Jordan Peterson Warns of Surveillance State, Future ‘Secret Police’

[blackbird]

"

Psychologist and author Jordan Peterson has warned members of the U.S. Congress that the collusion of governments with banks, along with emerging technologies like digital identity systems and central bank digital currencies, could turn countries into totalitarian surveillance states.

And that increased surveillance could in turn enable police to become more secretive and furtive in their operations, he said.

The combination of governments and technologies “can and will facilitate the development of a surveillance state, the scope of which optimistic pessimists of totalitarianism such as George Orwell could scarcely imagine,” Mr. Peterson said on Capitol Hill on March 7."

"

Mr. Peterson said around the world there appears to be a collusion between “gigantic, self-interested corporations and paranoid security-obsessed anti-human governments.” He said these two entities are using online data and sophisticated algorithms to develop images, “not only of our actions, but of our thoughts and words, so that deviation from the desired end can be mapped, rewarded, and punished.”

The Canadian psychologist warned that with corporations increasingly able to track the purchasing decisions and online patterns of users, as well as develop algorithms to predict future actions, the information could be used to “track, monitor, and punish everything we do and say.”

"

China’s Surveillance System

Mr. Peterson brought up China’s social credit system, saying it allows the Chinese Communist Party to have “full control” over the online access of its citizens. The country’s social credit system gives each citizen an electronic score that can be raised or lowered depending on their behaviour. Those with low enough scores can be denied access to jobs, public transportation, and banking.

“This allows you purposefully to be shut out of all activities that can be virtualized, and in a rapidly virtualizing world, this increasingly means all activities: driving, shopping, working, eating, finding shelter, even fraternizing with friends and family,” Mr. Peterson said."

Jordan Peterson Warns of Surveillance State, Future ‘Secret Police’ (beehiiv.com)

 

Edited April 3 by blackbird

[Zeitgeist]

All of this is concerning, but half the posters on here spend their time defending or denying that any of this is happening or worth worrying about.  Some simply have a visceral hatred or jealousy of Peterson, so they disagree with anything he says because he says it.

Most people are simply too busy, too scared of repercussions, too confused, too brainwashed, or too complaisant to do anything about the creeping controls over speech and behaviour.  The pandemic, planned or unplanned (and we’ll probably never know the truth), provided authorities with an opportunity to test the limits of surveillance, removal of rights, and enforcement through fines, job loss, freezing of bank accounts, and general deplatforming.  Imagine adding more technology for control and surveillance in similar or even bigger crises.

Unfortunately we’ve seen that policy can be set and handed down from non-state unelected bodies radically and efficiently.  Some politicians are complete dupes or even embrace this governance.

It explains why now there are only two goals: inclusivity and fighting climate change.  These ideas and the policies supporting them are overriding all other considerations, much as “keeping us safe” during the pandemic obliterated basic constitutional rights.

What’s strange is that even though most people you talk to have other priorities, the right think of these imposed values is always the narrative in the background of our lives: in government, media, training at work, even at most churches.

We know that something is amiss, but we can’t quite remember or understand what.  

Edited April 3 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

No hatred for Peterson just to point out that he is known for speaking of things he's not expert or even TRAINED in.  Just read that first paragraph.

And the only reason he's in the public arena,  was another dire warning (compelled speech) that he had to retract when he appeared before parliament.

People need to hold public figures accountable for what they say, especially experts.

[Zeitgeist]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No hatred for Peterson just to point out that he is known for speaking of things he's not expert or even TRAINED in.  Just read that first paragraph.

And the only reason he's in the public arena,  was another dire warning (compelled speech) that he had to retract when he appeared before parliament.

People need to hold public figures accountable for what they say, especially experts.

The “expert” tact simply doesn’t hold as much water as it used to because people have the ability to access much of the same information as the experts.  Yes it’s important to respect someone’s credentials and the rules of apprenticeship within the field.  There’s also the very basic and longstanding convention of academic freedom and freedom of expression.  Peterson is speaking about these general concepts because they have been attacked at the legislative and policy levels by governments, professional associations, and universities.  He’s qualified to address such abrogations and can comment on the psychological damage and political consequences with knowledge and authority.  Others from other fields can weigh in and I hope they do.  Atwood and Rowling have spoken out too thankfully.  Peterson just happens to have command within influential online media.  I don’t hold him up as a saviour because his flaws are obvious and he’s just one person speaking about his experiences.  It’s nevertheless very important because few people have the resources and platforms that he does. Most people just go along to get along, and a part of them dies each day.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. The “expert” tact simply doesn’t hold as much water as it used to because people have the ability to access much of the same information as the experts.

2. Yes it’s important to respect someone’s credentials and the rules of apprenticeship within the field.  

3. There’s also the very basic and longstanding convention of academic freedom and freedom of expression.

4.  Atwood and Rowling have spoken out too thankfully.  

 

1. This is exactly the problem.  People think that they're experts, and Peterson is the embodiment of this pernicious form of laziness and vanity.

2. Thank you.

3. Another facet of the problem, people equating suppression of speech with not being listened to.  Peterson has reached a point where he's now ignored by serious intellectuals and thought leaders. That doesn't mean he's being suppressed.

4. Some things don't require expertise to comment on.  Examples would be an opinion on basic things like charging someone for thinking of a crime, or describing your favorite ice cream flavor.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This is exactly the problem.  People think that they're experts, and Peterson is the embodiment of this pernicious form of laziness and vanity.

2. Thank you.

3. Another facet of the problem, people equating suppression of speech with not being listened to.  Peterson has reached a point where he's now ignored by serious intellectuals and thought leaders. That doesn't mean he's being suppressed.

4. Some things don't require expertise to comment on.  Examples would be an opinion on basic things like charging someone for thinking of a crime, or describing your favorite ice cream flavor.

So I would counter that perspective by saying that Peterson is taken very seriously by people who make important decisions impacting people’s lives far more than many intellectuals because of his prowess and ability to explain complex ideas in layman’s terms, but also because he’s able to discern what’s pertinent and applicable, whereas many intellectuals can’t translate ideas to other disciplines or see what’s relevant about what they know to the lives of most people.  It’s the ivory tower problem.

Testifying before Congress and interviewing highly influential public figures doesn’t make him a hack.

I would be careful with this “We know better” mentality and the idea that very few people are qualified to raise questions about government policy, because it’s the elitist perspective that ordinary citizens don’t know what’s good for them.  It’s an anti-democratic perspective, actually.

Expertise and credentialism are important when speaking about specific issues within a specialized field, but when the issues are across fields and extend beyond academia, they are fair game for the public to weigh in.  You can’t avoid it, actually, because they will have input politically in a democracy, thankfully.

Edited April 3 by Zeitgeist

[Venandi]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is exactly the problem.  People think that they're experts, and Peterson is the embodiment of this pernicious form of laziness and vanity.

 

Or maybe the problem is people don't listen to experts who happen to have views that run contrary to the main stream.   

We know that most of the required surveillance technology already exists, right? It's just lacking a bit of fusion and integration. Even so, I think many people would be surprised at the capabilities of what is now considered "old technology". It will be interesting to see the effect of AI fusion with the new stuff. On the plus side, I guess no translators means extra fuel, a quieter intercom and more sandwiches.   

There are always people who will assert that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. But imagine the 15 minute city thing taking off in large urban centres. If your movements are easily tracked, and I were a progressive liberal politician, I would want to tax those movements outside of your authorized zone. Would you vote for me?  

I think we're a major emergency (real or manufactured) away from a capability demonstration that will surprise many. 

Edited April 3 by Venandi

[Zeitgeist]

Lots of chatter about a manufactured food shortage hitting Europe or cyber attack, EMT, etc. The crisis isn’t always the real crisis in such situations. The response is. Everyone has to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist today unfortunately, because it lets the authorities know we’re watching back.

Edited April 3 by Zeitgeist

[Venandi]

34 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Everyone has to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist today

Or maybe a fur trapper eh?

The Nova Scotia wolf spoof was pure gold IMO.  I absolutely love this story, it makes me laugh every time I think of it.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-propaganda-exercise-that-caused-panic-about-wolves-on-the-loose-lacked-oversight-investigation-finds

Imagine explaining it to the "crazy cat lady" next door in an effort to calm her fears. Guaranteed she call you a "MAGA Trumper conspiracy theorist" and slam the door in your face for even suggesting it was a hoax. 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This is exactly the problem.  People think that they're experts, and Peterson is the embodiment of this pernicious form of laziness and vanity.

 

Sounds like you think you're a bit of an expert on that, Mike

A person trained in logic and study is quite capable of becoming very knowledgeable on another subject and to speak with reasonable accuracy and authority. 

You can certainly challenge his belief if you've reason to do so and can defend your position but just dismissing it because he doesnt' have specific educatonal credentials in that field of study entirely is a logical fallacy known as the 'credentials' fallacy and is also a form of the ad hominem fallacy.  " His argument is invalid because of his credentials, not because of his argument" .

Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

[Black Dog]

Ignore this sage at your peril!

[Nefarious Banana]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sounds like you think you're a bit of an expert on that, Mike 

A person trained in logic and study is quite capable of becoming very knowledgeable on another subject and to speak with reasonable accuracy and authority. 

You can certainly challenge his belief if you've reason to do so and can defend your position but just dismissing it because he doesnt' have specific educatonal credentials in that field of study entirely is a logical fallacy known as the 'credentials' fallacy and is also a form of the ad hominem fallacy.  " His argument is invalid because of his credentials, not because of his argument" .

There are 'experts' with half the alphabet behind their name, and their shoes on the wrong feet.  Jordan Peterson is thought-provoking . . . if you don't like his thoughts/ideas Hardner, don't listen/watch.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

1. Or maybe the problem is people don't listen to experts who happen to have views that run contrary to the main stream.   

2. We know that most of the required surveillance technology already exists, right? It's just lacking a bit of fusion and integration. Even so, I think many people would be surprised at the capabilities of what is now considered "old technology". It will be interesting to see the effect of AI fusion with the new stuff. On the plus side, I guess no translators means extra fuel, a quieter intercom and more sandwiches.   

3. There are always people who will assert that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. But imagine the 15 minute city thing taking off in large urban centres. If your movements are easily tracked, and I were a progressive liberal politician, I would want to tax those movements outside of your authorized zone. Would you vote for me?  

4. I think we're a major emergency (real or manufactured) away from a capability demonstration that will surprise many. 

1. I would say people do listen to the wrong experts, and the fact that this clown is testifying in front of a government panel is evidence.

2. A lot of what people worry about is reported already, but they would rather hear it from their tribal leaders.

3. Whatever you're talking about it's crazy and can be implemented in any landscape with good device connectivity.

4. Like a politician clearly opposed to checks and balances, putting loyalists in place to seize power... 

It comes down to a society that rejects the institutions that have worked...

 

[Zeitgeist]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I would say people do listen to the wrong experts, and the fact that this clown is testifying in front of a government panel is evidence.

2. A lot of what people worry about is reported already, but they would rather hear it from their tribal leaders.

3. Whatever you're talking about it's crazy and can be implemented in any landscape with good device connectivity.

4. Like a politician clearly opposed to checks and balances, putting loyalists in place to seize power... 

It comes down to a society that rejects the institutions that have worked...

 

I don’t know what you value or if you know what you value.  When you seem to care about something, you still won’t fight for it.  It’s a weird kind of determined mindlessness and compliance.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t know what you value or if you know what you value.  When you seem to care about something, you still won’t fight for it.  It’s a weird kind of determined mindlessness and compliance.

I honestly think the same thing about you.

 

You've been duped by clowns and magicians, and you expect me to be mad at the mirages they blame for our problems.

 

 

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This is exactly the problem.  People think that they're experts, and Peterson is the embodiment of this pernicious form of laziness and vanity.

2. Thank you.

3. Another facet of the problem, people equating suppression of speech with not being listened to.  Peterson has reached a point where he's now ignored by serious intellectuals and thought leaders. That doesn't mean he's being suppressed.

4. Some things don't require expertise to comment on.  Examples would be an opinion on basic things like charging someone for thinking of a crime, or describing your favorite ice cream flavor.

You make a lot of assumptions man!

So I'll make 1 too.

I assume you're one of those jealous types who hate Peterson for his fame and prestige. 

Sad really...

[Zeitgeist]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I honestly think the same thing about you.

 

You've been duped by clowns and magicians, and you expect me to be mad at the mirages they blame for our problems.

 

 

They’re called facts and compelling arguments, not mirages.  Life isn’t a mirage.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You make a lot of assumptions man!

So I'll make 1 too.

I assume you're one of those jealous types who hate Peterson for his fame and prestige. 

Sad really...

i notice how he couldn't address the issue of how he felt qualified to judge Peterson's qualifications

Certification fallacy is common on the left - part of their general tendency to dismiss the speaker not the argument by questioning the source, dehumanizing groups they don't like (Chud), or claiming that the speaker isn't qualified (and they aught to know!)

Peterson is an above average intellect with significant expert level training in research, logic, and science.  That does NOT mean he's always right, or that he's always speaking on subjects he has studied thoroughly, but it DOES mean if he makes an argument the chances are it's a damn good one and you'd best be very careful and thorough in your research before you say he's wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

I assume you're one of those jealous types who hate Peterson for his fame and prestige. 

Could I possibly dissuade you by saying that I was in his corner at the beginning. His increasingly erratic postings, and apparent addiction to fame caused him go off the rails and lose my support.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

They’re called facts and compelling arguments, not mirages.  Life isn’t a mirage.

Again - he dismisses the people, not the argument.  "We don't have to examine those facts or arguments because the people saying them are clowns and magicians and you repeating them are nothing more than a dupe."

Pay no  attention to the argument behind the curtain !!!!  

Trying to pin them down to specific issues with the argument is like trying to grab a bar of soap from a vat of oil in zero gravity.

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

They’re called facts and compelling arguments, not mirages.  Life isn’t a mirage.

Of all the problems we have... Nutty university students are way down on the list.

There's already a post in here giving an example of his erratic mindset.

If he was a leftist, everyone would think he was nutty, but because he supports traditional values, his tribe excuses him.

It's disgusting actually.

For fans of Jordan, is there any topic that you wouldn't have him testify as an expert on?

He's probably going to testify on that topic soon.

 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I would say people do listen to the wrong experts, and the fact that this clown is testifying in front of a government panel is evidence.

 

Your weak argument lost all credibility with the use of the word "clown"

Carry on.

[Black Dog]

21 minutes ago, Legato said:

Your weak argument lost all credibility with the use of the word "clown"

Carry on.

If the suit fits...

 

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of all the problems we have... Nutty university students are way down on the list.

There's already a post in here giving an example of his erratic mindset.

If he was a leftist, everyone would think he was nutty, but because he supports traditional values, his tribe excuses him.

It's disgusting actually.

For fans of Jordan, is there any topic that you wouldn't have him testify as an expert on?

He's probably going to testify on that topic soon.

 

Nutty university students are not way down on the list . . . they will be running the remains of Canada soon enough.

Your hatred of everything not left-wing is disgusting actually . . .

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

The combination of governments and technologies “can and will facilitate the development of a surveillance state, the scope of which optimistic pessimists of totalitarianism such as George Orwell could scarcely imagine,” Mr. Peterson said on Capitol Hill on March 7."

$10 says Jordan Peterson would be aghast at the idea that we surveil the state to the same degree. You'd be aghast too wouldn't you? $10 says Orwell would give the idea an enthusiastic thumbs up.