomenon and I think it's disingenuous.

There are many ways to discuss white (or any) privilege, and it is of course true that it varies a lot, is a general rather than individual thing and even that there are some downsides to being white, but to more or less deny the existence of it is going too far.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I only listened to a bit at the beginning, but the only "facts" I heard were there is such a thing as Marxism and a thing called Postmodernism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

a thing called Postmodernism.

"Postmodernism" sounds like a time machine

 

[Mumbles]

He doesn't actually say much, from what I can tell. I've had a hard time pinning down exactly what his message is, apart from the rhetorical style he employs to deliver it. From what I have heard, he is one of the best examples I know of the "what stupid people think a smart person sounds like" trope, and uses the uncritical acceptance he knows his fans will provide as a license to play fast and loose with his ideas, whatever they may be.

Pretty much my point of view. When he gets specific, like many people who speak outside their area of expertise, he's often absurd (see: his arguments about the lobster, or about the helix in ancient civilizations.)

He also recently claimed that "feminists" are somehow in league with the Saudi government, which is why the former group supposedly never criticize the latter's oppression of women. Again, the reality is actually far more complex than this - but I do recall a few misogynistic muslims citing him as a white Christian who outright agrees with their views on women. His views on "Marxism" seem to boil down to something that originated out of Nazi propaganda (note that I am *not* saying that he is in any way sympathetic to Nazism - and in fact I'll say that he is disgusted by them - but rather that he seems entirely ignorant of this basic fact as well). I'm not too up on what "postmodernism" is, but have heard several people state that he's entirely ignorant of that as well.

As far as "white privilege" goes, he seems to be confused to the most basic definition of that as well. For example, the "why" of people have decided these bases to discuss, to be blunt, it's because these ones are, or were until a small time ago, outright used to divide government favor or burden. He also seems entirely unable to discuss "intersectionality" which is actually another very old discussion on how, say, black men and white women have both quite happily thrown black women, in particular, under the bus. Think of, for example, old policies where office work was essentially "whites only", while manufacturing was "men only". Well, how many black women get hired? Basically, none. We can see this dating back over 100 years, even in feminist and black rights movements. "Intersectionality" is simply a word for this very old problem.

And of course, the idea that there's "no empirical backing" for this is laughable. There's actually an overwhelming amount of data for exactly this. As for "wealth", that's also been taken into account, and racial and gender discrimination remain even when wealth is equal, which it often isn't due to very clear discrimination that occured until the recent past.

I'm dimly reminded of a 20-something Youtuber that claimed that nobody cared that Alien's main character was a woman, or that "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air" featured black people. He...got torn apart. Even some of the more obnoxious Youtube Atheists (Cult of Dusty, who I admit is rapidly learning more, and Amazing Atheist) have gone after Peterson pretty hard, not to mention a News & Opinion favorite of mine, Sam Seder.

 

[ruby sparks]

Marxism is arguably a thing, as is postmodernism, as is Identity Politics and Intersectionality. My issue with Jordan Peterson is that he appears to rampantly mischaracterize all of them. And he's not alone. Those terms appear to have come to mean or be used in certain often maligning, simplistic ways quite often these days, by what I might call 'conservatives' (usually of the status quo variety). in a nutshell, it's as if they were all slogan words for supposedly bad things. Whereas like most things, they are nuanced, and have positive and negative aspects, and can be used or misused.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sam Seder.

Ah, Sam Seder. Can't say I'm a fan. He is constantly spewing venom with little regard for truth or nuance. For most of the same points and points of view, but done is a more measured and insightful way, I recommend David Pakman.

 

[dismal]

I don't, by and large, like what he has to say.

When I have heard him speak in the past he tends to take a scientific approach and use things like "facts".

Are you sure it's "what he has to say" you don't like or is it "reality"?

It's what he has to say, or more specifically where it's coming from.

Look, everyone and his cousin uses science to add credibility to their points these days. That doesn't mean that even when they're valid they make for a good or balanced case overall.

In this clip where he seems to be coming from is: many "intersectionalists" are illogical and ascientific.

He provides examples.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I don't listen to Peterson much. P.Z. Myers (phayngula blog) did his usual masterfully dissection of Peterson's scientific claims for manliness (lobsters) for those interested in such things. Some googling demonstrated to me that Peterson drifts from platitudes to nonsense enough to not be worth bothering with except to examine why he has become so popular amongst some. Sort of why anybody in their tight mind might examine L. Ron Hubbard's babblings, or Ayn Rands.

“Women get paid less than man, and it’s good that that’s the case. This is because men are inferior to women, and therefore we should make more money based on our superior intellect. In fact, I don’t think women should even work at all. They should stay home and make babies”
-- Jordon Peterson

 

[ruby sparks]

It's what he has to say, or more specifically where it's coming from.

Look, everyone and his cousin uses science to add credibility to their points these days. That doesn't mean that even when they're valid they make for a good or balanced case overall.

In this clip where he seems to be coming from is: many "intersectionalists" are illogical and ascientific.

He provides examples.

I would refer you to my comments in my previous posts, regarding slant, over-simplistic characterisation, misrepresentation of an 'opponent's' actual positions and selective factfinding.

And possibly in particular to his 'joke' that intersectionalists are going to 'kill everyone'. I mean, seriously?

Sorry, I think we're dealing with an idealogue here, someone who may in fact be a high-functioning wingnut, despite the valid individual points he does make. Which is a pity. Some of them are good points. I would love for them to be made by someone whose underlying motives were not so dubious.

 

[ruby sparks]

He reminds in some ways of Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's spinmeister. It was and is difficult to tell if he really believed his own schtick. Possibly he did, possibly he didn't. I think both of them suffer from sever and chronic depression, which may or may not be incidental to my seeing a comparison. I've had it myself, for decades of my life, so I'm not merely poisoning the well by mentioning it. I know how it can potentially affect the way you function and your outlook, in some ways.

I don't dismiss or criticise anything he says because he's a depressive (or because he's quasi-religious either). It mostly makes me more sympathetic, and I realise that may sound patronising.

 

[dismal]

It's what he has to say, or more specifically where it's coming from.

Look, everyone and his cousin uses science to add credibility to their points these days. That doesn't mean that even when they're valid they make for a good or balanced case overall.

In this clip where he seems to be coming from is: many "intersectionalists" are illogical and ascientific.

He provides examples.

I would refer you to my comments in my previous posts, regarding slant, over-simplistic characterisation, misrepresentation of an 'opponent's' actual positions and selective factfinding.

And possibly in particular to his 'joke' that intersectionalists are going to 'kill everyone'. I mean, seriously?

Sorry, I think we're dealing with an idealogue here, someone who may in fact be a high-functioning wingnut, despite the valid individual points he does make. Which is a pity. Some of them are good points. I would love for them to be made by someone whose underlying motives were not so dubious.

So, you don't like the dubious motives you have assumed he has. Seems fair.

 

[ruby sparks]

So, you don't like the dubious motives you have assumed he has. Seems fair.