Have you spent much time on 4chan or reddit looking at what these guys post? Because they've adopted the label pretty readily. Yeah, I'm not interested in sophistry, I've formed my opinions about Peterson based on his writings and speeches and have found the man's intellect and character wanting.
I'm familiar with his take on c16 and I dont agree with you at all. I'm not tied to the man. I dont follow him per se. I've seen him speak because as a human being functioning in a world with the internet its literally impossinble not to, however every defence he has offered to criticisms leave me simply thinking fair enough regarding the way his socio-political statements are depicted in the media. What I have seen of him speaking regarding psychology and 'self help' I actually think is pretty humane.
You can disagree with the content of C16, but that's absolutely the issue Peterson took with it. Peterson in general seeks to oppose what he calls identity politics and political correctness, I'm not sure you can separate those critiques from a general attitude of "ok, ok, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, we've gotten far enough, we don't need targeted reforms any longer," all the while claiming that these politics represent an assault on Western civilization rather than an outgrowth and expression of it.
Sorry for the spam of replies, but thinking about Peterson's humane self help stuff; what makes sense in a personal sphere can have disastrous consequences when advocated as a political solution. For example (it's one I return to often): advising that someone avoid a bad neighborhood might make some level of personal sense. But when you use that as a solution to bad neighborhoods you're creating a burgeoning apartheid. Sure, marginalized minorities have to operate within a marginalizing society and on a personal level telling them to be the best they can makes sense. But that doesn't invalidate group actions or the need for them, and arguing that it does is where and why these accusations start flying.
Incel - Wikipedia "Incels (a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates") are self-identifying members of an online subculture[1][2] who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom.[3] Self-identified incels are mostly white, male, and heterosexual.[4][5][6]Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy,[1]self-pity,[7] self-loathing,[8] misogyny, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people.[" Yes I hate rapists, and people who try to defend rapists. With the rape statistics the way it is you probobly know a rape victim or two, maybe a member of your own family. Think about that for a minute or two and then tell me I shouldnt hate these scumbags.
r/IncelTears This is a pretty good website that mocks the worst of incels on reddit. Although the initial incel group has been banned, there have been others that sprung up like braincels or something.
As far as I can see, his issue is with enforced speech laws and the precident set, which play into his perception of a (real or imagined) political movement/conspiracy with routes in marxist theory and postmodernist philosophy as applied to the humanities and as reflected in literary criticism rather than the postmodernism of artistic expression. I don't believe he sees progress for civil rights (especially in the context of transgender equality) as inherently threatening or indeed undesirable. I may be wrong but that's my reading of him. A lot of what he says regarding these controversial topics has resonance with me but I don't feel my views or feelings sit in counterpoint to social progress or equality. I'm a massive egalitarian and about as nuturing and compassionate as they come.
I was paraphrasing, but that amounts to what he has said on the subject. He said that the trans activists pushing for C-16 were radical leftists, and controlling language (ie. inventing new pronouns) was familiar to him, having studied totalitarianism in the USSR and Maoist China. That's why he wanted to set up that university black list, where all the marxist women's studies, English literature, racial and ethnic studies, gender studies, and education lecturers could be on a searchable database, because they are training a generation of "infiltrating agents" who will destroy society as we have known it in the West for a thousand years. That's also why he doxxed two activists who organised against him, and "outed" them as communists. C-16 had nothing to do with compelled speech. It didn't even apply to universities. His crusade was a lot of bluster about a pack of lies. So, if I were trans, and looked at Peterson's words and actions, considering that he feels that gender expression should not be a legal human right (to matters within federal jurisdiction), considering that he believes that trans activists are Stalinist infiltrators changing language in order to overthrow society... well, there might be disagreement about the term "transphobic", but I certainly wouldn't consider him an ally.
How someone that advocates wholesale banning of university courses and subjects he doesn't like became a champion of free speech is beyond me. How someone that thinks ancient pictures of snakes intertwined is actually a representation of the structure of DNA has become a bastion of clear thinking is beyond me. How someone that thinks the presence of serotonin in Lobsters says something profound about the human condition and wider society has become some sort of modern guru is beyond me. Actually...none of that is beyond me. He says a whole raft of things, for money, that resonate with vocal and angry man-children that inhabit the internet and who can't work out where they fit in the world (where women and minorities and other things they don't like exist) without someone they deem worthy telling them where they fit.
I like some of what he says. I think some of what he says around integration of the the id, the shouldering of suffering, growth and self determination are well articulated and while not necessarily profound are ideas well worth perpetuating. If I was forced to identify with a position on the political spectrum (which I don't like to do) I'd say I was left wing. I don't agree with any UK right leaning speakers, I disagree with almost everything that eminates from Ben Shapiro's mouth (although I respect him) and the republicans of the US. But I don't see Jordan Peterson as a mouthpiece for the alt-right despite the apparant conservative leanings in his thoughts. I dislike indentity politics and political correctness because in my opinion they are reductive and oppressive and foster division and intolerance far more than they liberate; so I like elements of his criticisms of these socio-political ideologies for their particular authoritarianism and dogmatism. Despite that I know where I fit in the world - to the extent that most stable, conscientious, people do - and I'm not angry at the world and I'm not someone who discriminates against people for arbitrary quirks of their birth, genetics or choices. In fact my consistent position in the world is to operate from a place of compassion and understanding as not only is it intrinsic to my natural disposition of emotional sensitivity and socialised into me through my upbringing; it is essential to my practice professionally. Increasingly dialouge seems shallower and more incendiary when discussing ideas in the world. Polarised thinking, tribalism and personal attack seem to rule. I think that's the biggest shame. I may not see what you see and I may be wrong but I know for sure that there are at least some things of value that Jordan Peterson has shared which don't require you to be an angry man-child to appreciate.
It's ironic that the bolded label is exactly the audience Peterson has stated multiple times that he goes for, and the reason for his book 12 Rules for Life. While your summary is a consolidation of the people who hold reverence towards Peterson, it's really a description of the majority of people. Most people don't like to think for themselves, and are happy to be told how to think and what to do and especially if they're given the illusion of free will. People who are a few steps beyond that often take advantage of this in different ways. Some just do it better. To me this is more the natural order of things rather than a great moral crisis. Due to that I can't buy into this kind of argument to refute somebody. The former points are certainly worth considering.
In other news somewhat related, I have a class on contract law where the professor, who is a successful lawyer in the area who is also a bit of an anti-vaccination that buys into the "woo woo" health stuff, is requiring us to read a self-help book and give a book report on it. Part of me is annoyed this is part of a contract law class. The other part of me is annoyed that I have to read a damned self help book. But if I gotta' do it I might as well choose something that's on my radar as far as social topics/personalities go. Regrettably I have purchased 12 Rules for Life. I'll probably use this thread to bounce ideas on different topics in the book to prepare for my book report : P.
Look man, I'm trying to get an A in the course. He went on last class for an entire hour about this stuff. A lot of people tuned out, but the few people who bought into it (who obviously bought into it prior him sharing his views) kept him going. There was a point where he said, "Just look at medical history. 100 years ago there wasn't as much cancer, diseases or illnesses." I did raise my hand and ask him if he considered the fact that medical technology, knowledge, and the ability to diagnose might be the reason. The summary of his retort is "maybe" as he continued on. I ran into another student after that class at the grocery store and we basically harped on how ridiculous it was. I'm bringing my computer to classes from now on so I can either surf the web and ignore him, or have access to actual professionals and research if I want to offer a rebuttal. Between my ex wife who in a discussion on learning and applying knowledge to different areas of life opted out of the conversation by seriously giving the viewpoint that, "God did not intend for us to have this much knowledge, eating the apple was a mistake" and my now anti-vax professor (both who are lawyers), my opinion of lawyers is getting worse than it already was.
Classic, "I know the Mind of god, and he says I have too much knowledge!" My in-laws include a maths professor and a Dr, rational thinking and showing your working is essential in every discussion, although wierdly I'm the only atheist, I don't tend bring that over the dinner table.
No, so maybe I wasn't that clear, "rational thinking" isn't a doctorate subject. A maths professor and a medical Dr, but showing your working and rational thinking is essential in every discussion, but we avoid the God topic because it makes them uncomfortable. Any clearer?
