Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trigger warnings, safe spaces, and fascism on college campuses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Omaha 680 View Post
    And be precise.
    He strikes me as a narcissistic therapist and the other end of the political spectrum from self-obsessed therapists like John Dehlin. He is riding the anti-PC culture wave to relevance and has become a hero for altright and red pill types. He reduces progressives to stereotypes and misrepresents the beliefs of people like myself.

    I do not like him or his style. Clearly I struck a nerve. I’m surprised his male snowflake take is popular here. Maybe I shouldn’t be because I also find Ben Shapiro annoying and whiny and know he is well regarded here.

    Don’t worry, I still love most of you.
    Last edited by frank ryan; 05-26-2018, 08:56 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by frank ryan View Post
      He strikes me as a narcissistic therapist and the other end of the political spectrum from self-obsessed therapists like John Dehlin. He is riding the anti-PC culture wave to relevance and has become a hero for altright and red pill types. He reduces progressives to stereotypes and misrepresents the beliefs of people like myself.

      I do not like him or his style. Clearly I struck a nerve. I’m surprised his male snowflake take is popular here. Maybe I shouldn’t be because I also find Ben Shapiro annoying and whiny and know he is well regarded here.
      Struck a nerve? That must mean something different to you than it does to me. Your second paragraph is a little whiney (like Ben Shapiro?), but I appreciated the first. I see how someone at the opposite end of the spectrum could receive Peterson's commentary that way.



      Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by frank ryan View Post
        He strikes me as a narcissistic therapist and the other end of the political spectrum from self-obsessed therapists like John Dehlin. He is riding the anti-PC culture wave to relevance and has become a hero for altright and red pill types. He reduces progressives to stereotypes and misrepresents the beliefs of people like myself.

        I do not like him or his style. Clearly I struck a nerve. I’m surprised his male snowflake take is popular here. Maybe I shouldn’t be because I also find Ben Shapiro annoying and whiny and know he is well regarded here.

        Don’t worry, I still love most of you.
        I don't agree with much of what he says. At times his conceit is irritating. Though it does not come across in this debate, the fascinating thing about him is exactly what the essayist (his colleague) in the news article I linked to earlier chose to deride him for: he is precise, unflinching and explains complex issues in simple terms—a tell tale sign that what he is saying is accurate and truthful.

        Where his arguments fall apart is when he presents his truth as The Truth. While truth is simple, based upon preciseness and accuracy of analysis, truth is beholden to human subjectivity. As a supposed champion of the individual, he seems to have lost sight of that simple truth.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Omaha 680 View Post
          Struck a nerve? That must mean something different to you than it does to me. Your second paragraph is a little whiney (like Ben Shapiro?), but I appreciated the first. I see how someone at the opposite end of the spectrum could receive Peterson's commentary that way.



          Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
          That's fair.

          Maybe tangential but, IMO and experience, therapists that have really strong agendas like Dehlin (I realize Peterson probably doesn't practice, at least I hope) they fall into the ethical pitfall of trying to influence their clients' beliefs. For example, a good therapist wouldn't push someone to leave or stay in the church, they'd support that person in coming to their own decision.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tooblue View Post
            truth is beholden to human subjectivity.
            lol
            Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
              lol
              I am conservative by nature, but I am not on the right of the left. I arbitrate truth the best I can by reading and listening to many different veiwpoints. Politically, I am cautious about who's viewpoint I align myself with.

              Religiously, I prefer to place value in the viewpoint of individuals I consider to be prophets. Again, I arbitrate the truth the best I can by reading and listening. Because, per my experience, there is only one arbiter of The Truth, and that is God. Every other viewpoint is an interpretation.

              Comment


              • Interesting.

                I haven’t read his book. Watched the interview (that essay completely misconstrued what happened) and have watched a few YouTube videos. I see lots of people reacting negatively to him in social media but each time I go back and see what he actually says I find that he is almost always taken out of context. His pushback on political correctness and identity politics and all the nonsense going on right now in academia is right on the money and sorely needed. I couldn’t care less if he is ruffling some feathers.

                He is a bad person because he thinks he has found some truth? Oh brother.

                He has a completely different style from Ben Shapiro, btw.
                "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                  Interesting.

                  I haven’t read his book. Watched the interview (that essay completely misconstrued what happened) and have watched a few YouTube videos. I see lots of people reacting negatively to him in social media but each time I go back and see what he actually says I find that he is almost always taken out of context. His pushback on political correctness and identity politics and all the nonsense going on right now in academia is right on the money and sorely needed. I couldn’t care less if he is ruffling some feathers.

                  He is a bad person because he thinks he has found some truth? Oh brother.

                  He has a completely different style from Ben Shapiro, btw.
                  I agree, the incident as recounted by the essayist was misconstrued. I was embarrassed for the British journalist conducting the interview—she humiliated herself. I like some of the memes that followed:



                  I also agree, much of what he says is taken out of context. Despite the ramblings of the essayist, I do not think Peterson is dangerous. What is dangerous is the fear mongering that article espoused. The black and white, good vs evil dynamic it promotes is worrisome.

                  As an aside, what's odd is the only "Oh, Brother" moment in this portion of the thread is how you have misconstrued my comments. I do not think Peterson is a bad person (nor do I think he's a great person). There is a good deal of truth in what he says. That is evident, as I stated above, by the fact he is able to articulate his views so plainly. I'm simply not buying it as The Truth. And I think he is blind to the fact that he presents it as such; I am simply not a fan of the saviour complex he appears to have developed. That, and some of the crazier ideas he advances: they're not new and they're just not tenable.

                  Most of all, Peterson is a fascinating character and with regards to this thread I think his criticism of academia is accurate and truthful, even if his style of delivery is caustic and possibly construed as mean.
                  Last edited by tooblue; 05-26-2018, 07:38 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tooblue View Post
                    Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress ... Pro: Michelle Goldberg, Michael Eric Dyson; Con: Jordan Peterson, Stephen Fry:

                    https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Deba...al-Correctness

                    I watched the entire two-hour debate.

                    I’m a Jordan P. fan but it was kind of funny how he made fun of Michelle Goldberg for saying she was against violence (“Everybody is against violence and poverty”) but then when asked where the right has gone too far he says Auschwitz and Charlottesville. Uhh Jordan?

                    The best thing said was Stephen Fry about how legalizing gay marriage wasn’t done because of political correctness, it was done because of basic human goodness and decency.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tooblue View Post
                      I don't agree with much of what he says. At times his conceit is irritating. Though it does not come across in this debate, the fascinating thing about him is exactly what the essayist (his colleague) in the news article I linked to earlier chose to deride him for: he is precise, unflinching and explains complex issues in simple terms—a tell tale sign that what he is saying is accurate and truthful.

                      Where his arguments fall apart is when he presents his truth as The Truth. While truth is simple, based upon preciseness and accuracy of analysis, truth is beholden to human subjectivity. As a supposed champion of the individual, he seems to have lost sight of that simple truth.
                      What parts of what he says don't you agree with? I've watched quite a bit of what he has to offer and rarely find something that isn't at least close to my own thoughts.

                      I must have a higher tolerance for conceit. I hear the same things about Art Morris (bird photographer)--that he comes across as arrogant and conceited. I have very little problem with people speaking with confidence, even a bit of arrogance if they can prove they have earned the right to it. The information that Peterson can pull out of his head without notes speaks to a great memory and the wide array of material that he has consumed is astounding.

                      There are only two parts of his public persona that I occasionally find mildly irritating. First, he has a tendency to go into "classroom" lecture mode during conversations/debate, you can almost see it when he falls back into the comfortable. Which is why his discussions with antagonistic intellectuals don't go as well as those with similar viewpoints. Second is to turn on the irritated, angry voice too often in the same conversations. Both of these are dismissable, he's a professor, going into lecture mode is a natural avenue for him, and he's been burning the candle at both ends, given the magnifying glass currently trained on him, it's almost expected. The irritation works fine with an audience that is supportive, but not with a less friendly one.

                      He got into a long boring discussion with Sam Harris about truth. I don't think he's as hung up on this as is perceived. He argues that there can be a truthful "way of being", or "way of acting" that has continued to work for many people over time and that such observations carry more weight than simply "interesting". He therefore suggests they might be "true". Much the same way that "having integrity is beneficial" is a truth, or even "the church is true" (a statement I've come to dislike over time). It only means something given context that others may not share.

                      Originally posted by frank ryan View Post
                      That's fair.

                      Maybe tangential but, IMO and experience, therapists that have really strong agendas like Dehlin (I realize Peterson probably doesn't practice, at least I hope) they fall into the ethical pitfall of trying to influence their clients' beliefs. For example, a good therapist wouldn't push someone to leave or stay in the church, they'd support that person in coming to their own decision.
                      Peterson did practice until recently. He quite often includes examples from his private practice in his lectures. He is quite clear in all of them that he doesn't solve his client's problems. You can help once maybe, but he emphasizes that it is the therapists job to help the client find their own solution, as finding a path to solution is just as important, and possible more, than the solution itself. What has he said/done that would lead to believing he has an agenda in his clinical work?

                      Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                      Interesting.

                      I haven’t read his book. Watched the interview (that essay completely misconstrued what happened) and have watched a few YouTube videos. I see lots of people reacting negatively to him in social media but each time I go back and see what he actually says I find that he is almost always taken out of context. His pushback on political correctness and identity politics and all the nonsense going on right now in academia is right on the money and sorely needed. I couldn’t care less if he is ruffling some feathers.
                      He's not alone in this, see https://heterodoxacademy.org. Professors are becoming increasingly fearful of termination for saying the wrong thing, which is completely undermining there ability to do their jobs. They don't fear the administration, they fear the students. It's a problem.

                      I think Peterson is at his best when he's pressed by non-antagonistic, but well educated interviewers.

                      Jonathan Haidt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBegL_V6AA
                      Iain McGilchrist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtf4FDlpPZ8
                      John Anderson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4NijLf3M-A
                      Warren Farrell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O_FLUWYmg
                      Steven Pinker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kUuURByaXc

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by swampfrog View Post
                        What parts of what he says don't you agree with? I've watched quite a bit of what he has to offer and rarely find something that isn't at least close to my own thoughts ...
                        There is a part of me that very much appreciates Peterson for what he is saying about academia. I teach art and design in a post-secondary institution and over the past few years have grown increasingly careful and measured in my teaching (what I say and how I say it). Once upon a time, a long time ago on this Web site, I warned that the current climate was coming; that I would arrive at a point where I would no longer be able to offer an opinion or to have a voice and be a part of the dialogue. I was told by some here my thoughts were alarmist and silly. It’s the current climate I operate in. There’s nothing silly about not having a voice, especially now that I really do not have a voice. That’s not an exaggeration. I mostly keep my head down and my mouth shut. I’m close enough to retirement that I’m willing to ride it out.

                        Setting the above aside, as for where I disagree with him is on the issue of white privilege. White privilege is real. It is dangerous to suggest it does not exist. In fairness, Peterson’s thoughts are often mis-construed as dismissing white privilege summarily. He does not dismiss white privilege summarily, so much as he dismantles the idiotic arguments in support of white-privilege-based reparative ideologies. However, Peterson does little to dissuade others (far right white supremacists) from advancing the notion that white privilege is an absolute myth. That is reckless. A psychologist must know better. And that’s the problem: he does know better but chooses to claim he’s above it all. Precisely because it risks cutting off a potent revenue stream. That demonstrates a lack of integrity.

                        Now, I do agree with his sentiments that the left needs to be precise and tell every white male just how much any success they enjoy is due to white privilege. Then maybe white males can be taxed, reparations can be made, and as a society we can all start to move on. Of course, that’s not the pound of flesh the left is after and thus Peterson’s appeal to preciseness is ignored in favor inane rhetoric. And speaking of preciseness ...

                        In addition to the above, Peterson’s ideas on enforced monogamy are absurd … in fact they are so unfathomably absurd, it’s now hard for me take anything else he says seriously:

                        “Peterson talking about the importance of enforced monogamy isn’t alarming because it’s been taken out of context; it’s alarming precisely because of its context. If, as Peterson argues, our “dead-end” non-monogamous society can be largely blamed on birth control, what is the best way to turn back the clock to the days before the pill and “whiny” feminists who should just get hobbies? Peterson says he never suggested “government-enforced” monogamy, merely “socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated” monogamy. Let’s take him at his word. If pulling the pill off the market isn’t an option, do you just “socially promote” women not using it? Do we build a database of all the pharmacies that sell it, hoping to drive them out of business?”

                        https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-...rced-monogamy/

                        It’s one thing to continually shake your head and say you have been misunderstood, but you can only get away with that for so long. I agree with the writer of the article, who writes in her last paragraph:

                        “It’s possible that Jordan Peterson never meant anything like this at all when he sang of “enforced monogamy.” But until he decides to follow his own tenth Rule for Life and be precise, I’ll let his past words speak for themselves.”

                        In the interest of full disclosure, my 24-year-old son bought Peterson’s book. Similar to me in many ways he likes Peterson’s ideas—up to a point. He’s not fomenting over the book and rushing out to one of Peterson’s many talks or appearances. Why? Because, his family and faith traditions have already equipped him with more awareness and drive to get after life than what Peterson’s ‘rules’ can offer.

                        As an aside, my 22-year-old son is getting married next week, and my 18-year-old submitted his mission papers this past week. Neither of them is really interested in the book, nor are they rushing out to one of his appearances for the same reasons as their elder brother.
                        Last edited by tooblue; 05-29-2018, 01:21 PM.

                        Comment


                        • I think when he says enforced monogamy he's talking about a society that has a common religious-social value that values monogamy and marriage and family such that the social rewards went against you for breaking that tradition. Kind of going back to a 1950's America ideal.

                          Comment


                          • I'm a big JP fan. When it comes to his take on the value of religion and scripture in a modern world, I think he's brilliant. His view has been incredibly inspiring for me. From a non-traditional, post-faith-deconstruction, sorta atheist, modern Mormon perspective that many of us here I have (I'm assuming) he has such a powerful way to explain Christian-Mormon meaning and value from this kind of perspective. It bums me out to see him getting tangled up in all these social justice war issues. Good people that I respect that are liberal or feminist minded are completely writing him off because some of the stuff he says on this. I have to broker arguments between my sons and daughters on these. I think he's super opinionated and occasionally ventures into these areas, because he ventures into nearly everything when he rambles on in some of his podcast lectures or interviews. And then someone is offended, and it blows up. And this process has brought him huge amount of fame and attention and money. So he's settled into a style where he's intentionally provocative to piss people up and increase ratings. But I think his opinion is so good and so important that it saddens me that he's doing this.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jay santos View Post
                              I think when he says enforced monogamy he's talking about a society that has a common religious-social value that values monogamy and marriage and family such that the social rewards went against you for breaking that tradition. Kind of going back to a 1950's America ideal.
                              I can see that perspective, and understand what you are suggesting. My fear however is, what you are speaking of, is nostalgia. Nostalgia is an oft used tool of fascist ideology. I am not saying Peterson is a fascist, but rather that his thinking on this subject is highly flawed. I think Peterson really believes that the man, a devotee of incel ideology and who rented a van with the aim to run over and kill women in Toronto, would not have done so were marriage (presumably in his case an arranged marriage) a viable option for him. That's absurd.

                              Were the man who rented and drove a van up on a sidewalk with the sole intent to murder random women given the opportunity to participate in an arranged marriage, or was the beneficiary of an enforced monogamy social system, the poor woman he was married to would be the first woman he killed.

                              The tragedy this man inflicted on innocent people is not an opportunity for anyone to advance ideas about enforced monogamy. A clinical psychologist should know better. Unless he is consumed by his conceit.
                              Last edited by tooblue; 05-29-2018, 04:11 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tooblue View Post
                                Setting the above aside, as for where I disagree with him is on the issue of white privilege. White privilege is real. It is dangerous to suggest it does not exist. In fairness, Peterson’s thoughts are often mis-construed as dismissing white privilege summarily. He does not dismiss white privilege summarily, so much as he dismantles the idiotic arguments in support of white-privilege-based reparative ideologies. However, Peterson does little to dissuade others (far right white supremacists) from advancing the notion that white privilege is an absolute myth. That is reckless. A psychologist must know better. And that’s the problem: he does know better but chooses to claim he’s above it all. Precisely because it risks cutting off a potent revenue stream. That demonstrates a lack of integrity.

                                Now, I do agree with his sentiments that the left needs to be precise and tell every white male just how much any success they enjoy is due to white privilege. Then maybe white males can be taxed, reparations can be made, and as a society we can all start to move on. Of course, that’s not the pound of flesh the left is after and thus Peterson’s appeal to preciseness is ignored in favor inane rhetoric.
                                I've read that argument before, that he doesn't spend as much time attacking the far right and it's problems relative to danger he perceives from the far left. It's an argument I think he's addressed multiple times, he spends more of his time attacking the far left because he currently views those ideologies as the most dangerous to current society right now. He believes there is a strong foothold within academia (which you mention already). He sees that it's started to get a toe hold within business organizations. It has influence in government also. It's now being pushed into high schools and lower school systems. I believe he's genuinely afraid of where this may lead, and he's not alone in this fear (heterodoxacademy.org). If you believe problem X currently has a significantly greater chance of pushing a society into mayhem than problem Y, how much time do you spend fighting problem Y? It's not hard to find him condemning the far right whenever it's asked. He has said multiple times that it's easier to identify when the right has gone too far and names racial superiority claims as a marker.

                                It's not possible to avoid the consequence that because the far left is the enemy of the far right, that anyone regularly attacking the far left is going to be welcomed by the far right. I don't find fault in him here, this can't be avoided.

                                I'm not persuaded at all with regard to the claim that this a monetarily driven omission. I don't think the timing of the creation of the patreon account justifies it.

                                Originally posted by tooblue View Post
                                And speaking of preciseness ...

                                In addition to the above, Peterson’s ideas on enforced monogamy are absurd … in fact they are so unfathomably absurd, it’s now hard for me take anything else he says seriously:

                                “Peterson talking about the importance of enforced monogamy isn’t alarming because it’s been taken out of context; it’s alarming precisely because of its context. If, as Peterson argues, our “dead-end” non-monogamous society can be largely blamed on birth control, what is the best way to turn back the clock to the days before the pill and “whiny” feminists who should just get hobbies? Peterson says he never suggested “government-enforced” monogamy, merely “socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated” monogamy. Let’s take him at his word. If pulling the pill off the market isn’t an option, do you just “socially promote” women not using it? Do we build a database of all the pharmacies that sell it, hoping to drive them out of business?”

                                https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-...rced-monogamy/

                                It’s one thing to continually shake your head and say you have been misunderstood, but you can only get away with that for so long. I agree with the writer of the article, who writes in her last paragraph:

                                “It’s possible that Jordan Peterson never meant anything like this at all when he sang of “enforced monogamy.” But until he decides to follow his own tenth Rule for Life and be precise, I’ll let his past words speak for themselves.”
                                I found that article very hard to read and disagree with almost all of it. It has the same feeling as the Cathy Newman interview. You have a psychologist presenting statements of what the data shows and biological, evolutionary, and cultural reasons as why present situations may have come to be. Then you have someone present those arguments as the moral views of the psychologist, that somehow that's an endorsement of it.

                                From the article:
                                “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Peterson said of the alleged Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
                                I don't understand how so many people can misread this. There are biological and psychological reasons that men get angry at sexual rejection, in some men that is observed to result in violent behavior. This isn't condoning the behavior, not justifying it, simply observing that it happens. When something happens in observation, it is studied. The fact that many violent men are sometimes motivated because of sexual rejection is simply scientifically derived information. Sexual dominance violence is found in a wide array of animal species, including those most closely related to humans.

                                He then states that "the cure is enforced monogamy." He's not stating that someone sat down and said lets enforce monogamy. His language is precise, "that's actually why monogamy emerges." It emerges, that's a term related to natural causes and evolution. It's not a statement of approval or disapproval. It's simply stating that societies will adopt policies that select for its preservation against competing societies. These types of policies are commonly referred to as "culturally enforced", cultures that adopt them survive, others don't. It doesn't mean they are morally correct or fair. So enforced monogamy helps control male violence. It's emergence goes back 10's of thousands of years. Again, it's not about right or good, it just has been effective, evolution could care less about morals. But enforced monogamy didn't emerge just because it helps control male violence, selection is more complex than that. Examine infant mortality rates, childbirth survival, harsh living conditions, and many other factors.

                                So then you introduce effective birth control, modern medicine, an increasingly wealthy (at all levels) population, and other modern advances. The need for enforced monogamy for survival of societies is greatly reduced, so once the survival reasons are removed, societies move towards less monogamous. The consequences are not as serious. Peterson is pointing out that societal systems are complex--we've adapted to monogamous relationships in ways we don't understand. We will have unintended consequences, one of which appears to be increased male violence.

                                I don't hear him advocating that we get rid of the pill, or go back in time, just be careful when dismantling things we don't fully understand, and don't get caught in the trap of thinking we can fully understand. For a psychologist this is nearly self-evident, the research and studies exist.

                                Originally posted by tooblue View Post
                                In the interest of full disclosure, my 24-year-old son bought Peterson’s book. Similar to me in many ways he likes Peterson’s ideas—up to a point. He’s not fomenting over the book and rushing out to one of Peterson’s many talks or appearances. Why? Because, his family and faith traditions have already equipped him with more awareness and drive to get after life than what Peterson’s ‘rules’ can offer.

                                As an aside, my 22-year-old son is getting married next week, and my 18-year-old submitted his mission papers this past week. Neither of them is really interested in the book, nor are they rushing out to one of his appearances for the same reasons as their elder brother.
                                Congrats!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X