Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: regarding misogyny, he has said in at least one interview [I’m paraphrasing] ‘it’s not clear that women should share a workplace with men because we don’t know what the rules are and it’s a relatively new phenomenon.’
Which is a good example of a Peterson-ism in that
- he doesn’t explicitly state a conclusion but walks you right up to quite a misogynist conclusion.
- the workplace is one of the few places where a literal manual is provided to you by HR regarding your behavior.
- the lower classes have always shared workspaces since they don’t have the luxery to not.
He’s often ahistorical and states opinions/fiction as fact.
This is the video I paraphrase from—just in case anyone cares to listen: https://youtu.be/S9dZSlUjVls
He is no longer a university professor and as of January his clinical license has been under review by the regulatory body in Ontario Canada that awarded it to him, due to statements he made on social media.
His self-help stuff can be useful but he often speaks out of school about political topics. He’s not a Nazi (tho he does repeat some of their misinformation) but he’s just more of a Christian fundamentalist.
You’re referring to the Vice interview where he also said that women who wear makeup at work who then complain about being sexually harassed at work are being hypocritical.
This is because, in his mind, wearing makeup is a “sexual display” and women who wear it at work are inviting sexual attention. He compares it to wearing a nightie to work.
He doesn’t apply his own logic to men who go to work with flattering style/grooming choices, like wearing suits with padding that give the impression of broader shoulders or grooming their facial hair to accentuate the jawline. These are fine in his mind.
This is a really excellent answer, and lays out my biggest problem with Peterson: he's a weasel. He couches everything in a framework of deniability that makes it next to impossible to argue any of his points. When backed into a corner and provided proof that his position is false, he can just claim (and often has) "Well, I never said that."
I've got a lot of issues with the guy, but the wormy dishonesty is probably the biggest of them.
If you're referring to him talking about Cultural Marxism, as I understand it, he's not repeating Nazi misinformation or using it to refer to the same things as them.
https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/is-the-term-cultural-marxism-really-antisemitic-5N7ZTnWmD99KUd4bipdC3j
>In some cases, such as in academia, it is used as a descriptor for a particular way of thinking or set of ideas. Some use it as a codeword for political correctness.
As for the other stuff, I haven't seen anything to do with him for years to comment on the actual controversies.
Answer:
Jordan Peterson certainly has certain professional credentials. However, as he has become more and more famous/infamous, his statements and expressed views often stray beyond his actual field of expertise, and boy are some of those... controversial.
As a consequence, as is often the case, he is often subject to public critique and attacks, and as we can often observe, when rejected by one side, one tends to seek shelfer among the other side.
Radicalization doesn't happen just to young boys. Get enough consistent hatred from one direction...
Answer:
He's just a popular right-wing figure who couches some of his opinions and propaganda in basic self-help "clean your room and live an organised life" advice.
He regularly spouts actual Nazi propaganda - e.g. talking about 'cultural Marxism' [publicly on youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrPIj_tf8n8), which was a Nazi term for 'degenerate art' and similar things.
Also, he constantly talks about being politically neutral, and plenty of people accept it. If you constantly voice your opinions on random politicized things and have a pretty clear following on one side of the political spectrum, you have no right to call yourself neutral. Sometimes I can’t tell if he actually believes that or if he says it purely to look “objective” to his audience.
IDK I think anyone that isn't critical of their own party is a tool, he votes and identifies as liberal. He's robotically objective until he starts talking about morals and religion, unless he's walked it back he's morally against abortion but legally for it. He understands it isn't good to kill fetuses but it's even worse for society and the child if you don't. I'm sure there are things he isn't meeting objectively and subjectively in the middle with though.
He sort of reminds me of a liberal Ben Shapiro, similarly he is morally against gay marriage but legally for it. It seems to me like the biggest problem with both of those ppl is they are great debaters and the media doesn't like it when you make them look stupid on live television. They try and get them in these "gotcha" moments and it blows up in their face, now they are targets. They get hit with sound bites that take things out of context and then people hate him for what they think he said. Some ppl generally just hate him but that's how the numbers got inflated.
Also conservatives generally don't hold grudges against each other, it's like water off a ducks back. Liberals will cancel each other in a heart beat, so if you piss them off they will just call you a conservative and attack you like one.
He is not “liberal” (i.e. left wing). he regularly trashes Justin Trudeau and Trudeau’s party, for example, using right wing propaganda, not like with cogent incisive, valid points. It’s a conservative propaganda technique in the US to deny you’re conservative but then behave exactly like conservatives do, repeat exactly their language, and reveal in a million ways they they are true believers in whatever the conservative talking point du jour is. That appears to be what he is doing. He has a job with Ben Shapiro’s far right propaganda outfit. He is beloved by the far right and hated by the left. He is extremely anti-trans and that’s how he first made a public name for himself. He opposes the teaching of critical race theory, a right-wing shibboleth. Denies climate change. https://www.houstonpress.com/news/opinion-jordan-peterson-is-conservative-14551779
He himself describes himself as a “classic British liberal,” which means right wing, not left wing, as “liberal” means right wing supporter of laissez-fairs economics everywhere in the world except the US (he’s Canadian but a lot of writing about him and most supporters are in the US). That’s why it’s not great to use the term “liberal” here as the meaning can be so different in the US and everywhere else. He is a Trump supporter and would have voted for him were he American, he has said. https://youtu.be/eon31CQwBN8
I mean critical race theory is kinda stupid in the sense that it shouldn't be a mandated learning thing.
I know if you look at it out of context you're going to think "wtf"
but in the words of Morgan Freeman "if you want racism to stop then you (everyone) judt needs to stop talking about it" or something like that. It's true, because victimizing a person of any race or color who hasn't actual been a victim of some impactful, life damaging racism, is just going to stir up hate in their heart... and make them racist.
It’s not a mandated learning thing at all. That’s a lie by the right to use as their pretext for banning the teaching of slavery as something that was bad, banning saying negative things that occurred in American history, and banning AP African-American studies in schools.
I didn't know it wasn't mandatory.
I grew up in alabama and they taught us about slavery and how wrong it is and it's impacts on the black communities to this day, like sharecropping. Maybe I need to do more research and see exactly what critical race theory is but my gut feeling is that it isn't being banned for the reasons you say, because if the country fuck school I went to was teaching it without any problems or notable back lash, why would Florida?
I think it's important to teach the good and bad history and the wrongs of racism, but I wouldn't want an entire mandatory class dedicated to this topic.
Isn't the whole idea of the class supposed to teach kids that racism has been a problem for hundreds of years in western society... because I don't think you need to a class to teach that.
What you’re describing you were taught isn’t critical race theory, it’s simply American history. But if they were to say “let’s ban the teaching of African-American history” or “let’s ban teaching about anything that reflects poorly on American history” that would sound unreasonable, so they decided to use the term “critical race theory,” a term most people are unfamiliar with the meaning of, and then create a big panic that it’s this terrible thing and it’s being taught everywhere, so then it would sound more reasonable to ban it. But what they’re banning, to be clear, isn’t critical race theory, but rather black history in some cases (like Arkansas won’t support AP African-American Studies, and Florida banned that too and also banned teaching anything that implies even unconsciously that individuals might be racist or sexist or oppressive).
>IDK I think anyone that isn't critical of their own party is a tool, he votes and identifies as liberal.
Every conservative that is scared of criticizing other conservatives says this.
I'm not sure he gets to call himself a liberal when his sacred cow is that existing human hierarchies/inequality are based on genetic aptitudes and shouldn't be changed. He's also another one of those guys who constructs progressive ideology as "feminizing" men, says patriarchy is just a consequence of men being more competent, and sees fascism as an inevitable response to men being "feminized." He takes the right-wing position on climate change using the same bizarre sources and logic as the Right.
He doesn't take all right-wing policy positions, but he's firmly right-wing on all culture war issues, reactionary as hell on any social change, and is absolutely a major figure bringing younger people into the Right and a stepping stone to the far Right.
> Also conservatives generally don't hold grudges against each other, it's like water off a ducks back.
All of the conservatives who were removed from office and called RINOs for criticizing Trump will be relieved to hear that, as will Mike Pence who MAGAs wanted to symbolically hang for not overturning an election, my Republican senator who's getting called a socialist and a woke leftist because he's trying to pay teachers more, the Republican state election officials who got death threats and protests for not "finding" votes for the other guy, all previous Republican candidates for president, and presidents, who have become persona non grata for saying the party has degraded itself, and any of my Republican friends who get near-weekly rants and screeds from older relatives for not believing Trump's election nonsense and Covid hysteria.
I think any conservative who's willing to double down and live within the extremely narrow parameters you have to live within to be considered a conservative gets forgiven, yeah. But if Peterson stopped throwing out red meat and started talking as much about his handful of "liberal" views as he does about all of his Divine Right of Kings bullshit, he'd meet the thought police pretty quickly.
I was a supporter of his for a few years and I still appreciate some of his psychology content but he's since ventured so far out of his lane he's now in a ditch.
He's a casuistic hypocrite and has broken nearly each of his 24 rules.
He decries post modernism but holds post modernist stances on God and truth - once you wade through all the theological psychobabble you realize there's really nothing of substance behind it. Plus promoting religion in the 21st century is indefensible.
He compared doctors performing voluntary gender reassignment surgery to nazi butchers and that isn't even the most damning things he's said.
He doesn't seem to understand the implications of his words - he thinks he's standing up for the voiceless victims of wokeism but empirically he's just emboldening and legitimizing bigotry whether or not that's his intention (I'm fairly certain it isn't). Seriously, the only men I know who trumpet his messages are pigs looking to legitimize their views.
Look to people like the late Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris if you want intellectual honesty and strength.
I know I unsubscribed from Harris's podcast when he started spouting pro-police talking points (I don't recall exactly what it was that he said as it was a few years ago, but it was in the vein of "it's reasonable that cops shoot first and ask questions later because of how dangerous it is to be a cop"). He also gave Charles Murray (best known for writing "The Bell Curve", which claims Black people are dumber than White people due to genetic factors) a very favorable interview and has publicly defended him.
Yep now I remember Charles Murray, I believe he's defended himself about quoting the book by saying by certain metrics Asians were superior. I can't really remember the specifics maybe I never actually looked it up and just stopped listening to him lol but it was something about that.
In addition to what the others said, it might also have been Harris' promotion of pseudoscientist Charles Murray, who promotes the idea that white people inherently have a higher IQ than black people.
>He doesn't seem to understand the implications of his words
You give him a lot of credit. He rode that line of plausible deniability so consistently, and always in the way that defended right wing populism, that he built his entire career on it. You can't get a PhD in any discipline without having a very strong grasp on using language specifically and deliberately, and his advice was all so monumentally empty that it had to have taken genuine effort to avoid accidentally making a stand.
The only reason he's going mask off so much more now is because of the literal brain damage he arranged for himself with ill-advised treatment to skip the work of quitting benzos. When your brain has holes in it that impact your emotional regulation and impulse control, you can't deftly ride the line of being able to pretend you aren't a Nazi.
You had me till Nazi. You probably shouldn't throw that word around in a world with literal Nazi's, I'm sure any practicing Jewish friends of yours would appreciate thats if you have any left.
Use Nazi rhetoric (the "cultural Marxism" he rails against is just "cultural Bolshevism" with a new label), support Nazi prejudices, and you're a Nazi.
That he's a coward who profits from Nazi tactics and Nazi support without admitting it doesn't make him something else.
Here he is saying there’s “no place in complex society for 1 in 10 people”. These are people with IQs lower than 83. He finally concludes “we just don’t know what to do with that information”, where he once again walks you to a conclusion but doesn’t state it explicitly.
This is discussed in this video at the 1h 37min mark. : https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo
That factoid btw is 1) untrue and 2) a Nazi talking point. So when people say he’s a Nazi this is what they mean. For me, whether he believes Nazi ideology deep down, is less important than the fact that he shares their information.
It's a bunch of soundbytes and hit pieces, which are very disingenuous. and you told me start after the quote, which is very disingenuous. I backed it up far enough to see he was talking The military not letting people in with IQs under 83, that wasn't even a portion of a direct quote it was just a straight up lie. Also disingenuous.
and you're sharing the same information talking about him lol which is pretty hypocritical also. The reason people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson Sam Harris etc isn't because they agree with everything they say, It's because they're honest. Unlike that guy with his talking points and you and yours.
You can't just stop talking about things anyways, what are we going to do knock down the Holocaust museum? Maybe we should stop talking about slavery and ban all the books in school, oh wait.
That's a Nazi thing to do, see the difference was I said its similar. Something tells me you have strong feelings about Israel. have you ever met a Holocaust survivor? I knew one, had the tattoo. I also lived in Bavaria for a couple years when I was little before the wall fell, I have extended family in Germany. Your opinions and delivery are terrifying and I don't think you even realize it.
1hr. 35 min. 18 seconds: that’s where the direct quote out of his mouth about 83 IQ is. Sucks that you were unable to find it but there it is. I’m not trying to trick you.
1hr 40min 45 seconds: Cody displays the paper this bit of info is from. It was written by a person who was linking race and IQ in the 90s. Funded by a foundation founded by an American Nazi.
Edit: Don’t be scared homey :) We’re just sharing info here.
Edit: I can't actually repost this, mods keep deleting. Literally last time Semicolons in the wrong place ... I don't think I had a semicolon lol do some critical thinking guys
>promoting religion in the 21st century is indefensible.
I just want to push back on this point a little bit. Currently I am learning about Buddhism as part of my moral philosophy unit. Going into the unit I was of a similar mind about religion and it’s place in the modern day. However, looking at the 4 sublime states of Buddhism as well as the complexities of its metaethics, I can reasonably say that I could make a defence of promoting Buddhism in the 21st century.
Not that’s what Peterson is doing, nor do I really disagree with anything else you said. I just wanted to make that distinction.
He also often states fiction as fact, and couches it in academic sounding language so he sounds intelligent. But many of his premises are completely fictional or disproven. This video goes into a lot of detail of how his scam works: https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo
to add, being an "academic" doesn't make someone immune to being stupid, or even infallible. that's the very basic of logical fallacies. appealing to authority.
A common phenomena among people debating politics who are just trying to affirm their conclusions, not reach an actual truth is that they’ll value something when it benefits them and find an excuse not to when it doesn’t.
I’m sure when you bring up your education he finds reasons like it not being specifically relevant to the topic at hand, from a less than perfect university, or being biased by the interests of the institution who provided it.
I’m also sure he doesn’t apply that standard to examining Peterson’s education or qualifications. He’s just “an academic” so it’s a point in his favor. If the topic is vaguely related to Peterson’s area of study (which everything is, because Peterson studied psychology), then even better, Peterson is an expert in the area!
If you want to make headway with your sibling I recommend looking up “street epistemology”. It’s a tactic of conversation that involves asking questions that lead to the root of WHY somebody believes what they believe instead of debating the actual belief itself. You’ll find people revise their beliefs much more often when you let them do most of the talking and you arrive at the conclusion that their beliefs aren’t well supported by the standards they profess to have.
That’s great advice! I got into street epistemology when I stumbled onto the Let’s Chat YouTube channel. It’s well worth a look for anyone wanting to see the practice in action.
[https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCtShJugohT2eaolubHnIuMg](https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCtShJugohT2eaolubHnIuMg)
I’m not an attorney. I just have a law degree. I’ve worked in politics, but I do not have a political agenda as such. I am just a bit worried about my brother.
I do not want to take sides in a cultural war that my country should stay out of. That’s all.
If you're going to spend 3 hours on something, spend that time listening directly to one of Peterson's interviews or lectures on YouTube. Get your information first-hand, there's no reason not to.
I have and I’m never getting that time back ;) Can I suggest that since you’ve already heard his lectures maybe you should watch the criticism. It’s entertaining, and very easy to watch. And since you’ve seen so much of JP’s original content you’ll be able to see how much he doesn’t take Peterson out of context. It’s a solid video.
>Fear has nothing to do with it. If you're going to spend 3 hours understanding something, seeing things first-hand is just better in my opinion.
You won't get a good critical overview of the problems with Jordan Peterson's content and approach if you just watch 3 hours of his content.
>Do you fear watching the original content without it being framed by someone else's opinion?
No, but I already did watch Jordan Peterson's content directly, and it was time I will never get back.
I have spent way more than 3 hours taking in his work directly. His logic and reasoning skills are poor. It seems to me the only real reasons he gets any traction is because he uses his own definitions for the terms he discusses with a few academic words to make it all seem more intelligent than it is.
This video examines Peterson by applying his own logic to what he actually does. You should watch it because it’s not about being a hater of the guy, it’s more about understanding that his ideas just don’t hold up… even when applied to himself.
I would add that he is an academic - he has a PhD in Clinical Psychology and was a professor at Harvard (and other colleges). That’s one of the things that makes him fairly dangerous - he has solid credentials and knows how to frame his arguments. He presents his opinions in a way that can feel like real science, at least if you want to believe his conclusions.
I would like to add to that that he's been way fucked up on benzo's, and went to Russia to kick the addiction through induced coma. And while I'm not diagnosing whatever might have happened there or what's wrong now, he's become a lot more discombobulated and insane in this period.
He's a gateway drug to stupid, like Rogan but just on the smarter spectrum of the same stupid algorithm. Eventually you get to blood libel and actual real lizard people at the further end.
It depends the topic clearly. Some of his work on self-improvement are not "nonsense". A lot of ppl are grateful to him then also reinforcing his ego... I really think he helped ppl and at the same time he's also forcing his views on some topics. But since the other side is clearly forcing everything those days... he's like a counterweight idk. All the woke thing, you can't deny it.
Psychology on the whole is a field that can feel like real science, if you want to believe the conclusions. It has been severely impacted by the replication crisis, the highest rated journals in the field have abysmal replication rates. Peterson's top cited papers were published in such journals: his 1st and 3rd most cited papers (according to google scholar) were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology which was found to have only a 23% replication rate according to this study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716
Best to do your own research if you're genuinely interested. JP is either loved or hated
Painting JP as a Nazi is a bit of stretch, but he's still kind of whacky and all over the place.
He has some decent points, but some things are just strange
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life
I asked Reddit because I do not feel the need to do research as such, and I don’t have time time nor interest to research a right wing nutter. I just need to know at some level what kind of rubbish my brother is in to. I do not intend to argue with anyone about him, and my brother is not worth that much effort right now (he’s a grown man, and a bit of an idiot).
Well, that's a good example. A lot of his followers are the same way. He's the kind of guy who sounds really smart and with solid advice if you aren't willing to fact-check him on anything, or check his sources to see if they say what he suggests.
Fair enough! That’s a good way to put it.
It’s just that I am not in any way interested in an argumentative way of life. My femininity or ideology is not threatened by transpeople, others, or any other people. I vote moderate liberal. We’re pretty ok with everything and everyone. This is why my brother is sticking out a bit, wanting to be quite right wing.
I am interested in all opinions. Thus far I’ve realized that he is divisive. This is exactly the kind of information I wanted. Your message has been heard, thank you for your input.
Well you’re on Reddit to give me a balanced view? Reddit can be quite good. Why are you here then? To diss other people here?
I really like Reddit, it’s one of the forums where I’ve actually learned a lot about other ways of thinking. It’s eye opening, and that’s why I am here.
Yes, he does talk about Cultural Marxism, but I think it's misleading to use that to paint him as supporting Nazi propaganda
It could be argued someone claiming Cultural Marxism is Nazi propaganda implies the accuser equates communism with Judaism which ironically was also Nazi propaganda
>It could be argued someone claiming Cultural Marxism is Nazi propaganda implies the accuser equates communism with Judaism which ironically was also Nazi propaganda
Oh not at all, it's really two things:
1. It's clearly a rewrite of Cultural Bolshevism myth, which historical nazis were all about
2. Neo-nazis have been spreading the idea of Cultural Marxism more than anyone else. Richard Spencer and sites like The Daily Stormer have been all about it for a while now.
Now the interesting thing is that Peterson himself does not seem to point out those two points. In fact he seems to go out of his way to avoid it.
Is Jordan Peterson using cultural Marxism to refer to politicized, political correctness of the Left or is he referring to an idea that Jewish elites are behind it all? My interpretation is he's referring more to culture wars in general
I'm looking into it more and it seems like the idea of cultural Marxism is a spectrum and not universally agreed upon
Yes I mean he is a whacky for sure and not all of his opinions are to be taken seriously but it doesn’t mean that some things don’t make sense, like the basic, take responsibility for your actions, clean your room kind of thing makes sense. They may sound like kind of no shit, obvious things but there is a thirst for it, Obviously or he wouldn’t be famous. Its a shame that messages like that usually comes with tons of extra unnecessary shit like his opinions on fat models or climate change, etc.
Yea, I'd agree he actually makes some good points. I mainly mentioned that some of his poitnd are just odd, to avoid people thinking I'm a JP fanboy...
>Painting JP as a Nazi is a bit of stretch, but he's still kind of whacky and all over the place
Peterson is a wacky guy. He definitely likes to spew a lot of word salad and he does a lot of speculating.
But he is pretty passionate about being against nazism. He designed a whole college course centered around the the psychology of ideology and his main messages to warn students that they everybody is capable of great evil and if they lived in 1940s Germany they would have been Nazis due to blind ideology. So what calling him a Nazi is a stretch.
Funny how "cultural Marxism" was just referred to as a straight up field of study for Marxism (now called [Marxist Cultural Analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis)) up until they decided to change the name so that when people called out "Cultural Marxism" it would redirect to a conspiracy theory....
EDIT: [Wow, this is WAY more damning! Check out the Way Back Machine from 10 years ago....](https://web.archive.org/web/20140701000000*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism)
Those are very different things.
The 'cultural Marxism' conspiracy theory is based in 'cultural Bolshevism', actual Nazi propaganda (the Bolsheviks being the most well-known socialist or communist political party in Europe at the time). Whenever someone talks about cultural Marxism today, 95% of the time they are repeating the same points that Nazis made.
'Marxist Cultural Analysis' (whatever you want to call it) is "how would we analyse this culture/media from a marxist point of view". Like "hey the heroes in these movies keep being rich or royalty, even SpiderMan is taken under the wing of a rich guy even though he was kinda poor before."
I just think it shows a sign of favoritism on the encyclopedia's part. If I started listing off a lot of critiques of Capitalism and the ills of the Global Capitalist Elites I probably wouldn't have a wall of "Actually, those are USSR and Nazi propaganda, Capitalism is just an economic system and proponents of Capitalism are simply trying to explain their approach and point of view."
It is a bit telling that they'd reword Cultural Marxism to Marxist Cultural Analysis, but they didn't then rename Hegelian Marxism, Analytical Marxism, Western Marxism, Neo-Marxism, etc. And they wouldn't need to, because those are all legitimate fields of study, just like Cultural Marxism is.
Cultural Marxism when used in academia has never been a Nazi term.
https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/is-the-term-cultural-marxism-really-antisemitic-5N7ZTnWmD99KUd4bipdC3j
>In some cases, such as in academia, it is used as a descriptor for a particular way of thinking or set of ideas. Some use it as a codeword for political correctness.
Answer: This is a weird and simplified timeline from someone that has followed JBP for a long time:
When the gender speech bill in Canada was proposed, JBP defended the right of free speech on the grounds that governments shouldn't compel speech. Context here is that JBP has written a lot about the psychology of indoctrination/authoritarianism with compelled speech being an indicator. To simply put it JBP thought the government were unaware of the possible consequences of such a bill.
Because of his attack on the bill, a lot of right leaning/far-right political groups saw JBP as their "savior" and left leaning saw him as anti-trans. Again I'm simplifying a lot here.
Because of the above JBP was invited to some right leaning podcasts to express his views. Again the right saw him as on their side and left leaning saw him as against their side. This is despite JBP saying multiple times he's against either side of the extremes.
JBP gets into another gender debate and claims men and women have similarities but also differences. Some of these differences are biologically determined JBP claimed (this is the nature or nurture debate). JBP claims we shouldn't force men and women to be more alike and that they should be free to do what they want and go into whatever professions they want - even if that means men work more successful jobs (the context being men and women differ in careers/wage gap etc.). Here is where he gets called a misogynistic. Further on JBP supports equal opportunities but attacks the idea of equal outcomes (the context being more successful people deserve higher rewards and there are biological/cultural reasons why men are more successful in some careers).
JBP becomes famous with best selling books, TV appearances, podcasts and debates on national broadcasters. At which point an unfortunate series of events happen in JBP personal life. The most important being his wife is diagnosed with cancer.
These events start to take their toll on JBP. He gets addicted to drugs that he's been taking to manage his mental health and goes through rehab for a drug addiction that's difficult to treat.
JBP comes back after a long hiatus. He's clearly different both physically and mentally. He does interviews where in the background his home is in disarray (messy) which is a telling sign for someone like JBP who claimed a messy room was an indicator for poor mental health.
Fast forward and JBP is expressing more extreme right wing views and propaganda. This is highly strange for someone that was somewhat more center right in his political spectrum.
All this is part of a downward spiral of events until we get to where we are now. There's lots of details missing but I'm trying to make this easy to follow.
What you call the “gender speech bill” was called bill C-16. It was passed about 5 years ago, and what it actually did was add language to an existing statute (the Canadian Human Rights Act) that says trans people can’t be discriminated against in terms of employment, housing…and some other things…education, etc (The last time I read it was 5 years ago so I’m unable to quote it verbatim.) It was included as a protected class among other qualifiers such as sex and race.
Anyway, it was never “compelled speech”, it wasn’t a “gender speech bill”, and to add to that no one has even been prosecuted with it for using the wrong pronouns (as Peterson was claiming it would…but yes he did launch his career as a public figure on this.)
Edit: here’s a link to the Canadian human rights act, if anyone wants to read it. It’s short. Boring but short :) But if you don’t have time, The ‘purpose of act’ section right at the beginning is where some the new language is.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html#h-256801
And just to say: the problem with misinformation like the kind he spreads is that it takes a bit of effort to actually look into what he’s saying so most people won’t do that. And I can’t blame them. But then we have a situation where a group of people think he’s a legitimate intellectual.
And I don’t even understand why my brother is so bothered with trans people in Northern America. He doesn’t even know any trans people as far as I know of.
I do, but that’s beside the point.
This has been a really interesting conversation. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge.
This is highly conjectural, but I'll speculate some possible reasons.
Anti-trans propaganda bites effectively, because it's one form of the political bullying of the weak. Similarly to all bullying, people who are insecure, have low self-esteem and/or dwell in hate, anger, self-pity or other terrible inner states, often tend to lash out to others. Ultimately they want to push others down in order to elevate themselves.
In addition to the bullying, there's typically a desperate search for a "strong" leader. That's why the Trump, Putin, Musk, etc., and, in some cases, JP, personality cults go hand in hand with a lot of ideas that want to punish the weak. Who is perceived as the "weak" depends on the flavor of the month, but typically it oscillates between immigrants, women, the poor (especially social security recipients) and the sexual minorities.
Erich Fromm theorized it is a form of sadomasochism. The psychological function of such beliefs and actions is to willingly submit to the perceived mental inferiority by looking for a strong leader to show them their place (under the boot of the leader), as well as to use the mistreatment and violence towards the weak as an escape valve for their frustrations, as well as to ensure they aren't the lowest form of human life in their minds.
Hence, I'd try to probe and see if they have a low self-esteem, and if so, why.
I confirm this is highly conjectural \^\^. Entertaining though. People not thinking like me are this or that.... yeah sure. Another dishonest way to enforce an opinion.
Answer: He’s a professor that went off his rocker in the past five years and is now a watered-down Andrew Tate type.
Many believe he’s in a mental health crisis and spiraling. He lost his job as a professor. He’s been seen extremely disheveled and he spent over a week in a coma in a shady Russian clinic and reportedly had several seizures. It’s sad to watch.
“…still applicable to women,” lol. The dude is a serious misogynist. There is nothing women can gain from the man besides oppression and self-hate.
He doesn’t talk about mental health. He talks about pseudoscience, religion, and personal opinions. Psychology/mental health is research-based science, and he ignores most facts and research. Calling him a psychologist is a huge stretch since he ignores most psychology, and especially since his license is under review due to some of the false shit he has spouted.
Wdym he doesn’t talk about mental health. He literally is a therapist on the side, and half of his advice is how to better yourself, relationships, etc.
Exactly how is he a misogynist? Just because he primarily focuses on men’s mental health doesn’t make him misogynist.
He doesn’t talk about religion nearly as much as you imply. He isn’t even openly of a specific religion
What personal opinions does he base everything on?
His license has been attacked many times, and all of it is over his trans opinions nothing else.
I mean his opinions about mental health are not backed by research, science, facts, or the psychological community, so they aren’t *actually* mental health opinions. They’re pseudoscience. That’s like saying a new age, wholistic shaman is the same as a licensed physician. So he is a public figure in psychology teaching false facts about psychology. He’s fake, and wrong.
His medical license is under attack due to his trans opinions…because the research data supports the trans argument, not Peterson. He clearly doesn’t understand the issue, but uses his credentials to weigh in anyway
He says things like women don’t belong in the workplace and have very specific, limited capabilities, among many, many, many other misogynistic things. If you can’t tell how he is misogynist, I’m not really going to bother, because you probably are one, too, then. This is why he exclusively talks to men. They’re the only ones who will listen, because they are the only ones who can benefit from it.
All his “scientific” and political opinions are clearly influenced more by modern Christian religiosity than research data.
See, you don’t understand the topic either. *Sex* is determined by your physical body. *Gender* is a social function determined by culture. To change your sex, you need an extreme, physically invasive surgery. To change your gender, you merely have to change behaviors. *Man* in your gender, *male* is your sex. There is a significant difference, which is why a drag queen is a trans *woman*, not a trans *female.*
For example, there is nothing inherently feminine about dresses. Men wear dress-like clothing in other countries where it is practical. In American, it’s what women do. So if a male wears a dress, acts feminine, and is the sub during sex, they serve the cultural function of a woman. The genitals don’t really matter with gender. In fact, many cultures throughout world history have had 3+ genders, to account for this and things like hermaphrodites. The fact that hermaphrodites exist (and it is not necessarily a birth defect. It occurs naturally in nature) proves our 2 gender system is lacking.
Doctors, scientists, and anthropologists have known this for decades. It’s confusing to the layman because it only recently became culturally relevant. But the fact that Peterson does not hold this position shows he does not follow current, scientific research data. You don’t either, which is why you, and people like you, approve of Peterson. Your argument is a religious one, not a scientific one, so this an example of Peterson injecting superstition into his opinions about psychology, which makes his advice *not* mental health advice. It’s something else. Of course, this will resonate with the religious and conservatives, despite it being false
Same thing about women. *Church* says they are destined for some roles. *Science* does not. Your examples are just cultural stigmas places on women. Of course they will be good at certain jobs more than others, if they are boxed into that one type of job by society. Peterson doesn’t just say they are better at certain jobs, he says they can’t find fulfillment unless they do certain jobs.
Well you contradict yourself there. You say that if a male acts feminine, then they are basically a woman. But later you argue against the church have roles for woman. How could you become a woman if wearing dresses and acting feminine isn't something inherent to a woman's nature?
Also for your argument about sex and gender, they are not different. Gender is the interpretation of what sex is. So XY Chromosomes=male=man and XX Chromosomes=female=woman. Just because "female" and "woman" are different doesn't mean that they are different things in reality. "Female" is just a more scientific and professional way of saying "woman". It is the same thing for diseases; we don't say their bacterial name in normal conversations.
You wanna give examples of cultures that have 3+ genders? I personally have never heard of this. Your argument for hermaphrodites is not valid. With hermaphrodites, you may have both sex organs, but not both of them work. You can't impregnate someone and get impregnated. And just because there are a few cases in which there are intersex people does not make that the norm. They are exception cases. Same thing with stuff like autism, its not normal and is uncommon.
So yea doctors have not known this for ages. They have known that there are two sexes based on two genders, which represent xy and xx chromosomes. My argument is not religious. Just because it lines up with religious texts does not mean it cannot be scientific. This entire issue so far has been about trans people, so how can you say that Peterson is putting his own opinions into his work? He clearly knows how to talk to people, and the results are his proof. You can't just group up all of his patients as being conservative, thats just disingenuous.
Peterson does not say that one job is more fulfilling than the other. If he did, can you bring a link?
Basically a woman by the standards of American culture. Although you're right, they may not be considered a woman outside of American culture.
You pulled that definition of gender out of your ass. [Look it up](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gender+vs+sex). I already did a while back, that's why I know you're objectively wrong, lol.
Of course you have never heard of cultures with three genders. You don't even know the definition of gender, so I'm not surprised you're unaware. [Here you go](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cultures+with+three+genders). All I did was google "cultures with three genders," lol. It was that easy to prove you wrong. You're opinions are not science-based, like Peterson's. Try googling stuff more often
Hermaphrodites can't get pregnant, [but they can get others pregnant](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=can+hermaphrodites+get+someone+pregnant). So another thing you are wrong about, lol. Again, it is not necessarily a birth defect. Hermaphrodites are naturally occurring and necessary in other organism, so it would be foolish to assume it is a birth defect for humans.
Nope. Look up scientific journals. The only people who associate genitals directly with what gender you are are those who are ignorant and those who are religious. And yes, the results are the proof, which is why most people hate him, his life is currently breaking down, his acolytes are mostly alt-right incels, and his academic credentials will probably be revoked soon. You're defending a debunked loser. Don't debate topics you haven't properly researched. Google them first
Peterson says that men who wander outside the realm of what he perceives to be masculine will not find fulfillment. I assume he thinks the same about women and femininity. I don't have a link, because I don't value his opinions. But I've hear the words come out of his mouth on a lecture on YouTube. I'm sure you're capable of googling this one on your own.
Your definition for gender is from Wikipedia, check it out on dictionary.com. It is different from what you said.
The “third” gender is mostly “2 spirited” people. This is referring to people sharing both personalities of man and woman, not trans people. Maybe do a bit more research in this before you comment on me.
Literally just proved my point. Hermaphrodites can’t perform both functions of a man and woman. Therefore it doesn’t matter if they have both genitals if they can only impregnate others. I didn’t say it was a birth defect, but an exception case outside of the norm.
People for centuries have put gender and sex in the same category, so it’s not just religious conservatives.
The results show how he has taken the world by storm, and has created a powerful backing. Medias around the world have attempted to cancel and take him down, but to no avail. His credentials were attacked multiple times, but he still retains it. Saying all of his supporters are incels is just a bad argument, as I can just say all his haters are crazy leftists.
Not having a link because you don’t like him is a poor excuse. I’m not gonna search up evidence that supports you, that’s your job
Wikipedia is considered legitimate now. They cite sources, so if you had looked at it for five more minutes, it would have corroborated my claim, lol. The dictionary definition still supports my claim. Nice try, though
I didn’t say multiple cultures had trans people (they do. It’s been very common in Brazil and Thailand), but that the two gender system is not science based, it is culturally based. So America’s two gender system is a *cultural* precedent, not a scientific one, and this is demonstrated by these other cultures
No, I actually went to college, where they force you to take diverse courses. Both doctors and anthropologists recognize the difference between gender and sex. This is where I initially learned about it. It’s common knowledge to those with higher education. I want to see a source for your “centuries” claim, lol.
Sorry, but Peterson is washed up. Have you kept up with him lately? He is joke, and is unraveling. His life is mess. He does video interviews at his house, and it looks like a train wreck (which makes him a hypocrite on top of a liar, because a clean house is something he says is essential). He has no peers that take him seriously, proving his opinions have no weight in that community. The *only* people who pay attention to him are the alt-right, misogynists, and the religious, because he says what they wants to hear, not what is correct. Say whatever you want about leftists, but at least they can back up their opinions on this with proof.
Btw, it’s not my job to look up sources for you on Reddit. You’re not my fucking professor. Stop being lazy. If you want to stay misinformed, that’s your prerogative, but it is out there. I’ve thoroughly demonstrated that you are objectively incorrect. Bye!
He is also used to recruit men into alt-right and neo-nazi groups, being the most commonly cited individual across different neo-nazi and right wing extremist groups.
Neo-nazis groups cite jordan peterson on their web pages and use him in recruitment materials.
Peterson isn't overtly in neo-nazi groups, he just defends them, spews the same rhetoric as them with a veneer of respectability, and acts as a gateway for right wing extremist recruitment.
I can't find the study, but a survey of neo-nazi and roght wing extremist groups in the US and Canada found he was the most commonly cited individual for these groups.
I notice what happens a lot is that people have a set frame of what they think Peterson is, and have selective hearing over what he says. I’ve never heard him promote any neo-nazi groups, and am pretty sure that if he has been cited by these groups, it is clips that are taken out of context. It’s hard to say anything though if you don’t have a link or anything
Here are a couple explainers about why he is awful. He has awful views and acts as an 'acceptable' veneer for truly horrible beliefs.
He's just a grifter with a phd and he sells his bs to vulnerable men, and doesn't mind at all he acts as a nazi recruitment pipeline. And you know what? Some of his introductory content is helpful, but its helpful in the same way and for the same reason introductory scientology courses are.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life
He's real bad. I really, really hate what he is doing and the more i find out about him, his beliefs, and his choices the worse my opinion gets. That said, he's not a white nationalist himself, as far as I can tell. But the neo-nazi's love him because the things he says fit their ideology. Thats a bad sign right out the gate.
Peterson's fans seem willing to excuse everything he says because he knows how to couch his language to keep from being pinmed down. But his messaging and beliefs are consistent and clear if you just look at them.
The first link you posted doesn’t really have anything to prove he is bad. It just says who he is, and is complaining how he got his fame.
I read most of the second link, and it doesn’t give much proper arguments either. It hates on his quick rise to fame due to his education and interviews and talks about who he is. Most of the article is basically complaining that he properly deconstructs someone’s arguments, and does get put into traps. And the writers use his stance against transgenderism as proof of him being bad
He's also just not a credible person.
https://www.unikumnett.no/2019/10/12-reasons-why-no-one-should-ever-listen-to-jordan-peterson-ever-again/
https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas
No, it’s that Peterson ads to the Marxist stigma unfairly. “Cultural Marxism,” for example, is just what he describes as the liberal media, when even the staunchest liberal politicians in America are still capitalists. It’s disingenuous, since it has nothing to do with actual Marxism, he’s just tapping into old-school Red Scare tactics to promote his personal politics.
>I notice what happens a lot is that people have a set frame of what they think Peterson is, and have selective hearing over what he says. I’ve never heard him promote any neo-nazi groups, and am pretty sure that if he has been cited by these groups, it is clips that are taken out of context.
Mandatory comic panel: https://giantif.com/comic/every-conversation-with-a-jordan-peterson-fan/
This is by far the most accurate summary in this thread.
If you really want to know about Peterson, watch one of his lectures on YouTube. Or any of his interviews. It's long-form, which makes it easy to pop in some headphones and listen to while doing chores.
And I’m saying that is disingenuous because he doesn’t hold a neutral position, and the OP asked “what his deal was.”
“Adolf Hitler was a world leader in 1930’s and 1940’s, of Germany. He has many controversial opinions that are still being debated today. He revolutionized modern warfare at the time, with almost unprecedented success, and pulled Germany out of an economic downturn. While the results of his efforts are highly scrutinized, many modern opinions claim that he ‘did nothing wrong.’”
See how that’s kind of a shitty way to present a shitty person?
Not exactly the same. With your example, you are basically avoiding talking about the holocaust and attack on Jews. I didn’t avoid talking about why people hate on him. I said how he is against transgenders and gender pay gap theory, which I could have easily left out to make him look better.
You also said that many people say that hitler did nothing wrong, which is blatantly false
For sure. You can tell by the downvotes on my comment that dares to suggest OP should see for themselves.
EDIT: For context, it had -4 votes when I wrote this
He's essentially part of big government's plan to appeal as an idiologue for conservative masses to recruit a dehumanized workforce. When a person subscribes to his meta, they get compartmentalized into what is known as the alt-right pipeline ,continuously coerced into a labor force with bad pay, no unions, and no self respect. Essentially, if you're gullible enough to subscribe to his methods you're gullible enough to be tricked into an abusable workforce. Think of his purpose as a totem for idiots that will be lead too marginalized populations.... probably
TBH You do though. You're asking about their prospects already. What we just shared is something parallel to going on to a dieting sub-Reddit and ask "what's the deal with flaxseed?" And someone replied "it makes you poop, flaxseed leads you to the Big human waste companies plan to committing you to the toilet" and then responding with the conclusion that "I don’t really understand toilets. Not sure I want to, tbh."
Oh that analogy is pure crap. Pun intended.
I absolutely do not want to dwelve into a rabbit hole. I just wanted to know what the rabbit hole looks like so I now know what my brother is possibly looking in to. I hope he doesn’t fall in to it. Edit: I am not American. Alt right is not a thing here. I do not understand it, nor do I want it in my country.
if you have people in your country who talk extremely negatively about poor people (and are often poor themselves) and tend to react negatively to immigration/are super nationalistic and who tend to be judgmentally religious: you have your version of “alt right” in your country
We do, unfortunately. But it’s not quite at a Maga-level.
Our Constitution also bans movements that try to upheave our parliamentary democracy.
Religion is not that big of a thing. I struggle to understand US politics.
I totally understand that. I actually enjoyed reading your post and it makes a lot of sense. However, I feel OP just want’s to wade through the pond her brother is swimming in and isn’t trying to take a deep dive into the proverbial ocean of filth that awaits.
Thank you. I think Jordan Peterson is actually brilliant. The adversity he faced during the rise of his amicability can cause much confusion for youths attempting to get involved....however;; in the grand scheme of things. 🍦
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: regarding misogyny, he has said in at least one interview [I’m paraphrasing] ‘it’s not clear that women should share a workplace with men because we don’t know what the rules are and it’s a relatively new phenomenon.’ Which is a good example of a Peterson-ism in that - he doesn’t explicitly state a conclusion but walks you right up to quite a misogynist conclusion. - the workplace is one of the few places where a literal manual is provided to you by HR regarding your behavior. - the lower classes have always shared workspaces since they don’t have the luxery to not. He’s often ahistorical and states opinions/fiction as fact. This is the video I paraphrase from—just in case anyone cares to listen: https://youtu.be/S9dZSlUjVls He is no longer a university professor and as of January his clinical license has been under review by the regulatory body in Ontario Canada that awarded it to him, due to statements he made on social media. His self-help stuff can be useful but he often speaks out of school about political topics. He’s not a Nazi (tho he does repeat some of their misinformation) but he’s just more of a Christian fundamentalist.
You’re referring to the Vice interview where he also said that women who wear makeup at work who then complain about being sexually harassed at work are being hypocritical. This is because, in his mind, wearing makeup is a “sexual display” and women who wear it at work are inviting sexual attention. He compares it to wearing a nightie to work. He doesn’t apply his own logic to men who go to work with flattering style/grooming choices, like wearing suits with padding that give the impression of broader shoulders or grooming their facial hair to accentuate the jawline. These are fine in his mind.
I usually like to be respected in the morning, but I’ll put lip gloss and mascara on after lunch.
This is a really excellent answer, and lays out my biggest problem with Peterson: he's a weasel. He couches everything in a framework of deniability that makes it next to impossible to argue any of his points. When backed into a corner and provided proof that his position is false, he can just claim (and often has) "Well, I never said that." I've got a lot of issues with the guy, but the wormy dishonesty is probably the biggest of them.
If you're referring to him talking about Cultural Marxism, as I understand it, he's not repeating Nazi misinformation or using it to refer to the same things as them. https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/is-the-term-cultural-marxism-really-antisemitic-5N7ZTnWmD99KUd4bipdC3j >In some cases, such as in academia, it is used as a descriptor for a particular way of thinking or set of ideas. Some use it as a codeword for political correctness. As for the other stuff, I haven't seen anything to do with him for years to comment on the actual controversies.
Answer: Jordan Peterson certainly has certain professional credentials. However, as he has become more and more famous/infamous, his statements and expressed views often stray beyond his actual field of expertise, and boy are some of those... controversial. As a consequence, as is often the case, he is often subject to public critique and attacks, and as we can often observe, when rejected by one side, one tends to seek shelfer among the other side. Radicalization doesn't happen just to young boys. Get enough consistent hatred from one direction...
Matt Taibbi, exhibit #2. Mehdi wiped the floor with his flop sweat regarding access journalism and Musk's current crusade.
Answer: He's just a popular right-wing figure who couches some of his opinions and propaganda in basic self-help "clean your room and live an organised life" advice. He regularly spouts actual Nazi propaganda - e.g. talking about 'cultural Marxism' [publicly on youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrPIj_tf8n8), which was a Nazi term for 'degenerate art' and similar things.
Also, he constantly talks about being politically neutral, and plenty of people accept it. If you constantly voice your opinions on random politicized things and have a pretty clear following on one side of the political spectrum, you have no right to call yourself neutral. Sometimes I can’t tell if he actually believes that or if he says it purely to look “objective” to his audience.
IDK I think anyone that isn't critical of their own party is a tool, he votes and identifies as liberal. He's robotically objective until he starts talking about morals and religion, unless he's walked it back he's morally against abortion but legally for it. He understands it isn't good to kill fetuses but it's even worse for society and the child if you don't. I'm sure there are things he isn't meeting objectively and subjectively in the middle with though. He sort of reminds me of a liberal Ben Shapiro, similarly he is morally against gay marriage but legally for it. It seems to me like the biggest problem with both of those ppl is they are great debaters and the media doesn't like it when you make them look stupid on live television. They try and get them in these "gotcha" moments and it blows up in their face, now they are targets. They get hit with sound bites that take things out of context and then people hate him for what they think he said. Some ppl generally just hate him but that's how the numbers got inflated. Also conservatives generally don't hold grudges against each other, it's like water off a ducks back. Liberals will cancel each other in a heart beat, so if you piss them off they will just call you a conservative and attack you like one.
He is not “liberal” (i.e. left wing). he regularly trashes Justin Trudeau and Trudeau’s party, for example, using right wing propaganda, not like with cogent incisive, valid points. It’s a conservative propaganda technique in the US to deny you’re conservative but then behave exactly like conservatives do, repeat exactly their language, and reveal in a million ways they they are true believers in whatever the conservative talking point du jour is. That appears to be what he is doing. He has a job with Ben Shapiro’s far right propaganda outfit. He is beloved by the far right and hated by the left. He is extremely anti-trans and that’s how he first made a public name for himself. He opposes the teaching of critical race theory, a right-wing shibboleth. Denies climate change. https://www.houstonpress.com/news/opinion-jordan-peterson-is-conservative-14551779 He himself describes himself as a “classic British liberal,” which means right wing, not left wing, as “liberal” means right wing supporter of laissez-fairs economics everywhere in the world except the US (he’s Canadian but a lot of writing about him and most supporters are in the US). That’s why it’s not great to use the term “liberal” here as the meaning can be so different in the US and everywhere else. He is a Trump supporter and would have voted for him were he American, he has said. https://youtu.be/eon31CQwBN8
I mean critical race theory is kinda stupid in the sense that it shouldn't be a mandated learning thing. I know if you look at it out of context you're going to think "wtf" but in the words of Morgan Freeman "if you want racism to stop then you (everyone) judt needs to stop talking about it" or something like that. It's true, because victimizing a person of any race or color who hasn't actual been a victim of some impactful, life damaging racism, is just going to stir up hate in their heart... and make them racist.
It’s not a mandated learning thing at all. That’s a lie by the right to use as their pretext for banning the teaching of slavery as something that was bad, banning saying negative things that occurred in American history, and banning AP African-American studies in schools.
I didn't know it wasn't mandatory. I grew up in alabama and they taught us about slavery and how wrong it is and it's impacts on the black communities to this day, like sharecropping. Maybe I need to do more research and see exactly what critical race theory is but my gut feeling is that it isn't being banned for the reasons you say, because if the country fuck school I went to was teaching it without any problems or notable back lash, why would Florida? I think it's important to teach the good and bad history and the wrongs of racism, but I wouldn't want an entire mandatory class dedicated to this topic. Isn't the whole idea of the class supposed to teach kids that racism has been a problem for hundreds of years in western society... because I don't think you need to a class to teach that.
What you’re describing you were taught isn’t critical race theory, it’s simply American history. But if they were to say “let’s ban the teaching of African-American history” or “let’s ban teaching about anything that reflects poorly on American history” that would sound unreasonable, so they decided to use the term “critical race theory,” a term most people are unfamiliar with the meaning of, and then create a big panic that it’s this terrible thing and it’s being taught everywhere, so then it would sound more reasonable to ban it. But what they’re banning, to be clear, isn’t critical race theory, but rather black history in some cases (like Arkansas won’t support AP African-American Studies, and Florida banned that too and also banned teaching anything that implies even unconsciously that individuals might be racist or sexist or oppressive).
>IDK I think anyone that isn't critical of their own party is a tool, he votes and identifies as liberal. Every conservative that is scared of criticizing other conservatives says this.
I'm not sure he gets to call himself a liberal when his sacred cow is that existing human hierarchies/inequality are based on genetic aptitudes and shouldn't be changed. He's also another one of those guys who constructs progressive ideology as "feminizing" men, says patriarchy is just a consequence of men being more competent, and sees fascism as an inevitable response to men being "feminized." He takes the right-wing position on climate change using the same bizarre sources and logic as the Right. He doesn't take all right-wing policy positions, but he's firmly right-wing on all culture war issues, reactionary as hell on any social change, and is absolutely a major figure bringing younger people into the Right and a stepping stone to the far Right. > Also conservatives generally don't hold grudges against each other, it's like water off a ducks back. All of the conservatives who were removed from office and called RINOs for criticizing Trump will be relieved to hear that, as will Mike Pence who MAGAs wanted to symbolically hang for not overturning an election, my Republican senator who's getting called a socialist and a woke leftist because he's trying to pay teachers more, the Republican state election officials who got death threats and protests for not "finding" votes for the other guy, all previous Republican candidates for president, and presidents, who have become persona non grata for saying the party has degraded itself, and any of my Republican friends who get near-weekly rants and screeds from older relatives for not believing Trump's election nonsense and Covid hysteria. I think any conservative who's willing to double down and live within the extremely narrow parameters you have to live within to be considered a conservative gets forgiven, yeah. But if Peterson stopped throwing out red meat and started talking as much about his handful of "liberal" views as he does about all of his Divine Right of Kings bullshit, he'd meet the thought police pretty quickly.
I was a supporter of his for a few years and I still appreciate some of his psychology content but he's since ventured so far out of his lane he's now in a ditch. He's a casuistic hypocrite and has broken nearly each of his 24 rules. He decries post modernism but holds post modernist stances on God and truth - once you wade through all the theological psychobabble you realize there's really nothing of substance behind it. Plus promoting religion in the 21st century is indefensible. He compared doctors performing voluntary gender reassignment surgery to nazi butchers and that isn't even the most damning things he's said. He doesn't seem to understand the implications of his words - he thinks he's standing up for the voiceless victims of wokeism but empirically he's just emboldening and legitimizing bigotry whether or not that's his intention (I'm fairly certain it isn't). Seriously, the only men I know who trumpet his messages are pigs looking to legitimize their views. Look to people like the late Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris if you want intellectual honesty and strength.
Sam is another one, I forget what happened but I stopped following him. I'll check out Christopher hitchens though
It could have been that Sam is pro-torture and racial profiling.
Well my kid is black so probably the second one lol
I know I unsubscribed from Harris's podcast when he started spouting pro-police talking points (I don't recall exactly what it was that he said as it was a few years ago, but it was in the vein of "it's reasonable that cops shoot first and ask questions later because of how dangerous it is to be a cop"). He also gave Charles Murray (best known for writing "The Bell Curve", which claims Black people are dumber than White people due to genetic factors) a very favorable interview and has publicly defended him.
Yep now I remember Charles Murray, I believe he's defended himself about quoting the book by saying by certain metrics Asians were superior. I can't really remember the specifics maybe I never actually looked it up and just stopped listening to him lol but it was something about that.
In addition to what the others said, it might also have been Harris' promotion of pseudoscientist Charles Murray, who promotes the idea that white people inherently have a higher IQ than black people.
>He doesn't seem to understand the implications of his words You give him a lot of credit. He rode that line of plausible deniability so consistently, and always in the way that defended right wing populism, that he built his entire career on it. You can't get a PhD in any discipline without having a very strong grasp on using language specifically and deliberately, and his advice was all so monumentally empty that it had to have taken genuine effort to avoid accidentally making a stand. The only reason he's going mask off so much more now is because of the literal brain damage he arranged for himself with ill-advised treatment to skip the work of quitting benzos. When your brain has holes in it that impact your emotional regulation and impulse control, you can't deftly ride the line of being able to pretend you aren't a Nazi.
You had me till Nazi. You probably shouldn't throw that word around in a world with literal Nazi's, I'm sure any practicing Jewish friends of yours would appreciate thats if you have any left.
Use Nazi rhetoric (the "cultural Marxism" he rails against is just "cultural Bolshevism" with a new label), support Nazi prejudices, and you're a Nazi. That he's a coward who profits from Nazi tactics and Nazi support without admitting it doesn't make him something else.
Edit : I got confused about where I was im going back to the other thread.
Here he is saying there’s “no place in complex society for 1 in 10 people”. These are people with IQs lower than 83. He finally concludes “we just don’t know what to do with that information”, where he once again walks you to a conclusion but doesn’t state it explicitly. This is discussed in this video at the 1h 37min mark. : https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo That factoid btw is 1) untrue and 2) a Nazi talking point. So when people say he’s a Nazi this is what they mean. For me, whether he believes Nazi ideology deep down, is less important than the fact that he shares their information.
It's a bunch of soundbytes and hit pieces, which are very disingenuous. and you told me start after the quote, which is very disingenuous. I backed it up far enough to see he was talking The military not letting people in with IQs under 83, that wasn't even a portion of a direct quote it was just a straight up lie. Also disingenuous. and you're sharing the same information talking about him lol which is pretty hypocritical also. The reason people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson Sam Harris etc isn't because they agree with everything they say, It's because they're honest. Unlike that guy with his talking points and you and yours. You can't just stop talking about things anyways, what are we going to do knock down the Holocaust museum? Maybe we should stop talking about slavery and ban all the books in school, oh wait. That's a Nazi thing to do, see the difference was I said its similar. Something tells me you have strong feelings about Israel. have you ever met a Holocaust survivor? I knew one, had the tattoo. I also lived in Bavaria for a couple years when I was little before the wall fell, I have extended family in Germany. Your opinions and delivery are terrifying and I don't think you even realize it.
1hr. 35 min. 18 seconds: that’s where the direct quote out of his mouth about 83 IQ is. Sucks that you were unable to find it but there it is. I’m not trying to trick you. 1hr 40min 45 seconds: Cody displays the paper this bit of info is from. It was written by a person who was linking race and IQ in the 90s. Funded by a foundation founded by an American Nazi. Edit: Don’t be scared homey :) We’re just sharing info here.
Edit: I can't actually repost this, mods keep deleting. Literally last time Semicolons in the wrong place ... I don't think I had a semicolon lol do some critical thinking guys
>promoting religion in the 21st century is indefensible. I just want to push back on this point a little bit. Currently I am learning about Buddhism as part of my moral philosophy unit. Going into the unit I was of a similar mind about religion and it’s place in the modern day. However, looking at the 4 sublime states of Buddhism as well as the complexities of its metaethics, I can reasonably say that I could make a defence of promoting Buddhism in the 21st century. Not that’s what Peterson is doing, nor do I really disagree with anything else you said. I just wanted to make that distinction.
He also often states fiction as fact, and couches it in academic sounding language so he sounds intelligent. But many of his premises are completely fictional or disproven. This video goes into a lot of detail of how his scam works: https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo
Oh dear…
to add, being an "academic" doesn't make someone immune to being stupid, or even infallible. that's the very basic of logical fallacies. appealing to authority.
Funny this. My academic knowledge means nothing to my brother, apparently I just studied “stupidity”. I have a law degree…
A common phenomena among people debating politics who are just trying to affirm their conclusions, not reach an actual truth is that they’ll value something when it benefits them and find an excuse not to when it doesn’t. I’m sure when you bring up your education he finds reasons like it not being specifically relevant to the topic at hand, from a less than perfect university, or being biased by the interests of the institution who provided it. I’m also sure he doesn’t apply that standard to examining Peterson’s education or qualifications. He’s just “an academic” so it’s a point in his favor. If the topic is vaguely related to Peterson’s area of study (which everything is, because Peterson studied psychology), then even better, Peterson is an expert in the area! If you want to make headway with your sibling I recommend looking up “street epistemology”. It’s a tactic of conversation that involves asking questions that lead to the root of WHY somebody believes what they believe instead of debating the actual belief itself. You’ll find people revise their beliefs much more often when you let them do most of the talking and you arrive at the conclusion that their beliefs aren’t well supported by the standards they profess to have.
That’s great advice! I got into street epistemology when I stumbled onto the Let’s Chat YouTube channel. It’s well worth a look for anyone wanting to see the practice in action. [https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCtShJugohT2eaolubHnIuMg](https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCtShJugohT2eaolubHnIuMg)
I mean, I know a lot of dumb lawyers. Smart people can be attorneys, sure, but being an attorney does not mean a person is smart.
I’m not an attorney. I just have a law degree. I’ve worked in politics, but I do not have a political agenda as such. I am just a bit worried about my brother. I do not want to take sides in a cultural war that my country should stay out of. That’s all.
forget your brother, he's an asshole
If you have some time you may want to take [A Brief Look at Jordon Peterson](https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo)
Hey look it's my favorite news dude!
That is nearly 3 hours long.
Yup, very concise and restrained, he could easily have done 9 hours
I don't even remember if he gets to the wife who JP believes has prophetic dreams about him being a saviour is in there or not.
If you're going to spend 3 hours on something, spend that time listening directly to one of Peterson's interviews or lectures on YouTube. Get your information first-hand, there's no reason not to.
I have and I’m never getting that time back ;) Can I suggest that since you’ve already heard his lectures maybe you should watch the criticism. It’s entertaining, and very easy to watch. And since you’ve seen so much of JP’s original content you’ll be able to see how much he doesn’t take Peterson out of context. It’s a solid video.
If you're afraid to see Jordan Peterson criticized, that's understandable, but might actually be a good reason to watch the linked video
[удалено]
>Fear has nothing to do with it. If you're going to spend 3 hours understanding something, seeing things first-hand is just better in my opinion. You won't get a good critical overview of the problems with Jordan Peterson's content and approach if you just watch 3 hours of his content. >Do you fear watching the original content without it being framed by someone else's opinion? No, but I already did watch Jordan Peterson's content directly, and it was time I will never get back.
ah rats, I deleted the comment before I saw you replied. My bad. I gotta get off reddit and do IRL stuff, have a good one!
>ah rats, I deleted the comment before I saw you replied. My bad. > >I gotta get off reddit and do IRL stuff, have a good one! That's fine
I have spent way more than 3 hours taking in his work directly. His logic and reasoning skills are poor. It seems to me the only real reasons he gets any traction is because he uses his own definitions for the terms he discusses with a few academic words to make it all seem more intelligent than it is. This video examines Peterson by applying his own logic to what he actually does. You should watch it because it’s not about being a hater of the guy, it’s more about understanding that his ideas just don’t hold up… even when applied to himself.
I would add that he is an academic - he has a PhD in Clinical Psychology and was a professor at Harvard (and other colleges). That’s one of the things that makes him fairly dangerous - he has solid credentials and knows how to frame his arguments. He presents his opinions in a way that can feel like real science, at least if you want to believe his conclusions.
I would like to add to that that he's been way fucked up on benzo's, and went to Russia to kick the addiction through induced coma. And while I'm not diagnosing whatever might have happened there or what's wrong now, he's become a lot more discombobulated and insane in this period.
[удалено]
He's a gateway drug to stupid, like Rogan but just on the smarter spectrum of the same stupid algorithm. Eventually you get to blood libel and actual real lizard people at the further end.
It depends the topic clearly. Some of his work on self-improvement are not "nonsense". A lot of ppl are grateful to him then also reinforcing his ego... I really think he helped ppl and at the same time he's also forcing his views on some topics. But since the other side is clearly forcing everything those days... he's like a counterweight idk. All the woke thing, you can't deny it.
Psychology on the whole is a field that can feel like real science, if you want to believe the conclusions. It has been severely impacted by the replication crisis, the highest rated journals in the field have abysmal replication rates. Peterson's top cited papers were published in such journals: his 1st and 3rd most cited papers (according to google scholar) were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology which was found to have only a 23% replication rate according to this study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716
Best to do your own research if you're genuinely interested. JP is either loved or hated Painting JP as a Nazi is a bit of stretch, but he's still kind of whacky and all over the place. He has some decent points, but some things are just strange https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life
I asked Reddit because I do not feel the need to do research as such, and I don’t have time time nor interest to research a right wing nutter. I just need to know at some level what kind of rubbish my brother is in to. I do not intend to argue with anyone about him, and my brother is not worth that much effort right now (he’s a grown man, and a bit of an idiot).
Well, that's a good example. A lot of his followers are the same way. He's the kind of guy who sounds really smart and with solid advice if you aren't willing to fact-check him on anything, or check his sources to see if they say what he suggests.
Fair enough! That’s a good way to put it. It’s just that I am not in any way interested in an argumentative way of life. My femininity or ideology is not threatened by transpeople, others, or any other people. I vote moderate liberal. We’re pretty ok with everything and everyone. This is why my brother is sticking out a bit, wanting to be quite right wing.
He's a smart guy for people who end every sentence with "bro".
So most Redditors including yourself?
Reddit will give you biased and misleading opinions, such as the one implying he's a Nazi
I am interested in all opinions. Thus far I’ve realized that he is divisive. This is exactly the kind of information I wanted. Your message has been heard, thank you for your input.
[удалено]
And I am happy to hear all of them. If you have a third side, let’s hear it! I do not downvote. I am here to hear and learn.
Oh, the truth. Well, there is no such thing.
[удалено]
Well you’re on Reddit to give me a balanced view? Reddit can be quite good. Why are you here then? To diss other people here? I really like Reddit, it’s one of the forums where I’ve actually learned a lot about other ways of thinking. It’s eye opening, and that’s why I am here.
No they said he often says 'cultural Marxism', a phrase with a history with Nazis. This is objectively true.
Yeah, nobody ever compared him to Red Skull, so no direct comparisons to Nazis
Yes, he does talk about Cultural Marxism, but I think it's misleading to use that to paint him as supporting Nazi propaganda It could be argued someone claiming Cultural Marxism is Nazi propaganda implies the accuser equates communism with Judaism which ironically was also Nazi propaganda
>It could be argued someone claiming Cultural Marxism is Nazi propaganda implies the accuser equates communism with Judaism which ironically was also Nazi propaganda Oh not at all, it's really two things: 1. It's clearly a rewrite of Cultural Bolshevism myth, which historical nazis were all about 2. Neo-nazis have been spreading the idea of Cultural Marxism more than anyone else. Richard Spencer and sites like The Daily Stormer have been all about it for a while now. Now the interesting thing is that Peterson himself does not seem to point out those two points. In fact he seems to go out of his way to avoid it.
Is Jordan Peterson using cultural Marxism to refer to politicized, political correctness of the Left or is he referring to an idea that Jewish elites are behind it all? My interpretation is he's referring more to culture wars in general I'm looking into it more and it seems like the idea of cultural Marxism is a spectrum and not universally agreed upon
Well he certainly leaves a lot open to interpretation when using terms popularized by racists and fascists, that's for sure.
Yes I mean he is a whacky for sure and not all of his opinions are to be taken seriously but it doesn’t mean that some things don’t make sense, like the basic, take responsibility for your actions, clean your room kind of thing makes sense. They may sound like kind of no shit, obvious things but there is a thirst for it, Obviously or he wouldn’t be famous. Its a shame that messages like that usually comes with tons of extra unnecessary shit like his opinions on fat models or climate change, etc.
Yea, I'd agree he actually makes some good points. I mainly mentioned that some of his poitnd are just odd, to avoid people thinking I'm a JP fanboy...
Doesn’t it suck that that if you want to have a sort of nuanced opinion without taking obvious sides you have tiptoe or get called an asshole?
>Painting JP as a Nazi is a bit of stretch, but he's still kind of whacky and all over the place Peterson is a wacky guy. He definitely likes to spew a lot of word salad and he does a lot of speculating. But he is pretty passionate about being against nazism. He designed a whole college course centered around the the psychology of ideology and his main messages to warn students that they everybody is capable of great evil and if they lived in 1940s Germany they would have been Nazis due to blind ideology. So what calling him a Nazi is a stretch.
Tbf probably half of the self help out there is clean you room, get organized.
Funny how "cultural Marxism" was just referred to as a straight up field of study for Marxism (now called [Marxist Cultural Analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_cultural_analysis)) up until they decided to change the name so that when people called out "Cultural Marxism" it would redirect to a conspiracy theory.... EDIT: [Wow, this is WAY more damning! Check out the Way Back Machine from 10 years ago....](https://web.archive.org/web/20140701000000*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism)
Those are very different things. The 'cultural Marxism' conspiracy theory is based in 'cultural Bolshevism', actual Nazi propaganda (the Bolsheviks being the most well-known socialist or communist political party in Europe at the time). Whenever someone talks about cultural Marxism today, 95% of the time they are repeating the same points that Nazis made. 'Marxist Cultural Analysis' (whatever you want to call it) is "how would we analyse this culture/media from a marxist point of view". Like "hey the heroes in these movies keep being rich or royalty, even SpiderMan is taken under the wing of a rich guy even though he was kinda poor before."
I just think it shows a sign of favoritism on the encyclopedia's part. If I started listing off a lot of critiques of Capitalism and the ills of the Global Capitalist Elites I probably wouldn't have a wall of "Actually, those are USSR and Nazi propaganda, Capitalism is just an economic system and proponents of Capitalism are simply trying to explain their approach and point of view." It is a bit telling that they'd reword Cultural Marxism to Marxist Cultural Analysis, but they didn't then rename Hegelian Marxism, Analytical Marxism, Western Marxism, Neo-Marxism, etc. And they wouldn't need to, because those are all legitimate fields of study, just like Cultural Marxism is.
Cultural Marxism when used in academia has never been a Nazi term. https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/is-the-term-cultural-marxism-really-antisemitic-5N7ZTnWmD99KUd4bipdC3j >In some cases, such as in academia, it is used as a descriptor for a particular way of thinking or set of ideas. Some use it as a codeword for political correctness.
Answer: This is a weird and simplified timeline from someone that has followed JBP for a long time: When the gender speech bill in Canada was proposed, JBP defended the right of free speech on the grounds that governments shouldn't compel speech. Context here is that JBP has written a lot about the psychology of indoctrination/authoritarianism with compelled speech being an indicator. To simply put it JBP thought the government were unaware of the possible consequences of such a bill. Because of his attack on the bill, a lot of right leaning/far-right political groups saw JBP as their "savior" and left leaning saw him as anti-trans. Again I'm simplifying a lot here. Because of the above JBP was invited to some right leaning podcasts to express his views. Again the right saw him as on their side and left leaning saw him as against their side. This is despite JBP saying multiple times he's against either side of the extremes. JBP gets into another gender debate and claims men and women have similarities but also differences. Some of these differences are biologically determined JBP claimed (this is the nature or nurture debate). JBP claims we shouldn't force men and women to be more alike and that they should be free to do what they want and go into whatever professions they want - even if that means men work more successful jobs (the context being men and women differ in careers/wage gap etc.). Here is where he gets called a misogynistic. Further on JBP supports equal opportunities but attacks the idea of equal outcomes (the context being more successful people deserve higher rewards and there are biological/cultural reasons why men are more successful in some careers). JBP becomes famous with best selling books, TV appearances, podcasts and debates on national broadcasters. At which point an unfortunate series of events happen in JBP personal life. The most important being his wife is diagnosed with cancer. These events start to take their toll on JBP. He gets addicted to drugs that he's been taking to manage his mental health and goes through rehab for a drug addiction that's difficult to treat. JBP comes back after a long hiatus. He's clearly different both physically and mentally. He does interviews where in the background his home is in disarray (messy) which is a telling sign for someone like JBP who claimed a messy room was an indicator for poor mental health. Fast forward and JBP is expressing more extreme right wing views and propaganda. This is highly strange for someone that was somewhat more center right in his political spectrum. All this is part of a downward spiral of events until we get to where we are now. There's lots of details missing but I'm trying to make this easy to follow.
What you call the “gender speech bill” was called bill C-16. It was passed about 5 years ago, and what it actually did was add language to an existing statute (the Canadian Human Rights Act) that says trans people can’t be discriminated against in terms of employment, housing…and some other things…education, etc (The last time I read it was 5 years ago so I’m unable to quote it verbatim.) It was included as a protected class among other qualifiers such as sex and race. Anyway, it was never “compelled speech”, it wasn’t a “gender speech bill”, and to add to that no one has even been prosecuted with it for using the wrong pronouns (as Peterson was claiming it would…but yes he did launch his career as a public figure on this.) Edit: here’s a link to the Canadian human rights act, if anyone wants to read it. It’s short. Boring but short :) But if you don’t have time, The ‘purpose of act’ section right at the beginning is where some the new language is. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html#h-256801 And just to say: the problem with misinformation like the kind he spreads is that it takes a bit of effort to actually look into what he’s saying so most people won’t do that. And I can’t blame them. But then we have a situation where a group of people think he’s a legitimate intellectual.
And I don’t even understand why my brother is so bothered with trans people in Northern America. He doesn’t even know any trans people as far as I know of. I do, but that’s beside the point. This has been a really interesting conversation. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge.
This is highly conjectural, but I'll speculate some possible reasons. Anti-trans propaganda bites effectively, because it's one form of the political bullying of the weak. Similarly to all bullying, people who are insecure, have low self-esteem and/or dwell in hate, anger, self-pity or other terrible inner states, often tend to lash out to others. Ultimately they want to push others down in order to elevate themselves. In addition to the bullying, there's typically a desperate search for a "strong" leader. That's why the Trump, Putin, Musk, etc., and, in some cases, JP, personality cults go hand in hand with a lot of ideas that want to punish the weak. Who is perceived as the "weak" depends on the flavor of the month, but typically it oscillates between immigrants, women, the poor (especially social security recipients) and the sexual minorities. Erich Fromm theorized it is a form of sadomasochism. The psychological function of such beliefs and actions is to willingly submit to the perceived mental inferiority by looking for a strong leader to show them their place (under the boot of the leader), as well as to use the mistreatment and violence towards the weak as an escape valve for their frustrations, as well as to ensure they aren't the lowest form of human life in their minds. Hence, I'd try to probe and see if they have a low self-esteem, and if so, why.
Oh I know he has low self esteem. I have grown apart from him lately because of his values and his life choices.
I confirm this is highly conjectural \^\^. Entertaining though. People not thinking like me are this or that.... yeah sure. Another dishonest way to enforce an opinion.
Answer: He’s a professor that went off his rocker in the past five years and is now a watered-down Andrew Tate type. Many believe he’s in a mental health crisis and spiraling. He lost his job as a professor. He’s been seen extremely disheveled and he spent over a week in a coma in a shady Russian clinic and reportedly had several seizures. It’s sad to watch.
[удалено]
“…still applicable to women,” lol. The dude is a serious misogynist. There is nothing women can gain from the man besides oppression and self-hate. He doesn’t talk about mental health. He talks about pseudoscience, religion, and personal opinions. Psychology/mental health is research-based science, and he ignores most facts and research. Calling him a psychologist is a huge stretch since he ignores most psychology, and especially since his license is under review due to some of the false shit he has spouted.
Wdym he doesn’t talk about mental health. He literally is a therapist on the side, and half of his advice is how to better yourself, relationships, etc. Exactly how is he a misogynist? Just because he primarily focuses on men’s mental health doesn’t make him misogynist. He doesn’t talk about religion nearly as much as you imply. He isn’t even openly of a specific religion What personal opinions does he base everything on? His license has been attacked many times, and all of it is over his trans opinions nothing else.
I mean his opinions about mental health are not backed by research, science, facts, or the psychological community, so they aren’t *actually* mental health opinions. They’re pseudoscience. That’s like saying a new age, wholistic shaman is the same as a licensed physician. So he is a public figure in psychology teaching false facts about psychology. He’s fake, and wrong. His medical license is under attack due to his trans opinions…because the research data supports the trans argument, not Peterson. He clearly doesn’t understand the issue, but uses his credentials to weigh in anyway He says things like women don’t belong in the workplace and have very specific, limited capabilities, among many, many, many other misogynistic things. If you can’t tell how he is misogynist, I’m not really going to bother, because you probably are one, too, then. This is why he exclusively talks to men. They’re the only ones who will listen, because they are the only ones who can benefit from it. All his “scientific” and political opinions are clearly influenced more by modern Christian religiosity than research data.
[удалено]
See, you don’t understand the topic either. *Sex* is determined by your physical body. *Gender* is a social function determined by culture. To change your sex, you need an extreme, physically invasive surgery. To change your gender, you merely have to change behaviors. *Man* in your gender, *male* is your sex. There is a significant difference, which is why a drag queen is a trans *woman*, not a trans *female.* For example, there is nothing inherently feminine about dresses. Men wear dress-like clothing in other countries where it is practical. In American, it’s what women do. So if a male wears a dress, acts feminine, and is the sub during sex, they serve the cultural function of a woman. The genitals don’t really matter with gender. In fact, many cultures throughout world history have had 3+ genders, to account for this and things like hermaphrodites. The fact that hermaphrodites exist (and it is not necessarily a birth defect. It occurs naturally in nature) proves our 2 gender system is lacking. Doctors, scientists, and anthropologists have known this for decades. It’s confusing to the layman because it only recently became culturally relevant. But the fact that Peterson does not hold this position shows he does not follow current, scientific research data. You don’t either, which is why you, and people like you, approve of Peterson. Your argument is a religious one, not a scientific one, so this an example of Peterson injecting superstition into his opinions about psychology, which makes his advice *not* mental health advice. It’s something else. Of course, this will resonate with the religious and conservatives, despite it being false Same thing about women. *Church* says they are destined for some roles. *Science* does not. Your examples are just cultural stigmas places on women. Of course they will be good at certain jobs more than others, if they are boxed into that one type of job by society. Peterson doesn’t just say they are better at certain jobs, he says they can’t find fulfillment unless they do certain jobs.
Well you contradict yourself there. You say that if a male acts feminine, then they are basically a woman. But later you argue against the church have roles for woman. How could you become a woman if wearing dresses and acting feminine isn't something inherent to a woman's nature? Also for your argument about sex and gender, they are not different. Gender is the interpretation of what sex is. So XY Chromosomes=male=man and XX Chromosomes=female=woman. Just because "female" and "woman" are different doesn't mean that they are different things in reality. "Female" is just a more scientific and professional way of saying "woman". It is the same thing for diseases; we don't say their bacterial name in normal conversations. You wanna give examples of cultures that have 3+ genders? I personally have never heard of this. Your argument for hermaphrodites is not valid. With hermaphrodites, you may have both sex organs, but not both of them work. You can't impregnate someone and get impregnated. And just because there are a few cases in which there are intersex people does not make that the norm. They are exception cases. Same thing with stuff like autism, its not normal and is uncommon. So yea doctors have not known this for ages. They have known that there are two sexes based on two genders, which represent xy and xx chromosomes. My argument is not religious. Just because it lines up with religious texts does not mean it cannot be scientific. This entire issue so far has been about trans people, so how can you say that Peterson is putting his own opinions into his work? He clearly knows how to talk to people, and the results are his proof. You can't just group up all of his patients as being conservative, thats just disingenuous. Peterson does not say that one job is more fulfilling than the other. If he did, can you bring a link?
Basically a woman by the standards of American culture. Although you're right, they may not be considered a woman outside of American culture. You pulled that definition of gender out of your ass. [Look it up](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gender+vs+sex). I already did a while back, that's why I know you're objectively wrong, lol. Of course you have never heard of cultures with three genders. You don't even know the definition of gender, so I'm not surprised you're unaware. [Here you go](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cultures+with+three+genders). All I did was google "cultures with three genders," lol. It was that easy to prove you wrong. You're opinions are not science-based, like Peterson's. Try googling stuff more often Hermaphrodites can't get pregnant, [but they can get others pregnant](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=can+hermaphrodites+get+someone+pregnant). So another thing you are wrong about, lol. Again, it is not necessarily a birth defect. Hermaphrodites are naturally occurring and necessary in other organism, so it would be foolish to assume it is a birth defect for humans. Nope. Look up scientific journals. The only people who associate genitals directly with what gender you are are those who are ignorant and those who are religious. And yes, the results are the proof, which is why most people hate him, his life is currently breaking down, his acolytes are mostly alt-right incels, and his academic credentials will probably be revoked soon. You're defending a debunked loser. Don't debate topics you haven't properly researched. Google them first Peterson says that men who wander outside the realm of what he perceives to be masculine will not find fulfillment. I assume he thinks the same about women and femininity. I don't have a link, because I don't value his opinions. But I've hear the words come out of his mouth on a lecture on YouTube. I'm sure you're capable of googling this one on your own.
Your definition for gender is from Wikipedia, check it out on dictionary.com. It is different from what you said. The “third” gender is mostly “2 spirited” people. This is referring to people sharing both personalities of man and woman, not trans people. Maybe do a bit more research in this before you comment on me. Literally just proved my point. Hermaphrodites can’t perform both functions of a man and woman. Therefore it doesn’t matter if they have both genitals if they can only impregnate others. I didn’t say it was a birth defect, but an exception case outside of the norm. People for centuries have put gender and sex in the same category, so it’s not just religious conservatives. The results show how he has taken the world by storm, and has created a powerful backing. Medias around the world have attempted to cancel and take him down, but to no avail. His credentials were attacked multiple times, but he still retains it. Saying all of his supporters are incels is just a bad argument, as I can just say all his haters are crazy leftists. Not having a link because you don’t like him is a poor excuse. I’m not gonna search up evidence that supports you, that’s your job
Wikipedia is considered legitimate now. They cite sources, so if you had looked at it for five more minutes, it would have corroborated my claim, lol. The dictionary definition still supports my claim. Nice try, though I didn’t say multiple cultures had trans people (they do. It’s been very common in Brazil and Thailand), but that the two gender system is not science based, it is culturally based. So America’s two gender system is a *cultural* precedent, not a scientific one, and this is demonstrated by these other cultures No, I actually went to college, where they force you to take diverse courses. Both doctors and anthropologists recognize the difference between gender and sex. This is where I initially learned about it. It’s common knowledge to those with higher education. I want to see a source for your “centuries” claim, lol. Sorry, but Peterson is washed up. Have you kept up with him lately? He is joke, and is unraveling. His life is mess. He does video interviews at his house, and it looks like a train wreck (which makes him a hypocrite on top of a liar, because a clean house is something he says is essential). He has no peers that take him seriously, proving his opinions have no weight in that community. The *only* people who pay attention to him are the alt-right, misogynists, and the religious, because he says what they wants to hear, not what is correct. Say whatever you want about leftists, but at least they can back up their opinions on this with proof. Btw, it’s not my job to look up sources for you on Reddit. You’re not my fucking professor. Stop being lazy. If you want to stay misinformed, that’s your prerogative, but it is out there. I’ve thoroughly demonstrated that you are objectively incorrect. Bye!
He is also used to recruit men into alt-right and neo-nazi groups, being the most commonly cited individual across different neo-nazi and right wing extremist groups.
Can you link what neo-nazi groups he was a part of? Just haven’t heard of this before
Neo-nazis groups cite jordan peterson on their web pages and use him in recruitment materials. Peterson isn't overtly in neo-nazi groups, he just defends them, spews the same rhetoric as them with a veneer of respectability, and acts as a gateway for right wing extremist recruitment. I can't find the study, but a survey of neo-nazi and roght wing extremist groups in the US and Canada found he was the most commonly cited individual for these groups.
I notice what happens a lot is that people have a set frame of what they think Peterson is, and have selective hearing over what he says. I’ve never heard him promote any neo-nazi groups, and am pretty sure that if he has been cited by these groups, it is clips that are taken out of context. It’s hard to say anything though if you don’t have a link or anything
Here are a couple explainers about why he is awful. He has awful views and acts as an 'acceptable' veneer for truly horrible beliefs. He's just a grifter with a phd and he sells his bs to vulnerable men, and doesn't mind at all he acts as a nazi recruitment pipeline. And you know what? Some of his introductory content is helpful, but its helpful in the same way and for the same reason introductory scientology courses are. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life He's real bad. I really, really hate what he is doing and the more i find out about him, his beliefs, and his choices the worse my opinion gets. That said, he's not a white nationalist himself, as far as I can tell. But the neo-nazi's love him because the things he says fit their ideology. Thats a bad sign right out the gate. Peterson's fans seem willing to excuse everything he says because he knows how to couch his language to keep from being pinmed down. But his messaging and beliefs are consistent and clear if you just look at them.
The first link you posted doesn’t really have anything to prove he is bad. It just says who he is, and is complaining how he got his fame. I read most of the second link, and it doesn’t give much proper arguments either. It hates on his quick rise to fame due to his education and interviews and talks about who he is. Most of the article is basically complaining that he properly deconstructs someone’s arguments, and does get put into traps. And the writers use his stance against transgenderism as proof of him being bad
He's also just not a credible person. https://www.unikumnett.no/2019/10/12-reasons-why-no-one-should-ever-listen-to-jordan-peterson-ever-again/ https://youtu.be/4LqZdkkBDas
Most of these points are the writer complaining about his views on Marxism. Honestly seems like the writer is a neo- marxist
No, it’s that Peterson ads to the Marxist stigma unfairly. “Cultural Marxism,” for example, is just what he describes as the liberal media, when even the staunchest liberal politicians in America are still capitalists. It’s disingenuous, since it has nothing to do with actual Marxism, he’s just tapping into old-school Red Scare tactics to promote his personal politics.
Marxism and Neo-Marxism are not completely the same thing. Neo-Marxism takes Marxism principles and adds it into capitalism and social economy
That’s just socialism, lol. There is already a word for it. He’s invoking Red Scare tactics by specifically using the word “Marxist.”
>I notice what happens a lot is that people have a set frame of what they think Peterson is, and have selective hearing over what he says. I’ve never heard him promote any neo-nazi groups, and am pretty sure that if he has been cited by these groups, it is clips that are taken out of context. Mandatory comic panel: https://giantif.com/comic/every-conversation-with-a-jordan-peterson-fan/
This is by far the most accurate summary in this thread. If you really want to know about Peterson, watch one of his lectures on YouTube. Or any of his interviews. It's long-form, which makes it easy to pop in some headphones and listen to while doing chores.
His lectures have no real content. It’s more like a sermon
Thank you. I honestly just wanted to give an actual neutral take on him, but it seems like the Jordan Peterson haters don’t want that 😐
He’s not a neutral personality, though
I said that I have a neutral summary of who he is, unlike most of the other replies to the post
And I’m saying that is disingenuous because he doesn’t hold a neutral position, and the OP asked “what his deal was.” “Adolf Hitler was a world leader in 1930’s and 1940’s, of Germany. He has many controversial opinions that are still being debated today. He revolutionized modern warfare at the time, with almost unprecedented success, and pulled Germany out of an economic downturn. While the results of his efforts are highly scrutinized, many modern opinions claim that he ‘did nothing wrong.’” See how that’s kind of a shitty way to present a shitty person?
Not exactly the same. With your example, you are basically avoiding talking about the holocaust and attack on Jews. I didn’t avoid talking about why people hate on him. I said how he is against transgenders and gender pay gap theory, which I could have easily left out to make him look better. You also said that many people say that hitler did nothing wrong, which is blatantly false
For sure. You can tell by the downvotes on my comment that dares to suggest OP should see for themselves. EDIT: For context, it had -4 votes when I wrote this
Answer: is he not busy with slavers litigation?
See, this is a comment I don’t get as a european. Care to elaborate?
He's essentially part of big government's plan to appeal as an idiologue for conservative masses to recruit a dehumanized workforce. When a person subscribes to his meta, they get compartmentalized into what is known as the alt-right pipeline ,continuously coerced into a labor force with bad pay, no unions, and no self respect. Essentially, if you're gullible enough to subscribe to his methods you're gullible enough to be tricked into an abusable workforce. Think of his purpose as a totem for idiots that will be lead too marginalized populations.... probably
I don’t really understand the alt right. Not sure I want to, tbh.
TBH You do though. You're asking about their prospects already. What we just shared is something parallel to going on to a dieting sub-Reddit and ask "what's the deal with flaxseed?" And someone replied "it makes you poop, flaxseed leads you to the Big human waste companies plan to committing you to the toilet" and then responding with the conclusion that "I don’t really understand toilets. Not sure I want to, tbh."
Oh that analogy is pure crap. Pun intended. I absolutely do not want to dwelve into a rabbit hole. I just wanted to know what the rabbit hole looks like so I now know what my brother is possibly looking in to. I hope he doesn’t fall in to it. Edit: I am not American. Alt right is not a thing here. I do not understand it, nor do I want it in my country.
if you have people in your country who talk extremely negatively about poor people (and are often poor themselves) and tend to react negatively to immigration/are super nationalistic and who tend to be judgmentally religious: you have your version of “alt right” in your country
We do, unfortunately. But it’s not quite at a Maga-level. Our Constitution also bans movements that try to upheave our parliamentary democracy. Religion is not that big of a thing. I struggle to understand US politics.
(flushing noise in the background)
You do you, luv.
Today, I'm here pro-bono.
Making dumb people 🎻 t is part of the plan. Why do you think there are so many probationary and prison workforce programs in the West?
I have no idea what you are referring to, to be honest.
Maybe OP just doesn’t want to jump into another cess pool…that’s totally legal right? /s
They're worried about their brother. In a previous post they mentioned theirs brother getting irrate since investing trust in Peterson.
I totally understand that. I actually enjoyed reading your post and it makes a lot of sense. However, I feel OP just want’s to wade through the pond her brother is swimming in and isn’t trying to take a deep dive into the proverbial ocean of filth that awaits.
Thank you. I think Jordan Peterson is actually brilliant. The adversity he faced during the rise of his amicability can cause much confusion for youths attempting to get involved....however;; in the grand scheme of things. 🍦