The Jordan Peterson phenomenon

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

OMG, are you defending Clinton's deplorables comment now?  'Respect is earned' ?  How does that apply ?

You are throwing old cliches on bad logic and I have no idea why.

Presumably, a public figure has some respect for the public he's speaking to.

I don't defend, NOR do I respect Clinton and,  I am not defending ANYTHING Clinton says. That should be very apparent here , or you simply have not been paying attention?

However I have always felt that respect is in fact earned. I extend common courtesies out to everyone at the start. If you are a good person and do good things, then and that's proven time and time again, the you definitely earned my respect.  I am liked because I am courteous, I get respect because I know how to do my job and do it well. I don't expect anyone to give me respect by default.

[GostHacked]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

So the goal is to not be offensive? To be what, bland and non-controversial? How can you ever cause change without offending someone?

Also one should be able to articulate in words on what way they are offended.  I am offended almost on a daily bases here on MLW. Maybe because I can think critically? Now there is also the difference of being offended by something an idea or notion compared to being personally offended (slander , insults ect).

I may have found some of your posts offensive on this board, but I cannot really say you've offended me personally. So to me there is a huge difference there and maybe part of the problem is that some are taking a broad statement personally when they should not be. I can say with certainty , there are a few who offend me personally and are offensive in nature altogether. But for the most part the majority of members post offensive things here all the time.  Now I am not wanting to get into a pissing contest or anything here, so I am simply using this as an explanation for the overall notion of this thread. 

I don't have the right to not be offended.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

So the goal is to not be offensive? To be what, bland and non-controversial? How can you ever cause change without offending someone?

Yes, and we all remember that great academic Don Rickles.   

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

What religious ramblings?

I don't know, I ignored them!

[GostHacked]

10 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know, I ignored them!

His stuff on religion is interesting, but overall it's not his area of expertise.

[bush_cheney2004]

A more balanced view of Jordan Peterson...without foreign labels to try and shut him down:

 

Quote

....Sometimes I think he exaggerates the threat that the postmodernist infiltration of the academy poses to the wider world. Will anybody really go to jail for refusing to use someone's preferred gender pronouns? I think not. And yet, he's got a point. For example, the current zeal to appease unhappy teenage girls with gender dysphoria by turning them into boys – complete with hormone treatments and mastectomies, is a direct consequence of the postmodern notion that choosing your own gender identity is an inalienable right,...

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-awful-is-jordan-peterson-anyway/article37864567/

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

A more balanced view of Jordan Peterson..

Actually, it's hysterical.  Seeing as how he leapt to fame by saying there would be 'compelled speech' and now that that hasn't happened, he's moving on to the next thing.  He's such a basic thinker, and an alarmist.  Unfortunately, his calm manner masks his true objective, which is to generate attention and money for himself.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Actually, it's hysterical.  Seeing as how he leapt to fame by saying there would be 'compelled speech' and now that that hasn't happened, he's moving on to the next thing.  He's such a basic thinker, and an alarmist.  Unfortunately, his calm manner masks his true objective, which is to generate attention and money for himself.

I think hysterical more describes the reaction to him.  Those who find him dangerous hate the fact they can't make it stick, what with the calm manner and all.

I agree with you with regard to his objective, at least in part.  Why the hell not? 

He's not getting any of my money. though.

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

So the goal is to not be offensive?

So I misstepped in my argument by implying that taking offence, alone, is reason to dismiss an argument.  It's not.  My main disagreement is people who purposefully attempt to disunify, whether or not people are offended. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think hysterical more describes the reaction to him.

Probably both.

 

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Those who find him dangerous hate the fact they can't make it stick, what with the calm manner and all.

Are you implying that nothing dangerous can be said, as long as it is said calmly ?

 

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I agree with you with regard to his objective, at least in part.  Why the hell not? 

It's a great objective for PT Barnum or Evel Kneivel.  Oddly, people decry climate scientists as having conflicts of interest when they are just getting studies funded.  Here you have a prof who joins the anti-Semite circus and it's all ok all of a sudden.

 

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

He's not getting any of my money. though.

He's estimated to make about $1M a year from donations nowadays.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

So I misstepped in my argument by implying that taking offence, alone, is reason to dismiss an argument.  It's not.  My main disagreement is people who purposefully attempt to disunify, whether or not people are offended. 

What makes you think that's his goal? 

I would disagree more with those who purposefully avoid disunifying, because people might be offended. 

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Probably both.

 

Are you implying that nothing dangerous can be said, as long as it is said calmly ?

 

It's a great objective for PT Barnum or Evel Kneivel.  Oddly, people decry climate scientists as having conflicts of interest when they are just getting studies funded.  Here you have a prof who joins the anti-Semite circus and it's all ok all of a sudden.

 

He's estimated to make about $1M a year from donations nowadays.

Anything dangerous can be said, calmly or not, as long as it doesn't break the usual rules.  Has he said anything dangerous?  I missed it if he did.

When it comes to refuting an argument one can't refute, but must, it helps if the person making it is a hysterical fanatic. Then the argument can be left behind in a blaze of self righteousness.  We see it a lot.

I suppose one could say that here's a prof who joins the anti semitic circus and it's a big deal, but over there you have all these climate scientists etc. etc.  I didn't know he had been funded by the Rebel (who?) until this thread.  So let's be clear:  Where along the line af anti semitic nazis does he fall, according to his views?  Those of his I've seen don't indicate that he even begins the journey, but I certainly haven't been paying rapt attention.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What makes you think that's his goal? 

He's not writing in the National Post, he's writing in The Rebel.

 

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would disagree more with those who purposefully avoid disunifying, because people might be offended. 

I don't know how you would do that, but sure that sounds dumb too.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

He's not writing in the National Post, he's writing in The Rebel.

 

I don't know how you would do that, but sure that sounds dumb too.  

Is that the goal of The Rebel?  I ask out of genuine curiosity, not knowing The Rebel from The Onion.

When you say "too", are you referring to your "My main disagreement is people who purposefully attempt to disunify, whether or not people are offended"?

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Has he said anything dangerous?  I missed it if he did.

I don't know - but you pointed out the 'calm manner' as a reason to disregard that risk.

 

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

When it comes to refuting an argument one can't refute, but must, it helps if the person making it is a hysterical fanatic. Then the argument can be left behind in a blaze of self righteousness.  We see it a lot.

So if we're supposed to pay attention to factors aside from the substance of the argument, maybe the vessel used for the communication is also in play ?

 

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I didn't know he had been funded by the Rebel (who?) until this thread.  So let's be clear:  Where along the line af anti semitic nazis does he fall, according to his views?  Those of his I've seen don't indicate that he even begins the journey, but I certainly haven't been paying rapt attention.

Well, now you know.   I don't think he's said anything like that, but I don't have to listen to him if I suspect he's playing me.  

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Is that the goal of The Rebel?  I ask out of genuine curiosity, not knowing The Rebel from The Onion.

 

Yes, it's general 'outrage porn' mixed with alt-right-style divisiveness.

 

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

When you say "too", are you referring to your "My main disagreement is people who purposefully attempt to disunify, whether or not people are offended"?

Yes.  It's 'the end justifies the means', unprincipled reporting.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, it's general 'outrage porn' mixed with alt-right-style divisiveness.

 

Yes.  It's 'the end justifies the means', unprincipled reporting.

I meant "dumb too"  Sorry. 

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Actually, it's hysterical.  Seeing as how he leapt to fame by saying there would be 'compelled speech' and now that that hasn't happened, he's moving on to the next thing.  He's such a basic thinker, and an alarmist.  Unfortunately, his calm manner masks his true objective, which is to generate attention and money for himself.

The amended Bill C-16 was the legislation for compelled speech. He went in front of the government and told them it was a terrible idea.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/25/opinion/opinion-bill-c-16-flawed-ways-most-canadians-have-not-considered

 

Quote

After University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson complained about what he called, "political correctness," having to use gender-neutral pronouns in class, and Bill C-16, students and professors alike spoke out. U of T students staged a "teach-in and rally" in order to "fight transphobia, intersexism, and nonbinary erasure in post-secondary education" and over 250 faculty members signed a letter associating Peterson's comments with "hate speech." Just last week administrators ordered Peterson to "stop making statements that could be considered discriminatory under provincial human rights legislation."

If I do not use the arbitrary gender pronoun you decide to use on any given day can result in hate crime charges against me.  This is the compelled speech Peterson was going on about. It does not force you want you cannot say, it forces you to actually say those pronouns, or you can be brought up on hate crimes.   I call you a boy and you want to be a xe, then off to jail I go!  You don't see a problem with that?

Legislated compelled speech is not conducive to free speech.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, now you know.   I don't think he's said anything like that, but I don't have to listen to him if I suspect he's playing me.  

How would you know he is playing you if you are not willing to listen?

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

How would you know he is playing you if you are not willing to listen?

Speaking of listening - I already explained on this thread that I used to read him until he set up shop with the sucker brigade.  I am now going to stop reiterating things for you.  You are very quick to accuse me of lying if I tell you that I haven't seen some insult directed at you, and yet you are here on this very thread ignoring posts and asking questions that have already been answered.  

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

The amended Bill C-16 was the legislation for compelled speech

It was never clear that speech would be compelled, though.

 

9 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

If I do not use the arbitrary gender pronoun you decide to use on any given day can result in hate crime charges against me

That's absolute hyperbole now.  How would that even be enforceable.  Only suckers take sucker bait.   

 

Your defence of the hysteria is to double down and state that it's true.

 

[Argus]

del

Edited February 6, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

15 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know, I ignored them!

Ironically, there is an interview with him in the Post today and in it he's asked if he believes in God. His answer was I think the proper response to that is No, but I’m afraid He might exist. So I'm a bit curious about what you're talking about.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Actually, it's hysterical.  Seeing as how he leapt to fame by saying there would be 'compelled speech' and now that that hasn't happened, he's moving on to the next thing.  He's such a basic thinker, and an alarmist.  Unfortunately, his calm manner masks his true objective, which is to generate attention and money for himself.

It's good you can read people's motivations even though you've never met them and don't listen to them. That's quite a talent.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So I misstepped in my argument by implying that taking offence, alone, is reason to dismiss an argument.  It's not.  My main disagreement is people who purposefully attempt to disunify, whether or not people are offended. 

Like Trudeau? Like Black Lives Matter? Like the NDP? like every left wing group which engages in identity politics (which is EVERY Left wing group)? It seems to me that all Peterson is doing is protesting against a one-sided Leftist narrative, particularly on identity politics. Again, I'm no expert in the man, but going by what I've read lately, including that wiki article, he seems to be offensive mostly to the Let who cherish identity politics.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Argus