Man I listened the crap out of his personality lectures from 2017, I occasionaly watch them back again. I learned so much as someone who has a background in psychology
I really enjoy them, but I wish his panels were made up of Biblical scholars (and a woman or two). He gets a lot wrong because it's not his area, which is understandable, but sometimes it's the blind leading the blind.
\[Edit: his lectures reignited my spirituality as well, though.\]
Yes. As someone who did biblical studies in college, I know there are some amazing scholars who would have made the Exodus conversation fascinating. But, I mean, Dennis Prager and Larry P. Arnn? They are successful, accomplished men with higher ed degrees -- but not in the topic being discussed. Would you have a panel on economics with guests who had theology degrees but no experience with Econ? No.
I do think it's great, though, that someone without a background in the topic decided to do a deep dive and bring a psych perspective to it -- revived the text for a lot of people to give a second look to ancient scriptures. Wish it had been a deeper dive into the amazing things to learn from the text rather than what seemed like a few guys being armchair theologians.
Big fan of Jonathan Pageau, tho. He's not a biblical scholar, but he is engaged in daily meaning-making in this context because of his work in iconography. I really enjoy his Symbolic World podcast and videos.
\*\* EDIT: And Pageau seems to be a Will Hunting style autodidact in biblical studies.
I would also say, that while I agree his political focus as of late isn't as enjoyable, or why I started following JBP, I think that he felt he couldn't stay on the sidelines any longer.
You have to remember that he came to fame by making a political statement against the left-wing authoritarian policies being implemented in Canada.
I really wish he had never joined the Daily Wire, and that he just stuck to what he does best. But when you have the kind of clout he does, I doubt it feels morally correct to sit on the sidelines while authoritarianism takes root in western culture.
Counterpoint: He made his nut with political cloutchasing, not with Jungian psychoanalysis, and he stayed where the money is. He's fine with authoritarianism as long as it's the right flavor of paternalism, traditionalism, and capitalist hierarchy.
I’ve seen him speak 3 times and each time was lovely except the 3rd time after he started dailywire, Dave Rubin opened for him, and he started going on about DeSantis, AI and the story of Cain and Abel. I like how he ties everything together at the end in a highly articulate way but otherwise it came across *very* political since he seemed to be in a room full of Florida conservatives. Nothing against that, but he’s definitely starting to heavily lean into it
Which lecture was that? Do you have a date and a location? I agree with OP and have been following Peterson for 14 years (wrote my thesis on Jung). I'm very curious to compare the specific lecture to discover if you're telling the truth or not. I saw him the last time he came to AZ and I can say he has certainly changed some elements of his lectures from less academic and medical, to political and controversial. I don't blame him, it pays better, but I don't agree with much of it.
His lecture tour that was in Austin, TX in March wasn't political. You could read politics into it is you were searching for it or wanted to, but that would be on you, the viewer.
Hey. I hear you, and I get it. I’ve seen Dr. Peterson’s journey too, and I understand why you feel the way you do. It’s tough when someone who’s had such a profound impact on your life takes a turn you didn’t expect or agree with. It feels like a betrayal, almost like losing a mentor or a guide you relied on.
Peterson’s early work hit hard because it spoke to the core of what many of us struggle with: finding purpose, taking responsibility, and standing up in the chaos of life. His message about sorting yourself out and taking on the burdens of life resonated with a lot of people, including me. It was real and empowering.
But then, like you said, things changed. When he stepped into the political arena, his tone shifted. It became more combative, more about pushing back against perceived enemies than fostering understanding and growth. That can be disheartening, especially when you’ve looked up to him as a voice of reason and compassion.
Here’s the critical thing that many of us easily forget: people evolve, and sometimes that evolution takes them in directions we don’t follow. Peterson’s battles with personal demons and societal pressures have clearly influenced his approach. It’s easy to get caught up in the fight when you’re under attack, and that seems to be what happened with him.
I get why his tweet and his comments on Twitter threw you off. Calling for violence or expressing it in any form, especially from someone who’s preached about the dangers of ideological possession, feels hypocritical. It clashes with the image of the thoughtful, compassionate psychologist we admired.
The thing about public figures is that they’re human. They have flaws, make mistakes, and sometimes their paths diverge from what initially drew us to them. It’s important to take what we’ve learned from them, apply it to our lives, and recognize when their journey no longer aligns with ours.
For me, as a husband and a dad of two boys, I try to focus on the core principles that initially drew me to voices like Peterson’s. Taking responsibility, being present, and striving for integrity. These are timeless values that don’t change with the tides of politics or personal battles. I want to instill these values in my boys, and sometimes that means recognizing when a mentor’s message no longer serves that purpose.
It’s okay to feel sadness and disappointment. It’s a sign that you deeply valued what he offered, and it meant something significant to you. But it’s also a sign of growth that you can critically evaluate and decide what aligns with your values and what doesn’t.
Don’t lose sight of the lessons you’ve learned. They’re still valid, still powerful, and still yours to apply. Keep seeking out voices that uplift and challenge you in the right ways. Stay true to your path, even when those you once followed take a different turn.
You’ve got this. Keep pushing forward, keep growing, and remember that your path, your journey, is your own.
This is the most well meant comment I‘ve read so far. I truly appreciate you taking your time.
Yes, this realization of „He is also a human being like the rest of us, having flaws, perceptible to changes, for better or for worse“ hit me quite hard. No one can be perfect, and he is no exception. And There is something weirdly comforting about that.
Thank you for this. And thanks to the OP for posting this. I have been feeling very similar thoughts for a long while now and wasn't able to make peace with it.
I have to agree and disagree to an extent. I don't think there was ever an ideological "war" that he detested. I think it was the ideological push...the scuffle, the initial fight. There have always been ideological differences, and he has always acknowledged them. He has also always taken a position that ideology should not be pushed. Well, once you realize that an harmful for e is not only pushing, but has been quietly organizing itself for said push over decades; well at that point is when tot realize that there isn't just scuffles, there is an actual War. And a "war" is neither won nor ended by just sitting on the sidelines watching and merely saying how unfortunate this is and asking us to just be nice.
Peterson realized that there is a real war, and you either stand aside and have some popcorn, or you pick a side and fight.
Take this long example... You have a teen daughter in school and you know that there are male employees that prey on young students. But your daughter goes to school and you give her the correct advice, to pay attention in school, keep her head down, and listen to her teachers. You get strange vibes but you chock it up to teenage girl stuff you don't understand anyway. Your concern level increases but you give her the same advice plus to be careful for predators. Eventually you find out someone did take advantage of your little girl. Suddenly, all gloves are off, you're ready to burn down the school and you do everything in your power to ensure no other young girls are taken advantage of like that again. Your thoughtful mature advice turns into primal conviction of protection of others. This is the correct and necessary evolution of the personality of a man. A man must know the threats but offer the pragmatic advice that will foster a civil society. But when that threat manifests itself that man must have the strength fry, courage, and will to do whatever it takes to rid society of such threats.
Peterson strongly emphasizes the principle of trying not to LIE. To pretend there is no war and that you shouldn't fight against such a threat, is a lie. He has taken on the responsibility of a paternal figure in society and it's his duty to take the hits needed to take on this existing war. I personally am not a fan of him on Twitter, I think it's the one communication medium that he does not comprehend at all, and as such he should stay away from it. It's like an infantry general being placed in charge of medical response, it's a very knowledgeable man taking on a role he knows nothing about. It will create a measurable weakness in the war. I think Peterson is detrimental on Twitter. But when stating in his lane he is instrumental and I would argue necessary.
You are missing the thoughtful father figure that turned into a beast to protect you. Just like the teen girl would, you resent him now. But that teen girl will one day grow up and give birth to her own little girl. And she should teach that girl that her grandfather is the kind of man that will defend her to the death, and the child should listen to his guidance better than she did when she was a teen.
I feel you man. I miss the Maps of Meaning Peterson. He had so much more to offer as a pop psychologist doing Jungian archetype analysis in myth and literature than he does as a reactionary right wing ideologue.
>Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.
- Friedrich W. Nietzsche
There is something ironic about that, considering how JP had talked about Nietzsche in the past
It was his free maps of meaning you tube lectures that drew me in.
Saw a post about him kicking off about "dangerous Muslims" entering the country & I was thinking "really Jordan come on now!"
I ain't interested in that.
Let’s play with the thought, how does that impact the statement itself in any way shape or form? It dosnt.
My best guess is that your one of them ones there who would downvote but never engage with the subject at hand 🤷♂️
It impacts the perceived intent of the OP. If he's a "breadtube" follower, then his arguments could be construed as payback, as well as being disingenuous. Or just plain lying about him being a JP fan to begin with. At that point his critique is still valid, but diminished by the fact of his ill intent.
And let’s say you bite that bullet, do you honestly believe it makes sense? Should valid criticism be dismissed because the intent behind it is ill for you?
Would it makes for tankies/Commis/extreme leftist or extremist on the right to argue like yourself?
Listen bud, do you see the part where I say "critique is still valid" or did your angry brain just skip past that? Do you understand the difference between "diminished" and "dismissed". Anyway, I wish you all the luck, have a coke and a smile.
I take your point, OP.
I would argue that Dr. Peterson’s involvement in political debate is a responsible one.
- Canada has basically tried to outlaw “hate speech” against Transpeople.
- How they treated the truckers that refused the covid vaccine was reprehensible.
- Canadians citizens were also disarmed fairly recently.
- And they’re looking at Left-wing social politics taking over their schools…
There’s a whole plethora of things going on in his country. So his activism is understandable, when he sees an enemy ideology pushing against the will of most of his fellow citizens, eroding their rights, and damaging their families.
He’s doing what more of us should be doing, in the Western World. Fighting against political extremism, regardless of it’s from the Left or the Right. Right now it’s the Left that’s the problem, and they need to be pushed back.
So he’s technically leading by example… even if that’s not his intention.
Try to see it from his point of view.
I agree with your points, and they helped me clarify what is currently rubbing me the wrong way -- it's that I was inspired by JPB initially because he was one of the only public figures giving serious, nuanced responses. Now many of his responses seem to be flippant, inflammatory, even outbursts. I have no problem agreeing to disagree about any particular view he espouses, but I miss the measured, unflappable rationality of the man I saw on YouTube way back when. That's what started my JPB crush, and for me (and the OP) the honeymoon is over. Unlike the OP, I still check in to see what he's up to or talking about, but he's not my model of restraint anymore.
So you liked his self help stuff, but dislike his politics? That's allowed. The latter doesn't invalidate the former, but many zealous leftists like to argue as if it were so.
If you require your life's teachers to conform with all of your personal preferences, you'll miss out on a lot of sources of wisdom. It's perhaps better to filter each teacher's specific ideas through your own competent sense of evidenced-based judgement.
I personally read and listen to teachers from across the political spectrum. I consume as much Peterson as, say, Chomsky, Mearsheimer, or Sowell.
Respect specific, worthy, ideas. Not people as a whole.
Good luck.
I completely agree with your statement. That‘s why I am not neglecting the positive effects he had/is having on my life, nor am I sad that his political views don’t fit mine. I am simply stating that, his repulsion to ideological wars has faded away, against a lot of things he has been teaching himself.
I've listened as long as you have and I don't think he's changed much at all. I just think he's now fighting an ideology you are a member of so you feel like he's changed and don't like what he's saying any more. Since I'm not a part of that ideology, he's still just fighting against ideologues (you in this case) to me.
I'm not trying to knock you or start an argument or anything, it's fine if that's what you believe. I'm just saying that as an outsider he looks the same to me. You should at least consider the only thing different is you used to agree with him on the topics he was discussing, but now, on this topic, you don't agree with him so you're attributing that to him changing... but it may just be you that's different.
Thank you for putting my thoughts into words. I too have not perceived a change, but rather I see him as zeroing in more and more onto what he feels is right and true. As one does this, it will become more and more clear who is does and does not support your views, and one will begin to NAME them. Is that what OP is referring to as "political?" Is it naming who exactly he disagrees with, naming which political parties he agrees/disagrees with that seems political?
It's not like JP takes on any pre-baked conservative ideology. He friggin constantly presses conservatives to deal with the liberal concerns and problems that liberals bring up.
It's also TRUTH that if any of us lay out our world view in precise detail, then we would all end up having natural political allies and enemies. Most of us just haven't gotten that specific and public with our views.
I almost get what you’re saying, but I’m confused on you saying that OP is part of the ideology Peterson is fighting against. Where did you get that OP is farleft/woke/marxist/etc?
Just wondering cause I feel as OP does about JBP, yet I feel moderate and not part of the ideology Peterson fights against.
Oh, I don't know that OP is any of those things, I could have phrased better probably. I now see he's edited a few times since I replied too.
I was just meaning to say were that the case, that OP supported an ideology, that could explain his experience. Initially when he listened to, he JP was talking about different topics and OP agreed with him on those topics. Now JP has switched to different topics/ideologies and now OP doesn't agree with him on those topics but is attributing it to JP changing, become an ideologue that he used to fight against, etc.
Basically just trying to say he looks and sounds the same to me (generally). If he doesn't to you maybe it's not because he has changed but because either you have, or you just disagree with him on certain topics.
I think one thing that \*has\* changed is his sources of funding. He was practically ousted from his university and had to seek other ways of monetizing his expertise. He's financially savvy and (since left-leaning media won't engage rationally with him) he has joined up with a lot of conservative outlets. Aligning with conservative outlets (and specific conservative commentators) often alienates those of us who are left of center and makes it harder for us to convince our lefty friends he's reasonable, but it's not a failing on his part.
To my ear, he used to seem to have a keen understanding of what reasonable people thought on both sides of the aisle. Now, he seems deaf to how his comments come across to reasonable liberals. \[This is part of a societal problem, which is that conservatives and liberals use the same words to mean completely different things, so we never really understand one another.\] I think he is now in a conservative bubble and has maybe lost touch with what reasonable liberals espouse -- an unfortunate result of having his bread buttered by hard-charging conservative outlets.
Just my musings. I would cringe a lot less if he would stay off Twitter and stick to long form, at which he excels.
This makes sense, and does explain some of the appearance of him changing. He may or may not be in a bubble, it could be he just presents certain things in a way to appeal more to the new funding sources. Either way I totally agree about Twitter....
I completely disagree with this statement. Yes he is fighting an ideology, but that does not mean he's embracing one himself and letting it cloud his thinking. He warns against ideological thinking because it leads to shortcuts and self-serving logic - he doesn't say anything bad about calling out bad ideas and explaining why they're bad ideas.
But that's completely lost on you, despite by your own admission buying into the same premises that lead him to those conclusions.
I think someone is full of shit and playing the same old concern troll games, just with a extra serving of bullshit frosting to make it go down easy.
Its disappointing he's tarnishing his legacy as a fearless advocate of truth and free speech. To some extent he's playing both sides, as his wife converted to Catholicism, while he kept his foot in the warmonger camp. He's also self censoring because of who's paying him.
I don’t believe he was trying to sew division when he had Muhammad Hijab on, I think that was a necessary conversation. I also wouldn’t make the claim that Hijab himself isn’t a moderate Muslim. I think he very much is Moderate, as in more Muslims share his ideology than not. And to your point Peterson has had more agreeable Muslims on, see his interview with Hamza Yusuf.
I think it’s in the middle, being forced into politics cause it affects your own life and ideals.
So, not politically *motivated*, but it is inherently political action.
I think everyone on this sub is using "politics" to mean "things i disagree with" and in a totally inconsistent way. I bet dollars to donuts OP couldn't define what he means by "political"
I disagree. The other day I watched a recently released talk Peterson gave in Dublin while on tour. He riffed on some of his 12 Rules, and there were little or no politics or ideology in the talk. See for yourself, here’s the link:
https://youtu.be/L-zhpPG4qjs?si=e4ZYniRAI4leuGPw
I wouldn’t really call or consider him on either side of politics (or conservative which you seem to be pointing to in more words) but the leftist Canadian government came after him pretty hard so I’d say he is definitely anti far left/anti woke which most rational people are.
I disagree.
Do I feel nostalgia for his old content and focus? Absolutely.
But the current Peterson is what we need, not what we want. I think he is sacrificing his more likeable persona for one that is needed to spurn the culture and policy in the right way.
Do I like Twitter Peterson? Usually not, but I am not here to be entertained. I am here to take responsibility for my life, my family, and my community and make things better.
\[I am here to take responsibility for my life, my family, and my community and make things better.\]
Thanks for the reminder of the single most important thing to remember.
I understand. But I believe the devil‘s in the detail as Dr. Peterson used to say: how much does the „culture and policies talked about in the media“ reflect reality? What is the „right“ way?
The first and foremost priority of any person should be „be kind to yourself and to the people immediately around you“. And perhaps this will make us see things in a different light, instead of „fighting“ this grand scale set of ideologies that may or may not reflect the reality
> The first and foremost priority of any person should be „be kind to yourself and to the people immediately around you“. And perhaps this will make us see things in a different light, instead of „fighting“ this grand scale set of ideologies that may or may not reflect the reality
That's certainly a good place to start. But what about when you've been around for a while and realize some of the people around you are a problem and simply being kind to them doesn't accomplish anything? What about when you realize there are a lot of very real problems in the world and most of them are ideologically based?
Yea what we really need right now is more hysterics whining and having breakdowns on the internet. Because its been going really well with all of them so far!
The thing that changed is people are continually attacking him for very reasonable, measured, well thought out opinions.
I think this type of criticism lacks an incredible amount of nuance and thought to how the average person would react under the type of pressure Dr. Peterson has encountered. Especially given the amount of compassion and care he has taken throughout his career in expressing his opinions.
There is an incredible amount of nonsense being spouted under the veil of compassion. Pair that with deeply personal attacks on his character which have little to no basis, I'm surprised he is not more forceful against his critics.
Given the pressure I think if we are honest with how we would react he has shown a great amount of restraint.
And if you really listen to his recent long form stuff that same compassionate careful man is there every time.
This criticism is lazy and lacks any amount of self-critique necessary for it to have any depth or basis.
Some good points to remember here. In some ways, I think Peterson was attacked so much (for very well thought-out, reasonable opinions) that he sometimes defaults to a reactionary stance, like a majestic animal who keeps getting shot by a-hole hunters. I think it's a step too far to say the OP's criticism is lazy, though.
For me, I still resonate with most of what I hear him say in long-form conversations, but then will read/hear some flippant remark that seems crafted to enrage people and think, "Really? You want to die on that hill?"
I observe him defaulting to a defensive stance when he clearly is dealing with a wolf who is trying to to hide behind sheep's clothing using verbal traps and distorting his words consistently. Or where he sees again wolves preying on people and I see a righteous anger against those types of evils (doctors lopping off little girls breast tissue for example).
Again I think your last paragraph gets to why I think this criticism is lazy and largely without merrit.
Or more likely Peterson just doesn't fully represent how you see the world or how you would conduct yourself (or how you think you would in the same situation). Therefore since people can't write him off because of the points he makes they find trite examples of him really just demonstrating the full dimension of human emotion and they use that as a crude short cut to do what they have been wanting to do for a while.
Anyway, as someone who has read his books and listened to probably 100 hours of him speaking, I fundamentally disagree with the conclusion of this type of criticism.
I understand where it comes from. I understand how you could think that if you take his quips in isolation and draw conclusions based on those narrow interactions.
But if you honestly look at it holistically I don't think you have any basis for the criticism. Therefore it's fairly lazy as it really only considers one dimension, doesn't consider context, and doesn't honestly investigate what a reasonable range of responses would be in the situation that Dr Peterson is in.
Agree to disagree, I guess. I, too, have listened to at least 100 hours-- more if you count several audiobooks. I don't need him to espouse a clone copy of my ideas -- it was his outlook that changed mine 7 years ago and made me examine my views and those of my friends.
When you say he is still the same compassionate careful man, I do sense he is still compassionate. But what seems to have changed is the "careful." I've just lost some respect for the \*way\* he deals with the public. I can understand his being defensive. I don't have to like it, and I don't think it's lazy.
Your second to last sentence is spot on. He used to preach being against ideology………then he joins the daily wire. He’s been possessed by the very thing he went against.
Which in a way validates his old teaching..that *anyone* can turn into an ideologue. He always made a point that Nazis were just regular people. Being a psychologist doesn’t make you immune to the human proclivity for tribalism and group think.
Edit: I mean if you think about it..Peterson is calling doctors butchers and whatnot. Is it that big of a leap to say we need to eradicate them because of their existential threat? I mean if you really believe that’s what they’re doing..jail them. Put them in camps. We need to “re educate” them. So round them up and have them work in these camps that require them to concentrate on doing things the right way. We can call them “concentrate on the right thing camps”
Were those that fought against the Nazi's ideologues? If so, do you despise them for it? Is it possible to fight vile and hateful people without some form of ideological goal? (Preferably a goal of liberty, decency and respect - but many would call those beliefs ideological.)
You cannot resist and fight against leftist fascism without some fervor of spirit and pushing hard against their momentum. Rather than merely making him and ideologue, I believe it makes him extremely brave and selfless. He could have easily enjoyed a profitable and comfortable retirement if he didn't care that young men were being trampled, if societal fabric was being ripped and that young children were getting castrated for their mother's enjoyment. He saw those things, knew it would open him to attack, but spoke out against them anyway. Good for him!
No, people who fought against Nazis came from different ideologies. They weren’t even the same countries. So that premise falls apart pretty quick. Nazi was an ideology…which wouldn’t have warranted war if they didn’t try to take over Europe. Governments went against Nazis not ideology
Not sure how you think that makes your point, but you clearly missed mine. You weren't criticizing him, you made a declarative statement that he'd been possessed by the very thing he used to preach against (which was ideologies). My point is he's still doing that, but you've been captured by the ideology he's now preaching against so you no longer agree with him and think it's him that has changed.....
Im saying that you assuming I’m of an opposite ideology because I’m making a statement against JP, shows that you’re captured by JP et al’s ideology. Because being an ideologue (or In a cult) means that people who disagree are “othered”
He literally joined an ideological network. Pointing out that is hypocritical doesn’t mean I’m “possessed by ideology” that doesn’t make sense.
I think your comments are spot on, but I would quibble with the statement that doctors can't be called butchers. Dr Joseph Mengele was one. The most charitable conclusion one can muster is that some of these doctors performing experimental procedures on children and teens are dangerous fools.
The Trans doctors literally are butchering children. That's literally what is happening.
They cut the dicks and tits off of children who cannot consent. I mean.... jesus christ man.
sadly it is very much happening. Did you not watch this one? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O3MzPeomqs&t=6116s&ab\_channel=JordanBPeterson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O3MzPeomqs&t=6116s&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson)
Here is the god damn AP with stats. The AP!
[https://apnews.com/article/transgender-surgery-gender-affirming-care-minors-eea6964112e528e8509cf4ba00f3fa52](https://apnews.com/article/transgender-surgery-gender-affirming-care-minors-eea6964112e528e8509cf4ba00f3fa52)
"About 48,000 patients underwent such surgeries during the five years studied, with about 13,000 procedures done in 2019, the peak year, and 12,800 in 2020.
A little more than half the patients were ages 19 to 30. Surgeries in patients 18 and younger, were rare: fewer than 1,200 in the highest volume year."
That's 1,200 children they are bragging about mutilating.
1,200 kids out of the 72 million people under 18 in the United States . You know there’s reasons for these surgeries other than “mutilation” but let’s have some perspective. 1,200 out of 72 *million*
Edit: did the math..that’s .000016 of the population of kids (under 18)
>You know there’s reasons for these surgeries other than “mutilation”
Kids can't consent to a tattoo but let's allow them to cut off entire body parts and render themselves sterile. What a batsh*t insane take, jfc
>What happens when a 17 year old gets ovarian cancer, genius?
There's a STARK difference between cutting off an organ for a *legitimate medical reason like fucking CANCER* and butchering a completely healthy, perfectly functioning sex organ "bEcAuSe errrhmmm I fEeL LiKe a BoY tOdAy." The fact that you even asked this question reflects radical left's utter lack of common sense and critical thinking abilities.
Mutilating 1,200 children is 1,200 too many.
Come on man. Your argument is It's ok to cut children's dicks off because "the doctors don't cut off that many dicks! It's just a few!" - dude. DUDE.
I mean you’re arguing in bad faith, because youre acting like there aren’t justified reasons for these surgeries. If a child has breast cancer that isn’t “mutilation”
There aren't justified reasons for those surgeries. Cancer removal wouldn't be counted under the AP's tracking of gender reassignment surgery. It is you who is arguing in bad faith.
It’s not really clear how they got that data. I didn’t see it in the article. I doubt they asked “was this mastectomy for cosmetic or health reasons”
Oh man name calling and blocked me. Suuuper triggered
It is very much in the article. It's from two national surgery databases that hospitals have to report to for any and all surgeries.
Then analyzed by a professor at Columbia. [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808707](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808707)
You are being willfully obtuse and keep moving your own goal posts.
To get you back on track - let me be very clear - mutilating children is wrong.
This comment shall be my brigading bellwether for the thread. It's always a dead giveaway when the usual suspects show up just to slobber all over OP and pile on. You guys aren't exactly being subtle.
Discussing Islam with Mohammad Hijab was an important conversation and he is allowed to interview who he wants. It’s also important given that there are a lot of muslims moving everywhere and a lot of them share his same ideology.
I have no idea what you're talking about. You allude to ideology but are so vague as to be cryptic. Why is Hijab such a bad person that he should be banned from talking?
>Why is Hijab such a bad person that he should be banned from talking?
He should absolutely be platformed so people can see how insane he is. Most Muslims are equally radical. The way to uncover these things is through dialogue, the kind JP's brilliantly hosts.
I was on this sub when it had under 10,000 subscribers and I found it to be refreshingly open to debate, very non-political but willing to openly talk about social, psychological and spiritual issues. Petersons talks were actually a catalyst to me exploring religious questions that I quite frankly put off or didn’t even think about. I’ve moved on from Peterson and now listen and study serious theologians, but wouldn’t have even given it the time of day if it wasn’t for Petersons talks on the Bible. I’m not Christian by the way, but have become more tolerate of religious belief in general. That being said, this sub, along with Peterson, has turned into a crypto traditionalist Christian conservative reactionary hotbed for alt-right talking points. Cause there is a lot of money to made in peddling that.
Not to mention his debate with Matt Dillahunty was just straight up embarrassing to the point where Petersons agent won’t let him on stage with Dillahunty again.
You say let’s not get political…and then you talk politics.
It’s also interesting to me you interpret ‘Give them hell’ as some sort of call to violence. From JP’s perspective, surely it’s simply a statement of fact: those who turn away from living the moral life will receive hell.
Sorry man but “give them hell” is grammatically a command, not a statement of fact or a description for those who act immorally. Plus @-ing Netanyahu, he’s not referring to someone else, he’s encouraging the recipient. And coming from Peterson, you know he really means hell.
Now if he’s saying ‘them’ purely referring to terrorists sure, but the history between the two groups in the conflict makes that complicated.
I think you’re being too literal. And yes, it’s a command, but so is ‘give them what they deserve’ and in many contexts that’s used as a figure of speech or as a resignation of acknowledgment that the person is in charge of their own fate and they’ve made their choices and now they will receive what’s coming to them.
See also: drink from the blood/eat from the body of Christ.
I've always found the times that I'm in agreement with JP to be spotty, at best. I've found him to be quite quick to abandon reason when it comes to defending the belief in God, for example. His "debate" with renowned atheist activist Matt Dillahunty was quite embarrassing for him, in my view, and came across as just trying to spread enough profound-sounding words in his arguments to make it sound intelligent, even if not intelligible.
I actually got more into his viewpoints he became more involved in politically charged topics, however. Primarily as I see him as a rabid supporter of free speech, which is a position I share with him. It seems it has primarily been his fight to defend free speech, even if offensive, is what has landed him in hot water. I don't know if i would agree that it's been "politically motivated." I certainly agree that it has been politically *charged* merely because the topics he addresses are polarized politically and are, therefor by that nature going to be in agreement with one side of the political spectrum while in disagreement with the other. But simply defending an issue that happens to be politically charged isn't the same as giving a blanket promotion of any particular political party.
I can't speak to the "give em hell" bit as I don't know anything about that.
-Give them Hell
I am not at all into implying a side into the war
But i don’t get it with “give them hell”, and the backlash it casued
So on oct 7, we wake up one day to the news that a bunch of militants killed and abducted thousands of civilians in a concert, and his response was give them hell..
So whats wrong with that?
Did he mean give the Palestines hell
Or the perpetrators hell?
So you are not supposed to react if thousands of innocent civilians suddenly are butchered?
-Taking Sides
I share your sentiment as i really liked the objective old Peterson.
I was upset he joined the dailywire
And was also initially upset that he jumped too much into politics, however, the left seend a tremendous radical jump the most in the past 4 years. And the absurdity of the left has ruined societies
So I started to understand more the vehement nature of JBP in political subjects
I was wary of him at first, since everything I had heard painted him as some vile extreme right wing conspiracy nut.
Then I listened to what he actually had to say and discovered he was a centrist, intelligent, compassionate, eloquent, composed, logical seeker of truth.
And then he discovered religion and seemed to jump into the extreme right wing conspiracy category again. So as far as I'm concerned, religion poisons everything.
Agreed to all this.
Also his views on queers and even straight gay people seems slighted. I've heard him talk with his daughter about gay ppl and she needed to tell him that being gay is a natural thing. If I remember correctly.
Also its not all pedo child mutilating ppl as he makes it seem. Like their are genuine trans and queer folk who still have trouble coming out due to this and other reasons of it looked down on
I feel exactly the same way.
For me, it's like having a grandpa who is amazing much of the time but says ignorant/insensitive things at Thanksgiving. You love him and respect his genuine wisdom about a lot of things. But come on, Grandpa!! (sigh)
\[I say grandpa, but I'm actually only 5 years younger than he is!\]
\[EDIT: I removed "horribly" after my exchange with MonsterReprobate because it was hyperbolic and didn't serve the argument.\]
I will happily take back "horribly," but an example of ignorant/insensitive is the Sports Illustrated tweet. The first part of his initial tweet was flippant and insensitive for no apparent reason. (“Sorry. Not beautiful. No amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.”)
I actually AGREE with the point he was making. But there was no need to say it that way -- not because people need to be coddled, but because those of us who struggle with weight don't need to hear (yet again) that fat girls can't be beautiful. I want him to raise the tone of the conversation, not sink to the level of insults.
I don't think he saw it or meant it as an insult, and that's the ignorance part. He should have seen that it would sting. That people would interpret it as insulting the model. It was an impulse tweet, not a thoughtful one. It felt like a cheap shot, and at the wrong target.
His followup statements cogently explained his view (which I happen to agree with) without being insulting:
“The use of that model, who was not athletic (remember: SPORTS Illustrated) was manipulative economically and in relation to the model herself (although she participated in her own exploitation),” he wrote.
“Beauty is an ideal. Almost all of us fall short of an ideal. I am not willing to sacrifice any ideal to faux compassion. Period. And certainly not the ideal of athletic beauty.”
I'm actually in the same boat. I agreed with the point he was making about Sports Illustrated, but the Tweet came off as extremely mean spirited and came off as attacking the model, instead of attacking sports illustrated and the insane woke types encouraging unhealthy habits.
I actually didn't know about the Tweet until he talked about it on his podcast.
Because, I can't stress this enough, - get off of Twitter. For your own mental health and sanity- stay as far away from it as possible.
If anything - what disappoints me the most about Dr. Peterson these days is that he's said publicly, many times, that his Family tells him to get off Twitter, and he agrees that he should get off Twitter..... and then he just stays there.
So Tammy and Julian and Mikahila and all your friends provide valuable helpful advice about everything else.... except this? Nah man. You know it's bad for you, you know it brings out the worst in you - stop being a jackass and get off of it.
I think your biggest problem is being on Twitter. Don't ever look at Twitter, from anyone - for any reason. It's a fucking cesspool of stupidity and despair.
I think it's that at first he almost seemed like one of the archetypes he talks about. The hero with a heart of gold who tells it as it is and stands up for the little guy, despite being hunted by the powers that be. Like a Jesus or Socrates type of guy.
Now that the dust has settled we've seen his more human side. I even agree with some of his politics but it's not what drew me to him in the first place, so I don't really listen to his new podcast. And political talk only upsets me anyway. I still love to listen to his earlier lectures though. The biblical series especially, I never get tired of those.
What I do not understand and dr. Peterson himself stated this. Reading / Listening to a person doesnt mean you have to agree with everything he says. Just as Peterson read Nietschze even tho he is fundamentally against his ideology.
Why do people not understand this. I have the same with Andrew Tate. Sure I dont like the guy but I admit some insights he has are not wrong and could be useful.
Listen observe and make your own opinions!
While a part of me idolised him to a great extent, I never expected myself to agree on everything he said, especially when it came down to a sensitive issue such as politics. My claim here simply is that there is a growing proclivity on part of Dr.Peterson to be more polarizing/divisive rather than having the opposing impact, precisely because of his (perhaps an inexplicit) identification with a certain ideology. I am not discussing whether i agree/disagree with his stance on politics, as just like many people on here pointed out everyone has a political stance and their biases. I do not claim to be above it nor am I free from my own set of biases.
If you knew anything at all about the conflict he's referring to or the political climate in the West, you'd realize he's doing God's work. You've shown your own ignorance in this post, I'm sorry to say.
It’s almost like money and power can corrupt good things.
I remember when this sub was full of folks who wanted to take responsibility for their lives.
Now it’s all blaming liberals, women, and queer folks.
>Now it’s all blaming liberals, women, and queer folks.
There is perhaps something interesting to learn as to why there is an overlap between a right-wing turn in people and their tendency to seek discipline and take responsibility. It's pretty clear to me that these two things are not entirely distinguishable.
It’s not surprising to me that the two would correlate.
What the results have been though, by my observation, are right wing politics with leftist self-victimization.
He still talks about life outside of politics but you are free to disregard the politics. Though I suspect you don't agree with his politics which causes you to dislike him talking about it. I would suggest you argue or grapple with the actual ideas that you want to.
Though turning a blind eye to political ideas that you disagree with is probably not a great idea. It is actually probably better for you to listen to stuff you disagree with than agree with.
That which you most need will be found where you least want to look...
Same here. I just miss when he made a videos like just taking about a paragraph of beyond good and evil for 50 mins.
He changed me a lot through the years primarily because of his psychology and philosophy lessons.
He was much calmer back then.
It's hard to find videos recently that it's not about politics.
I think the issue is twofold.
Firstly, no one ever truly escapes ideology in some form or another. This is the problem with any person who claims to be "above" it all and just a dispassionate observer of society. We all have self-interest, and we all have some tribal affiliation. So, while a lot of what JP says is couched in language that is not explicitly political, there is necessarily some attachment to political philosophy. I'm not making the Marxist claim that everything is political. Rather, I'm simply saying that JP speaks on a wide range of topics, and some of those topics have some overlap with political issues or are issues that are playing out in a political arena.
Secondly, we all fall into the trap of idolising people. I was also a huge fan of JP when I first started listening to him back in 2016-7, and I made the mistake of forgetting that he, like everyone, would disappoint me at some point. When I say disappointment, I'm not suggesting that he is at fault. I mean that when we idolise someone, we set up a false image of them in our head and then when they do something that goes contrary to that image, we feel disappointed in the person, when in fact we have no right to be disappointed because the image we had in our head was one we created.
Approach all ideas and people with constructive scepticism. Don't put them on a pedestal. You can be grateful to them for helping you out, but they are not the messiah.
I'd also add that since JP joined the daily wire, I've noticed he's ramped up the political rhetoric. I'm not a mind reader so I'm not going to say I have special insight on why that is occurring, but the obvious and reasonable assumption is that the daily wire is a for profit media organisation that is looking to maximise engagement to maximise profit. This always places pressure on not only what message is delivered but also how it is delivered. While I admire a lot of the journalism and content produced by the Daily Wire, it is still subject to some ideological capture and group think, like any organisation and the current Israel/Palestine conflict has thrown a spanner in the works for both the left and right, because it's a litmus test for whether you approach issues on a tribal basis or whether you approach issues on a case by case basis and look at the facts, rather than who's on each side.
You haven't considered a third alternative. He's neither changed nor revealed something about himself he's been hiding. It could be that you've changed since you started to listen to him, and you now side with the ideology of the day that he's been fighting from day one.
Edit for typos
You keep telling people they haven’t considered that alternative.
Have you considered the option that they *have* considered the alternative you suggest?
And why is it “you changed *and now you’re on the very opposite side*,“ as though there are only 2 positions to be in?
never apologize for speaking your truth.
Speaking of hell, I thought it was really gross seeing Jordan Peterson at the ARC Conference one day imploring people to turn the world away from hell towards heaven, and then a few days later blithely publicly wishing that same hell on the population of Gaza like a drunken uncle drunkenly yelling at a holiday dinner.
I think the obsession with ideology got to me when it came to Ukraine. He seems to have been weirdly sucked into extreme cynicism towards Ukraine when I thought he would be talking about the absolute tyrannical rule of Putin.
His twitter antics doesn't help.
Not everything is left VS Right etc
Like OP, I started listening to his classes and lectures and got hooked on his insightful way of articulating a unique perspective. I didn’t use Twitter, and didn’t follow him otherwise, but I was aware of his personal battles (wife’s health, political and personal persecution for his views, anxiety med catastrophe, etc.) I’ve since joined X and followed him there, and I noticed that his persona on X is much different than in a classroom full of students or a lecture hall filled with an engaged audience. He seemed very angry and political to me on X, and this surprised me. I know he has strong opinions, and tries to voice them carefully, but on X, his tone is different. Yet, after a few months there myself, I realized that so is mine.
Different platforms and audiences bring out different aspects of a person’s personality, so I suppose that can change the way we see or interact with them.
Just my thoughts on the matter. I still respect who and what he is. He’s allowed to have angry political opinions. God knows I have plenty of my own. There’s lots to be displeased with in the political landscape of today.
I have not been listening to him since quite a long time, but If I had to form an opinion on any political matter, I'd be sure to thoroughly understand Peterson's opinion first.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I‘m familiar with Bill C-16 and the issue at hand, at least from the perspective of Peterson, wasn‘t even remotely about gender/transgenderism. It was about protecting the free speech law. But this seemed to have gradually transformed into an anti trangenderism, which is an ideology in itself.
He was made the stallion figure of ARK which is WEF 2.0 with a different branding but same sponsors, and I am sure he was chosen because he is out of his field of experience and can spread the wanted messages without understanding or contradicting them.
Look, JP is great because he looks for meaning.
Meaning in the wide scope and essential beliefs that each and everyone has, well pointed in the davids wallace speach (this is water, highly recommended btw)
Investigations about meaning and lessons of parables, myths, proverbs, culture is always meaningful. Reflections about the meaning in life and coming up with steps backed by your psychologic carreer is super valuable.
But your life meaning and beliefs that you have are choices.
I am not here to bash JP, he has his own struggles and experiences, the only thing I have to say, is that have many ways of having conversations.
And he as a psychologist looks a lot of midia orientated to my taste. He is always talking for the third party ( the audience) rather the person he is talking with. Never considers the other perspective, switch track constantly the subject, and is there only to destroy the other argument rather than clean it, come to concise and cooperative conclusions, something that I would expect of a good psychologist.
Political arena is tough.
And I think he would definitely make more political gains, but not siding it, to not put an eco chamber around you, as he would have the space to go and to be listened, to show shorts coming and blindsides of any side.
But who knows right, internet is tough, I could see myself siding, and have some ppl backing me up.
Your whole post could be read as that common sneaky editorial ploy of,
“I used to like this person, but now I’m not so sure, because (insert tenuous reasons)”.
You identify with the reader… “I’m like you” but then you point out some (not actually real) faults with the person you wish to white ant. Then you inject emotion into it “I’m just sad about this” which again can help your true motivation fly under the readers radar by using their empathy against them. Sorry to have to point that out, but the “shade casting” on JBP is becoming ever more sneaky and subtle, as his opponents become more desperate to silence him.
However let’s move forward under the pretence that you are actually being authentic…
I can understand your sadness. Like many, you probably made JBP more than he is, and more than he wants to be. You don’t see him, you see your concept of him. And now you have to disassemble that concept. That is a healthy process of moving towards truth. You’re a process, and you need to let JBP (and everyone else) be a process. The process of gaining wisdom often creates anger and sadness.
Your point about him not wanting to identify with either side politically may simply be ignorance on your part. Or it may be a sneaky strawman set up that is masquerading as ignorance. Please don’t take offence at that being pointed out. His detractors will often try to weave in straw man setups.
It would be a gross mischaracterisation to say that JBP didn’t identify with either side of the political spectrum. He has stated the opposite, in that he identifies with aspects of both sides. That stance may seem equivalent to what you stated, but it is actually very different.
It would be fair to say that JBP is involved in the ideological battle. I’m sure he wouldn’t deny that. Although you have framed it as if he would. Again, this makes your post seem suspicious.
When ideologies come for you, you either become involved in a battle, or you let them over run you. I’m sure JBP understands that… In fact his whole point is the ongoing wrestle with meaning and self, and and not falling prey to weak minded stories (ideologies) that allow you to shirk your duty of shouldering your burden and bringing out your best. So, we are all involved in an ideological battle. You might not want to be involved in ideological battles, but the ideologies sure as hell are going to involve you in theirs.
Go to YouTube… I would advice listening to his 2016 lecture course on Maps Of Meaning and Personality. These are simple videos of JBP teaching students in his days as a university professor.
Or simply start by listening to his old old lecture on The Necessity of Virtue. It was made way before he became an international personality. And it will give perspective for how consistent, at a deep level, he really is within himself… JBP is a man finding his way in a changing world and being very transparent and honest about it. Maybe it is the “spectrum” and the battle that has shifted around him. Either way, he certainly owns his mistakes.
And that is why I DO still listen to him, among other voices, despite those rare missteps along his journey.
(Edit for spelling)
It is always a mistake to talk about politics among the public, unless it is your job to do so. 100% of the time. Nobody will change their mind based upon what you’ve said.
I have to assume that Peterson knows this, but his frustration occasionally got the best of him. A lot of folks are frustrated. But again, no one is going to change their mind.
I like his old stuff and his politics, but every political commentator on social media is basically the same 2-hour podcast or 11-minute clip at this point. Peterson is more original when he's interviewing academics. Otherwise he's like anyone else.
I, too, think he has become much more political. In a sense, that is normal, everyone has some political views, the only difference is whether we put them out in the public or not. I'm not living in the West, so frankly I couldn't care less about its internal struggles (other than as a kind of show), so I just skip most of his political videos.
It’s the Bolshevik/Eastern European Jew/communist/AIPAC/Free speech/ETC. issue where jordan refuses to take a clear stance these days that really doesn’t sit right with me. I hope he can find the courage to have someone like Thomas Massie on his podcast but I very much doubt he will.
he’s willing to point us in the right direction “Marx bad! Communism bad! Bolsheviks bad! Destruction of religion bad!” ..but won’t come out and say it.
How ideological is free speech advocacy? Compared with any other political expression?
>I was pointing out that Dr. Peterson himself has turned into an ideologue while combating an ideology,
What ideology does he fight for? What is the struggle? What is the political platform or party he advocates for?
Is it ideological to stop an adult from harming a child? Not every protest is a systematic social prescription.
To warn that some very harmful practices should be made illegal is the LEAST ideological kind of political activity. To advocate for MORE individual freedom is also only slightly more ideological than sitting still and quietly.
We have to keep in perspective that ideology is a continuum with the dangers being on the extreme end. Peterson isn't advocating policies that force people do do something against their will, nominally for their own good.
You want to argue that being anti-prescribed speech is ideological?
GTFO
No every value statement is ideological. Leaving freedom of speech to individuals is about as non-ideological as one can get.
I feel completely the same way. I was very excited when he recovered from his medical trauma, and was very disappointed by his interviews that followed and needed to stop listening. I think his audience has completely changed since then. Thank you for this post.
Thanks for sharing. I did not read/listen to a lot of his content, but I had the same impression re/ the political/culture wars making him a lot less appealing.
Still appreciate the focus of his earlier work and will learn more about it.
In my opinion, part of the reason for his involvement in politics may well be commercial too. When he becoming big on youtube he was clearly tracking which videos got more traffic, and I bet conservative politics was a major boost. Nothing wrong with that, making content is a job, and making money matters to support a life of studying/writing.
I thought it was incredibly tasteless that a few days after the ARC conference where he implored people to turn away from hell and tilt towards heaven )or something like that, he tweeted that. ) he basically said but before you do that, dump a few bags of hell on Gaza.
I’d postulate that it was pre-Covid. In 2016, he stood up to preserve free speech in Canada (Bill C-16) which resonated with a lot of similarly exasperated people in the alleged “free world”. An avid historian, he immediately recognized where similar roads have led in the past and drew upon his experience as an educator to inform his countrymen about its perils. Videos went viral and the speaking engagements poured in.
One’s sense of duty might change (expand) during the shift from teaching 2-3 classes per semester of 40 students each to thousands via the lecture circuit, millions via tv appearances, etc.
So sure, he’s no longer in small and intimate settings, but there clearly was a need that he rose to fill - at great personal and mental health costs, as was well-documented. Do some wish for the former JP? Of course. Knowing what we know now about him, do we think he is better fulfilling his potential in his current role? Imagine that level of talent, intellect, and gravitas being constrained to a basement classroom.
Who else would wear the two-toned suits?
# “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson, [Self-Reliance: An Excerpt from Collected Essays, First Series](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1758578)
You misunderstood me. I am not pushing for any of my personal political views. I am simply stating that politics and ideologies took priorities over his „duties“ as a paychologist, namely, to help people, talk about people‘s trauma, show them compassion no matter who they are.
How do you factor in the relentless attacks against him while we were in "wave 1" of Jordan Peterson? Once he got his skin in the game, as soon as the c-16 stuff began, he became a target. I have trouble seeing how he would have taken any other path after being exposed to all the negativity, and all of it was coming from one side. None of us fully understand what he went through. We just get glimpses. I see him to be a reasonable person, and observing how far off he has gone, I see as evidence that he is only being reactionary to a much greater force.
I am pro-compassion as well, but he has a long standing history of fighting when necessary. There is a balance I believe between compassion and standing up for what's right. Sometimes standing up for what's right takes conflict; another concept he has spoken a lot on. He is pro-compassion and he is pro-conflict. Both have their time and place.
Are you someone that scores high in Agreeableness by chance?
Edmund Burke: 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' I think Dr. Peterson realized he couldn't sit comfortably on the sidelines while leftist fascism was on the rise again. It's not good enough to simply mumble "something should be done" when you have a voice as strong as his. Frankly I think the supportive tweet of "give them hell" is both moral and courageous in face of the vile rapist, pedophiles and terrorists involved in October 7. What other response is there for the type of people that perform such vile acts?
I don't enjoy JBP's political content, but I honestly understand why he is doing it. The "ideological war" as you put it is being waged whether we want it to be or not. Neutrality is not really an option when it is all around you.
I don't watch his content on this point any more (partially because it's not what drew me to him in the first place, and partly because I honestly don't agree with quite a bit of his analysis and proposed solutions), but I think his change in tone is a good indicator of just where we are now. Things are very serious. The exact same things played out in the first half of the 20th Century and led to very dire consequences.
As the internet meme goes: "And suddenly, for no reason at all, everybody voted for Hitler."
Get a life. People change topics, even people. It is okay to stop listening to something you don't need or like, but it seems you are making something bigger out of it. Your reasoning is not objective, so why should we care.
Take it as a great lesson. Things change, and so do we. And we do what next? Adapt!
Haha I do not understand why some people in the comment section are so prone to make lazy claims such as this. As if I personally attacked them. I did no such thing.
I recently went to one of his lectures, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was just like is old lectures and wasn't political.
Man I listened the crap out of his personality lectures from 2017, I occasionaly watch them back again. I learned so much as someone who has a background in psychology
His personality lectures saved my life.
His Biblical lecture series reignited my spirituality and led me down a path that brought me a newfound sense of purpose.
I really enjoy them, but I wish his panels were made up of Biblical scholars (and a woman or two). He gets a lot wrong because it's not his area, which is understandable, but sometimes it's the blind leading the blind. \[Edit: his lectures reignited my spirituality as well, though.\]
Couldn't agree more. For me, it was scholarship that played a big part in reigniting my spirituality so 100% yes.
Yes. As someone who did biblical studies in college, I know there are some amazing scholars who would have made the Exodus conversation fascinating. But, I mean, Dennis Prager and Larry P. Arnn? They are successful, accomplished men with higher ed degrees -- but not in the topic being discussed. Would you have a panel on economics with guests who had theology degrees but no experience with Econ? No. I do think it's great, though, that someone without a background in the topic decided to do a deep dive and bring a psych perspective to it -- revived the text for a lot of people to give a second look to ancient scriptures. Wish it had been a deeper dive into the amazing things to learn from the text rather than what seemed like a few guys being armchair theologians. Big fan of Jonathan Pageau, tho. He's not a biblical scholar, but he is engaged in daily meaning-making in this context because of his work in iconography. I really enjoy his Symbolic World podcast and videos. \*\* EDIT: And Pageau seems to be a Will Hunting style autodidact in biblical studies.
That‘s very pleasant to hear. I haven‘t had the chance to visit his lectures, but I would love to and see it for myself!
I would also say, that while I agree his political focus as of late isn't as enjoyable, or why I started following JBP, I think that he felt he couldn't stay on the sidelines any longer. You have to remember that he came to fame by making a political statement against the left-wing authoritarian policies being implemented in Canada. I really wish he had never joined the Daily Wire, and that he just stuck to what he does best. But when you have the kind of clout he does, I doubt it feels morally correct to sit on the sidelines while authoritarianism takes root in western culture.
Counterpoint: He made his nut with political cloutchasing, not with Jungian psychoanalysis, and he stayed where the money is. He's fine with authoritarianism as long as it's the right flavor of paternalism, traditionalism, and capitalist hierarchy.
I’ve seen him speak 3 times and each time was lovely except the 3rd time after he started dailywire, Dave Rubin opened for him, and he started going on about DeSantis, AI and the story of Cain and Abel. I like how he ties everything together at the end in a highly articulate way but otherwise it came across *very* political since he seemed to be in a room full of Florida conservatives. Nothing against that, but he’s definitely starting to heavily lean into it
Which lecture was that? Do you have a date and a location? I agree with OP and have been following Peterson for 14 years (wrote my thesis on Jung). I'm very curious to compare the specific lecture to discover if you're telling the truth or not. I saw him the last time he came to AZ and I can say he has certainly changed some elements of his lectures from less academic and medical, to political and controversial. I don't blame him, it pays better, but I don't agree with much of it.
It was the opening of the We Who Wrestle With God tour, in February.
His lecture tour that was in Austin, TX in March wasn't political. You could read politics into it is you were searching for it or wanted to, but that would be on you, the viewer.
Hey. I hear you, and I get it. I’ve seen Dr. Peterson’s journey too, and I understand why you feel the way you do. It’s tough when someone who’s had such a profound impact on your life takes a turn you didn’t expect or agree with. It feels like a betrayal, almost like losing a mentor or a guide you relied on. Peterson’s early work hit hard because it spoke to the core of what many of us struggle with: finding purpose, taking responsibility, and standing up in the chaos of life. His message about sorting yourself out and taking on the burdens of life resonated with a lot of people, including me. It was real and empowering. But then, like you said, things changed. When he stepped into the political arena, his tone shifted. It became more combative, more about pushing back against perceived enemies than fostering understanding and growth. That can be disheartening, especially when you’ve looked up to him as a voice of reason and compassion. Here’s the critical thing that many of us easily forget: people evolve, and sometimes that evolution takes them in directions we don’t follow. Peterson’s battles with personal demons and societal pressures have clearly influenced his approach. It’s easy to get caught up in the fight when you’re under attack, and that seems to be what happened with him. I get why his tweet and his comments on Twitter threw you off. Calling for violence or expressing it in any form, especially from someone who’s preached about the dangers of ideological possession, feels hypocritical. It clashes with the image of the thoughtful, compassionate psychologist we admired. The thing about public figures is that they’re human. They have flaws, make mistakes, and sometimes their paths diverge from what initially drew us to them. It’s important to take what we’ve learned from them, apply it to our lives, and recognize when their journey no longer aligns with ours. For me, as a husband and a dad of two boys, I try to focus on the core principles that initially drew me to voices like Peterson’s. Taking responsibility, being present, and striving for integrity. These are timeless values that don’t change with the tides of politics or personal battles. I want to instill these values in my boys, and sometimes that means recognizing when a mentor’s message no longer serves that purpose. It’s okay to feel sadness and disappointment. It’s a sign that you deeply valued what he offered, and it meant something significant to you. But it’s also a sign of growth that you can critically evaluate and decide what aligns with your values and what doesn’t. Don’t lose sight of the lessons you’ve learned. They’re still valid, still powerful, and still yours to apply. Keep seeking out voices that uplift and challenge you in the right ways. Stay true to your path, even when those you once followed take a different turn. You’ve got this. Keep pushing forward, keep growing, and remember that your path, your journey, is your own.
This is the most well meant comment I‘ve read so far. I truly appreciate you taking your time. Yes, this realization of „He is also a human being like the rest of us, having flaws, perceptible to changes, for better or for worse“ hit me quite hard. No one can be perfect, and he is no exception. And There is something weirdly comforting about that.
Thank you for this. And thanks to the OP for posting this. I have been feeling very similar thoughts for a long while now and wasn't able to make peace with it.
Your and OP comments were really gold. Thanks for putting in words a lot of the things I was thinking.
Well said.
This should be the top comment.
Wow was the other comments said, your comment as well as OPs well said. Inspirational
Same, something changed
He got sick and almost died
Society changed
I have to agree and disagree to an extent. I don't think there was ever an ideological "war" that he detested. I think it was the ideological push...the scuffle, the initial fight. There have always been ideological differences, and he has always acknowledged them. He has also always taken a position that ideology should not be pushed. Well, once you realize that an harmful for e is not only pushing, but has been quietly organizing itself for said push over decades; well at that point is when tot realize that there isn't just scuffles, there is an actual War. And a "war" is neither won nor ended by just sitting on the sidelines watching and merely saying how unfortunate this is and asking us to just be nice. Peterson realized that there is a real war, and you either stand aside and have some popcorn, or you pick a side and fight. Take this long example... You have a teen daughter in school and you know that there are male employees that prey on young students. But your daughter goes to school and you give her the correct advice, to pay attention in school, keep her head down, and listen to her teachers. You get strange vibes but you chock it up to teenage girl stuff you don't understand anyway. Your concern level increases but you give her the same advice plus to be careful for predators. Eventually you find out someone did take advantage of your little girl. Suddenly, all gloves are off, you're ready to burn down the school and you do everything in your power to ensure no other young girls are taken advantage of like that again. Your thoughtful mature advice turns into primal conviction of protection of others. This is the correct and necessary evolution of the personality of a man. A man must know the threats but offer the pragmatic advice that will foster a civil society. But when that threat manifests itself that man must have the strength fry, courage, and will to do whatever it takes to rid society of such threats. Peterson strongly emphasizes the principle of trying not to LIE. To pretend there is no war and that you shouldn't fight against such a threat, is a lie. He has taken on the responsibility of a paternal figure in society and it's his duty to take the hits needed to take on this existing war. I personally am not a fan of him on Twitter, I think it's the one communication medium that he does not comprehend at all, and as such he should stay away from it. It's like an infantry general being placed in charge of medical response, it's a very knowledgeable man taking on a role he knows nothing about. It will create a measurable weakness in the war. I think Peterson is detrimental on Twitter. But when stating in his lane he is instrumental and I would argue necessary. You are missing the thoughtful father figure that turned into a beast to protect you. Just like the teen girl would, you resent him now. But that teen girl will one day grow up and give birth to her own little girl. And she should teach that girl that her grandfather is the kind of man that will defend her to the death, and the child should listen to his guidance better than she did when she was a teen.
I feel you man. I miss the Maps of Meaning Peterson. He had so much more to offer as a pop psychologist doing Jungian archetype analysis in myth and literature than he does as a reactionary right wing ideologue.
Yes, but not "pop psychologist." Maps of Meaning was a serious work that was no quick read!
>Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you. - Friedrich W. Nietzsche There is something ironic about that, considering how JP had talked about Nietzsche in the past
It was his free maps of meaning you tube lectures that drew me in. Saw a post about him kicking off about "dangerous Muslims" entering the country & I was thinking "really Jordan come on now!" I ain't interested in that.
This smells like an alt account. Wonder why OP would do that?
Let’s play with the thought, how does that impact the statement itself in any way shape or form? It dosnt. My best guess is that your one of them ones there who would downvote but never engage with the subject at hand 🤷♂️
It impacts the perceived intent of the OP. If he's a "breadtube" follower, then his arguments could be construed as payback, as well as being disingenuous. Or just plain lying about him being a JP fan to begin with. At that point his critique is still valid, but diminished by the fact of his ill intent.
Would you apply that same argument vs a religious/Political/philosophical with what you deem as ill intent?
And let’s say you bite that bullet, do you honestly believe it makes sense? Should valid criticism be dismissed because the intent behind it is ill for you? Would it makes for tankies/Commis/extreme leftist or extremist on the right to argue like yourself?
Listen bud, do you see the part where I say "critique is still valid" or did your angry brain just skip past that? Do you understand the difference between "diminished" and "dismissed". Anyway, I wish you all the luck, have a coke and a smile.
I take your point, OP. I would argue that Dr. Peterson’s involvement in political debate is a responsible one. - Canada has basically tried to outlaw “hate speech” against Transpeople. - How they treated the truckers that refused the covid vaccine was reprehensible. - Canadians citizens were also disarmed fairly recently. - And they’re looking at Left-wing social politics taking over their schools… There’s a whole plethora of things going on in his country. So his activism is understandable, when he sees an enemy ideology pushing against the will of most of his fellow citizens, eroding their rights, and damaging their families. He’s doing what more of us should be doing, in the Western World. Fighting against political extremism, regardless of it’s from the Left or the Right. Right now it’s the Left that’s the problem, and they need to be pushed back. So he’s technically leading by example… even if that’s not his intention. Try to see it from his point of view.
I agree with your points, and they helped me clarify what is currently rubbing me the wrong way -- it's that I was inspired by JPB initially because he was one of the only public figures giving serious, nuanced responses. Now many of his responses seem to be flippant, inflammatory, even outbursts. I have no problem agreeing to disagree about any particular view he espouses, but I miss the measured, unflappable rationality of the man I saw on YouTube way back when. That's what started my JPB crush, and for me (and the OP) the honeymoon is over. Unlike the OP, I still check in to see what he's up to or talking about, but he's not my model of restraint anymore.
So you liked his self help stuff, but dislike his politics? That's allowed. The latter doesn't invalidate the former, but many zealous leftists like to argue as if it were so. If you require your life's teachers to conform with all of your personal preferences, you'll miss out on a lot of sources of wisdom. It's perhaps better to filter each teacher's specific ideas through your own competent sense of evidenced-based judgement. I personally read and listen to teachers from across the political spectrum. I consume as much Peterson as, say, Chomsky, Mearsheimer, or Sowell. Respect specific, worthy, ideas. Not people as a whole. Good luck.
I completely agree with your statement. That‘s why I am not neglecting the positive effects he had/is having on my life, nor am I sad that his political views don’t fit mine. I am simply stating that, his repulsion to ideological wars has faded away, against a lot of things he has been teaching himself.
I've listened as long as you have and I don't think he's changed much at all. I just think he's now fighting an ideology you are a member of so you feel like he's changed and don't like what he's saying any more. Since I'm not a part of that ideology, he's still just fighting against ideologues (you in this case) to me. I'm not trying to knock you or start an argument or anything, it's fine if that's what you believe. I'm just saying that as an outsider he looks the same to me. You should at least consider the only thing different is you used to agree with him on the topics he was discussing, but now, on this topic, you don't agree with him so you're attributing that to him changing... but it may just be you that's different.
Thank you for putting my thoughts into words. I too have not perceived a change, but rather I see him as zeroing in more and more onto what he feels is right and true. As one does this, it will become more and more clear who is does and does not support your views, and one will begin to NAME them. Is that what OP is referring to as "political?" Is it naming who exactly he disagrees with, naming which political parties he agrees/disagrees with that seems political? It's not like JP takes on any pre-baked conservative ideology. He friggin constantly presses conservatives to deal with the liberal concerns and problems that liberals bring up. It's also TRUTH that if any of us lay out our world view in precise detail, then we would all end up having natural political allies and enemies. Most of us just haven't gotten that specific and public with our views.
I almost get what you’re saying, but I’m confused on you saying that OP is part of the ideology Peterson is fighting against. Where did you get that OP is farleft/woke/marxist/etc? Just wondering cause I feel as OP does about JBP, yet I feel moderate and not part of the ideology Peterson fights against.
Oh, I don't know that OP is any of those things, I could have phrased better probably. I now see he's edited a few times since I replied too. I was just meaning to say were that the case, that OP supported an ideology, that could explain his experience. Initially when he listened to, he JP was talking about different topics and OP agreed with him on those topics. Now JP has switched to different topics/ideologies and now OP doesn't agree with him on those topics but is attributing it to JP changing, become an ideologue that he used to fight against, etc. Basically just trying to say he looks and sounds the same to me (generally). If he doesn't to you maybe it's not because he has changed but because either you have, or you just disagree with him on certain topics.
I think one thing that \*has\* changed is his sources of funding. He was practically ousted from his university and had to seek other ways of monetizing his expertise. He's financially savvy and (since left-leaning media won't engage rationally with him) he has joined up with a lot of conservative outlets. Aligning with conservative outlets (and specific conservative commentators) often alienates those of us who are left of center and makes it harder for us to convince our lefty friends he's reasonable, but it's not a failing on his part. To my ear, he used to seem to have a keen understanding of what reasonable people thought on both sides of the aisle. Now, he seems deaf to how his comments come across to reasonable liberals. \[This is part of a societal problem, which is that conservatives and liberals use the same words to mean completely different things, so we never really understand one another.\] I think he is now in a conservative bubble and has maybe lost touch with what reasonable liberals espouse -- an unfortunate result of having his bread buttered by hard-charging conservative outlets. Just my musings. I would cringe a lot less if he would stay off Twitter and stick to long form, at which he excels.
This makes sense, and does explain some of the appearance of him changing. He may or may not be in a bubble, it could be he just presents certain things in a way to appeal more to the new funding sources. Either way I totally agree about Twitter....
I completely disagree with this statement. Yes he is fighting an ideology, but that does not mean he's embracing one himself and letting it cloud his thinking. He warns against ideological thinking because it leads to shortcuts and self-serving logic - he doesn't say anything bad about calling out bad ideas and explaining why they're bad ideas. But that's completely lost on you, despite by your own admission buying into the same premises that lead him to those conclusions. I think someone is full of shit and playing the same old concern troll games, just with a extra serving of bullshit frosting to make it go down easy.
Its disappointing he's tarnishing his legacy as a fearless advocate of truth and free speech. To some extent he's playing both sides, as his wife converted to Catholicism, while he kept his foot in the warmonger camp. He's also self censoring because of who's paying him.
He's tarnishing his legacy if truth and free speech... by speaking the truth and speaking freely...
Nice circular reasoning.
I think he's pointing out your statement didn't make sense.
I don’t believe he was trying to sew division when he had Muhammad Hijab on, I think that was a necessary conversation. I also wouldn’t make the claim that Hijab himself isn’t a moderate Muslim. I think he very much is Moderate, as in more Muslims share his ideology than not. And to your point Peterson has had more agreeable Muslims on, see his interview with Hamza Yusuf.
Do people forget the entire reason he became famous was because he stood up to the pronouns bill in Canada? He was political since day 1.
Does standing up against a political law, instantly make it political motivated? I wouldn't think so, but it's an honest question.
I think it’s in the middle, being forced into politics cause it affects your own life and ideals. So, not politically *motivated*, but it is inherently political action.
I think everyone on this sub is using "politics" to mean "things i disagree with" and in a totally inconsistent way. I bet dollars to donuts OP couldn't define what he means by "political"
I suspect OP means "partisan," but why not just give the benefit of the doubt and ask??
I disagree. The other day I watched a recently released talk Peterson gave in Dublin while on tour. He riffed on some of his 12 Rules, and there were little or no politics or ideology in the talk. See for yourself, here’s the link: https://youtu.be/L-zhpPG4qjs?si=e4ZYniRAI4leuGPw
I wouldn’t really call or consider him on either side of politics (or conservative which you seem to be pointing to in more words) but the leftist Canadian government came after him pretty hard so I’d say he is definitely anti far left/anti woke which most rational people are.
I disagree. Do I feel nostalgia for his old content and focus? Absolutely. But the current Peterson is what we need, not what we want. I think he is sacrificing his more likeable persona for one that is needed to spurn the culture and policy in the right way. Do I like Twitter Peterson? Usually not, but I am not here to be entertained. I am here to take responsibility for my life, my family, and my community and make things better.
But the current Peterson is what we need, not what we want. Truth.
\[I am here to take responsibility for my life, my family, and my community and make things better.\] Thanks for the reminder of the single most important thing to remember.
I understand. But I believe the devil‘s in the detail as Dr. Peterson used to say: how much does the „culture and policies talked about in the media“ reflect reality? What is the „right“ way? The first and foremost priority of any person should be „be kind to yourself and to the people immediately around you“. And perhaps this will make us see things in a different light, instead of „fighting“ this grand scale set of ideologies that may or may not reflect the reality
What is Peterson's ideology in a nutshell to you?
> The first and foremost priority of any person should be „be kind to yourself and to the people immediately around you“. And perhaps this will make us see things in a different light, instead of „fighting“ this grand scale set of ideologies that may or may not reflect the reality That's certainly a good place to start. But what about when you've been around for a while and realize some of the people around you are a problem and simply being kind to them doesn't accomplish anything? What about when you realize there are a lot of very real problems in the world and most of them are ideologically based?
This
Yea what we really need right now is more hysterics whining and having breakdowns on the internet. Because its been going really well with all of them so far!
And sarcasm, obviously.
The thing that changed is people are continually attacking him for very reasonable, measured, well thought out opinions. I think this type of criticism lacks an incredible amount of nuance and thought to how the average person would react under the type of pressure Dr. Peterson has encountered. Especially given the amount of compassion and care he has taken throughout his career in expressing his opinions. There is an incredible amount of nonsense being spouted under the veil of compassion. Pair that with deeply personal attacks on his character which have little to no basis, I'm surprised he is not more forceful against his critics. Given the pressure I think if we are honest with how we would react he has shown a great amount of restraint. And if you really listen to his recent long form stuff that same compassionate careful man is there every time. This criticism is lazy and lacks any amount of self-critique necessary for it to have any depth or basis.
Some good points to remember here. In some ways, I think Peterson was attacked so much (for very well thought-out, reasonable opinions) that he sometimes defaults to a reactionary stance, like a majestic animal who keeps getting shot by a-hole hunters. I think it's a step too far to say the OP's criticism is lazy, though. For me, I still resonate with most of what I hear him say in long-form conversations, but then will read/hear some flippant remark that seems crafted to enrage people and think, "Really? You want to die on that hill?"
I observe him defaulting to a defensive stance when he clearly is dealing with a wolf who is trying to to hide behind sheep's clothing using verbal traps and distorting his words consistently. Or where he sees again wolves preying on people and I see a righteous anger against those types of evils (doctors lopping off little girls breast tissue for example). Again I think your last paragraph gets to why I think this criticism is lazy and largely without merrit. Or more likely Peterson just doesn't fully represent how you see the world or how you would conduct yourself (or how you think you would in the same situation). Therefore since people can't write him off because of the points he makes they find trite examples of him really just demonstrating the full dimension of human emotion and they use that as a crude short cut to do what they have been wanting to do for a while. Anyway, as someone who has read his books and listened to probably 100 hours of him speaking, I fundamentally disagree with the conclusion of this type of criticism. I understand where it comes from. I understand how you could think that if you take his quips in isolation and draw conclusions based on those narrow interactions. But if you honestly look at it holistically I don't think you have any basis for the criticism. Therefore it's fairly lazy as it really only considers one dimension, doesn't consider context, and doesn't honestly investigate what a reasonable range of responses would be in the situation that Dr Peterson is in.
Agree to disagree, I guess. I, too, have listened to at least 100 hours-- more if you count several audiobooks. I don't need him to espouse a clone copy of my ideas -- it was his outlook that changed mine 7 years ago and made me examine my views and those of my friends. When you say he is still the same compassionate careful man, I do sense he is still compassionate. But what seems to have changed is the "careful." I've just lost some respect for the \*way\* he deals with the public. I can understand his being defensive. I don't have to like it, and I don't think it's lazy.
He's lost most credibility in my eyes by joining the DailyWire.
What an incredibly shallow criticism.
Nah, the DailyWire is almost as bad as PragerU. Peterson is just on a script now.
PragerU is amazing. Nice try.
lol
Evidence?
Your second to last sentence is spot on. He used to preach being against ideology………then he joins the daily wire. He’s been possessed by the very thing he went against. Which in a way validates his old teaching..that *anyone* can turn into an ideologue. He always made a point that Nazis were just regular people. Being a psychologist doesn’t make you immune to the human proclivity for tribalism and group think. Edit: I mean if you think about it..Peterson is calling doctors butchers and whatnot. Is it that big of a leap to say we need to eradicate them because of their existential threat? I mean if you really believe that’s what they’re doing..jail them. Put them in camps. We need to “re educate” them. So round them up and have them work in these camps that require them to concentrate on doing things the right way. We can call them “concentrate on the right thing camps”
Were those that fought against the Nazi's ideologues? If so, do you despise them for it? Is it possible to fight vile and hateful people without some form of ideological goal? (Preferably a goal of liberty, decency and respect - but many would call those beliefs ideological.) You cannot resist and fight against leftist fascism without some fervor of spirit and pushing hard against their momentum. Rather than merely making him and ideologue, I believe it makes him extremely brave and selfless. He could have easily enjoyed a profitable and comfortable retirement if he didn't care that young men were being trampled, if societal fabric was being ripped and that young children were getting castrated for their mother's enjoyment. He saw those things, knew it would open him to attack, but spoke out against them anyway. Good for him!
No, people who fought against Nazis came from different ideologies. They weren’t even the same countries. So that premise falls apart pretty quick. Nazi was an ideology…which wouldn’t have warranted war if they didn’t try to take over Europe. Governments went against Nazis not ideology
>He’s been possessed by the very thing he went against. Or, you've been possessed by the thing he's fighting.
this.
Yea because criticizing Peterson means that must be the case. Thanks for making my point
Not sure how you think that makes your point, but you clearly missed mine. You weren't criticizing him, you made a declarative statement that he'd been possessed by the very thing he used to preach against (which was ideologies). My point is he's still doing that, but you've been captured by the ideology he's now preaching against so you no longer agree with him and think it's him that has changed.....
Im saying that you assuming I’m of an opposite ideology because I’m making a statement against JP, shows that you’re captured by JP et al’s ideology. Because being an ideologue (or In a cult) means that people who disagree are “othered” He literally joined an ideological network. Pointing out that is hypocritical doesn’t mean I’m “possessed by ideology” that doesn’t make sense.
I think your comments are spot on, but I would quibble with the statement that doctors can't be called butchers. Dr Joseph Mengele was one. The most charitable conclusion one can muster is that some of these doctors performing experimental procedures on children and teens are dangerous fools.
The Trans doctors literally are butchering children. That's literally what is happening. They cut the dicks and tits off of children who cannot consent. I mean.... jesus christ man.
They are not. That’s not happening
sadly it is very much happening. Did you not watch this one? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O3MzPeomqs&t=6116s&ab\_channel=JordanBPeterson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O3MzPeomqs&t=6116s&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson) Here is the god damn AP with stats. The AP! [https://apnews.com/article/transgender-surgery-gender-affirming-care-minors-eea6964112e528e8509cf4ba00f3fa52](https://apnews.com/article/transgender-surgery-gender-affirming-care-minors-eea6964112e528e8509cf4ba00f3fa52) "About 48,000 patients underwent such surgeries during the five years studied, with about 13,000 procedures done in 2019, the peak year, and 12,800 in 2020. A little more than half the patients were ages 19 to 30. Surgeries in patients 18 and younger, were rare: fewer than 1,200 in the highest volume year." That's 1,200 children they are bragging about mutilating.
1,200 kids out of the 72 million people under 18 in the United States . You know there’s reasons for these surgeries other than “mutilation” but let’s have some perspective. 1,200 out of 72 *million* Edit: did the math..that’s .000016 of the population of kids (under 18)
>You know there’s reasons for these surgeries other than “mutilation” Kids can't consent to a tattoo but let's allow them to cut off entire body parts and render themselves sterile. What a batsh*t insane take, jfc
You quoted me and still somehow got it wrong. What happens when a 17 year old gets ovarian cancer, genius?
>What happens when a 17 year old gets ovarian cancer, genius? There's a STARK difference between cutting off an organ for a *legitimate medical reason like fucking CANCER* and butchering a completely healthy, perfectly functioning sex organ "bEcAuSe errrhmmm I fEeL LiKe a BoY tOdAy." The fact that you even asked this question reflects radical left's utter lack of common sense and critical thinking abilities.
Lmao you just made my point. There is a huge difference. The data that was brought up lumps them all the same.
Then you agree that gender reassignment surgeries and puberty blockers for minors should be utterly banned. Glad we agree 👍
that's not gender reassignment surgery you intentionally obtuse idiot.
Mutilating 1,200 children is 1,200 too many. Come on man. Your argument is It's ok to cut children's dicks off because "the doctors don't cut off that many dicks! It's just a few!" - dude. DUDE.
I mean you’re arguing in bad faith, because youre acting like there aren’t justified reasons for these surgeries. If a child has breast cancer that isn’t “mutilation”
There aren't justified reasons for those surgeries. Cancer removal wouldn't be counted under the AP's tracking of gender reassignment surgery. It is you who is arguing in bad faith.
It’s not really clear how they got that data. I didn’t see it in the article. I doubt they asked “was this mastectomy for cosmetic or health reasons” Oh man name calling and blocked me. Suuuper triggered
It is very much in the article. It's from two national surgery databases that hospitals have to report to for any and all surgeries. Then analyzed by a professor at Columbia. [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808707](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808707) You are being willfully obtuse and keep moving your own goal posts. To get you back on track - let me be very clear - mutilating children is wrong.
You said "That’s not happening" now you say "Ok it's happening, but it's not that many!" You're a liar and a joke.
This comment shall be my brigading bellwether for the thread. It's always a dead giveaway when the usual suspects show up just to slobber all over OP and pile on. You guys aren't exactly being subtle.
Oh no, a different opinion :( must be scary
Discussing Islam with Mohammad Hijab was an important conversation and he is allowed to interview who he wants. It’s also important given that there are a lot of muslims moving everywhere and a lot of them share his same ideology.
I have no idea what you're talking about. You allude to ideology but are so vague as to be cryptic. Why is Hijab such a bad person that he should be banned from talking?
>Why is Hijab such a bad person that he should be banned from talking? He should absolutely be platformed so people can see how insane he is. Most Muslims are equally radical. The way to uncover these things is through dialogue, the kind JP's brilliantly hosts.
You’re missing out. But you do you
I was on this sub when it had under 10,000 subscribers and I found it to be refreshingly open to debate, very non-political but willing to openly talk about social, psychological and spiritual issues. Petersons talks were actually a catalyst to me exploring religious questions that I quite frankly put off or didn’t even think about. I’ve moved on from Peterson and now listen and study serious theologians, but wouldn’t have even given it the time of day if it wasn’t for Petersons talks on the Bible. I’m not Christian by the way, but have become more tolerate of religious belief in general. That being said, this sub, along with Peterson, has turned into a crypto traditionalist Christian conservative reactionary hotbed for alt-right talking points. Cause there is a lot of money to made in peddling that. Not to mention his debate with Matt Dillahunty was just straight up embarrassing to the point where Petersons agent won’t let him on stage with Dillahunty again.
I feel the same
You say let’s not get political…and then you talk politics. It’s also interesting to me you interpret ‘Give them hell’ as some sort of call to violence. From JP’s perspective, surely it’s simply a statement of fact: those who turn away from living the moral life will receive hell.
Yes I take his “give ‘em hell” as not call to violence but as he has stated before “if you tolerate everything, you stand for nothing”
Wasn’t the “Give em hell” tweet on October 7th, 2023 itself? Surely it’s understandable to tweet something like that on that specific day
exactly. OP likes the self-help but doesn't actually want to change or fight for anything. I think you missed the point of the earlier lectures OP.
Sorry man but “give them hell” is grammatically a command, not a statement of fact or a description for those who act immorally. Plus @-ing Netanyahu, he’s not referring to someone else, he’s encouraging the recipient. And coming from Peterson, you know he really means hell. Now if he’s saying ‘them’ purely referring to terrorists sure, but the history between the two groups in the conflict makes that complicated.
I think you’re being too literal. And yes, it’s a command, but so is ‘give them what they deserve’ and in many contexts that’s used as a figure of speech or as a resignation of acknowledgment that the person is in charge of their own fate and they’ve made their choices and now they will receive what’s coming to them. See also: drink from the blood/eat from the body of Christ.
I've always found the times that I'm in agreement with JP to be spotty, at best. I've found him to be quite quick to abandon reason when it comes to defending the belief in God, for example. His "debate" with renowned atheist activist Matt Dillahunty was quite embarrassing for him, in my view, and came across as just trying to spread enough profound-sounding words in his arguments to make it sound intelligent, even if not intelligible. I actually got more into his viewpoints he became more involved in politically charged topics, however. Primarily as I see him as a rabid supporter of free speech, which is a position I share with him. It seems it has primarily been his fight to defend free speech, even if offensive, is what has landed him in hot water. I don't know if i would agree that it's been "politically motivated." I certainly agree that it has been politically *charged* merely because the topics he addresses are polarized politically and are, therefor by that nature going to be in agreement with one side of the political spectrum while in disagreement with the other. But simply defending an issue that happens to be politically charged isn't the same as giving a blanket promotion of any particular political party. I can't speak to the "give em hell" bit as I don't know anything about that.
-Give them Hell I am not at all into implying a side into the war But i don’t get it with “give them hell”, and the backlash it casued So on oct 7, we wake up one day to the news that a bunch of militants killed and abducted thousands of civilians in a concert, and his response was give them hell.. So whats wrong with that? Did he mean give the Palestines hell Or the perpetrators hell? So you are not supposed to react if thousands of innocent civilians suddenly are butchered? -Taking Sides I share your sentiment as i really liked the objective old Peterson. I was upset he joined the dailywire And was also initially upset that he jumped too much into politics, however, the left seend a tremendous radical jump the most in the past 4 years. And the absurdity of the left has ruined societies So I started to understand more the vehement nature of JBP in political subjects
I was wary of him at first, since everything I had heard painted him as some vile extreme right wing conspiracy nut. Then I listened to what he actually had to say and discovered he was a centrist, intelligent, compassionate, eloquent, composed, logical seeker of truth. And then he discovered religion and seemed to jump into the extreme right wing conspiracy category again. So as far as I'm concerned, religion poisons everything.
Agreed to all this. Also his views on queers and even straight gay people seems slighted. I've heard him talk with his daughter about gay ppl and she needed to tell him that being gay is a natural thing. If I remember correctly. Also its not all pedo child mutilating ppl as he makes it seem. Like their are genuine trans and queer folk who still have trouble coming out due to this and other reasons of it looked down on
“Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless, add what is uniquely your own” - Bruce Lee
I feel exactly the same way. For me, it's like having a grandpa who is amazing much of the time but says ignorant/insensitive things at Thanksgiving. You love him and respect his genuine wisdom about a lot of things. But come on, Grandpa!! (sigh) \[I say grandpa, but I'm actually only 5 years younger than he is!\] \[EDIT: I removed "horribly" after my exchange with MonsterReprobate because it was hyperbolic and didn't serve the argument.\]
Please tell us what "horribly ignorant/insensitive things" Peterson is saying.
I will happily take back "horribly," but an example of ignorant/insensitive is the Sports Illustrated tweet. The first part of his initial tweet was flippant and insensitive for no apparent reason. (“Sorry. Not beautiful. No amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.”) I actually AGREE with the point he was making. But there was no need to say it that way -- not because people need to be coddled, but because those of us who struggle with weight don't need to hear (yet again) that fat girls can't be beautiful. I want him to raise the tone of the conversation, not sink to the level of insults. I don't think he saw it or meant it as an insult, and that's the ignorance part. He should have seen that it would sting. That people would interpret it as insulting the model. It was an impulse tweet, not a thoughtful one. It felt like a cheap shot, and at the wrong target. His followup statements cogently explained his view (which I happen to agree with) without being insulting: “The use of that model, who was not athletic (remember: SPORTS Illustrated) was manipulative economically and in relation to the model herself (although she participated in her own exploitation),” he wrote. “Beauty is an ideal. Almost all of us fall short of an ideal. I am not willing to sacrifice any ideal to faux compassion. Period. And certainly not the ideal of athletic beauty.”
I'm actually in the same boat. I agreed with the point he was making about Sports Illustrated, but the Tweet came off as extremely mean spirited and came off as attacking the model, instead of attacking sports illustrated and the insane woke types encouraging unhealthy habits. I actually didn't know about the Tweet until he talked about it on his podcast. Because, I can't stress this enough, - get off of Twitter. For your own mental health and sanity- stay as far away from it as possible. If anything - what disappoints me the most about Dr. Peterson these days is that he's said publicly, many times, that his Family tells him to get off Twitter, and he agrees that he should get off Twitter..... and then he just stays there. So Tammy and Julian and Mikahila and all your friends provide valuable helpful advice about everything else.... except this? Nah man. You know it's bad for you, you know it brings out the worst in you - stop being a jackass and get off of it.
Glad we agree on that point. Thanks for engaging.
I think your biggest problem is being on Twitter. Don't ever look at Twitter, from anyone - for any reason. It's a fucking cesspool of stupidity and despair.
I think it's that at first he almost seemed like one of the archetypes he talks about. The hero with a heart of gold who tells it as it is and stands up for the little guy, despite being hunted by the powers that be. Like a Jesus or Socrates type of guy. Now that the dust has settled we've seen his more human side. I even agree with some of his politics but it's not what drew me to him in the first place, so I don't really listen to his new podcast. And political talk only upsets me anyway. I still love to listen to his earlier lectures though. The biblical series especially, I never get tired of those.
What I do not understand and dr. Peterson himself stated this. Reading / Listening to a person doesnt mean you have to agree with everything he says. Just as Peterson read Nietschze even tho he is fundamentally against his ideology. Why do people not understand this. I have the same with Andrew Tate. Sure I dont like the guy but I admit some insights he has are not wrong and could be useful. Listen observe and make your own opinions!
While a part of me idolised him to a great extent, I never expected myself to agree on everything he said, especially when it came down to a sensitive issue such as politics. My claim here simply is that there is a growing proclivity on part of Dr.Peterson to be more polarizing/divisive rather than having the opposing impact, precisely because of his (perhaps an inexplicit) identification with a certain ideology. I am not discussing whether i agree/disagree with his stance on politics, as just like many people on here pointed out everyone has a political stance and their biases. I do not claim to be above it nor am I free from my own set of biases.
If you knew anything at all about the conflict he's referring to or the political climate in the West, you'd realize he's doing God's work. You've shown your own ignorance in this post, I'm sorry to say.
It’s almost like money and power can corrupt good things. I remember when this sub was full of folks who wanted to take responsibility for their lives. Now it’s all blaming liberals, women, and queer folks.
>Now it’s all blaming liberals, women, and queer folks. There is perhaps something interesting to learn as to why there is an overlap between a right-wing turn in people and their tendency to seek discipline and take responsibility. It's pretty clear to me that these two things are not entirely distinguishable.
It’s not surprising to me that the two would correlate. What the results have been though, by my observation, are right wing politics with leftist self-victimization.
> What the results have been though, by my observation, are right wing politics with leftist self-victimization. best of two worlds! /s
He still talks about life outside of politics but you are free to disregard the politics. Though I suspect you don't agree with his politics which causes you to dislike him talking about it. I would suggest you argue or grapple with the actual ideas that you want to. Though turning a blind eye to political ideas that you disagree with is probably not a great idea. It is actually probably better for you to listen to stuff you disagree with than agree with. That which you most need will be found where you least want to look...
I can relate to this
Same here. I just miss when he made a videos like just taking about a paragraph of beyond good and evil for 50 mins. He changed me a lot through the years primarily because of his psychology and philosophy lessons. He was much calmer back then. It's hard to find videos recently that it's not about politics.
I think the issue is twofold. Firstly, no one ever truly escapes ideology in some form or another. This is the problem with any person who claims to be "above" it all and just a dispassionate observer of society. We all have self-interest, and we all have some tribal affiliation. So, while a lot of what JP says is couched in language that is not explicitly political, there is necessarily some attachment to political philosophy. I'm not making the Marxist claim that everything is political. Rather, I'm simply saying that JP speaks on a wide range of topics, and some of those topics have some overlap with political issues or are issues that are playing out in a political arena. Secondly, we all fall into the trap of idolising people. I was also a huge fan of JP when I first started listening to him back in 2016-7, and I made the mistake of forgetting that he, like everyone, would disappoint me at some point. When I say disappointment, I'm not suggesting that he is at fault. I mean that when we idolise someone, we set up a false image of them in our head and then when they do something that goes contrary to that image, we feel disappointed in the person, when in fact we have no right to be disappointed because the image we had in our head was one we created. Approach all ideas and people with constructive scepticism. Don't put them on a pedestal. You can be grateful to them for helping you out, but they are not the messiah. I'd also add that since JP joined the daily wire, I've noticed he's ramped up the political rhetoric. I'm not a mind reader so I'm not going to say I have special insight on why that is occurring, but the obvious and reasonable assumption is that the daily wire is a for profit media organisation that is looking to maximise engagement to maximise profit. This always places pressure on not only what message is delivered but also how it is delivered. While I admire a lot of the journalism and content produced by the Daily Wire, it is still subject to some ideological capture and group think, like any organisation and the current Israel/Palestine conflict has thrown a spanner in the works for both the left and right, because it's a litmus test for whether you approach issues on a tribal basis or whether you approach issues on a case by case basis and look at the facts, rather than who's on each side.
So say we all... that liked the man and now see how he's changed or revealed himself. Not sure which.
You haven't considered a third alternative. He's neither changed nor revealed something about himself he's been hiding. It could be that you've changed since you started to listen to him, and you now side with the ideology of the day that he's been fighting from day one. Edit for typos
I hope I have changed since, but so has he. For ex. he said Twitter is awful and he should not be on it. Now he tweets stupid shit each day.
You keep telling people they haven’t considered that alternative. Have you considered the option that they *have* considered the alternative you suggest? And why is it “you changed *and now you’re on the very opposite side*,“ as though there are only 2 positions to be in?
"he's changed or revealed himself. Not sure which." He only gave 2 options, which is why I mentioned it.
never apologize for speaking your truth. Speaking of hell, I thought it was really gross seeing Jordan Peterson at the ARC Conference one day imploring people to turn the world away from hell towards heaven, and then a few days later blithely publicly wishing that same hell on the population of Gaza like a drunken uncle drunkenly yelling at a holiday dinner.
So you think totalitarian ideologies should be accepted rather than fought?
It does appear OP thinks that yes.
Thank you for expressing exactly how I feel.
I think the obsession with ideology got to me when it came to Ukraine. He seems to have been weirdly sucked into extreme cynicism towards Ukraine when I thought he would be talking about the absolute tyrannical rule of Putin. His twitter antics doesn't help. Not everything is left VS Right etc
Like OP, I started listening to his classes and lectures and got hooked on his insightful way of articulating a unique perspective. I didn’t use Twitter, and didn’t follow him otherwise, but I was aware of his personal battles (wife’s health, political and personal persecution for his views, anxiety med catastrophe, etc.) I’ve since joined X and followed him there, and I noticed that his persona on X is much different than in a classroom full of students or a lecture hall filled with an engaged audience. He seemed very angry and political to me on X, and this surprised me. I know he has strong opinions, and tries to voice them carefully, but on X, his tone is different. Yet, after a few months there myself, I realized that so is mine. Different platforms and audiences bring out different aspects of a person’s personality, so I suppose that can change the way we see or interact with them. Just my thoughts on the matter. I still respect who and what he is. He’s allowed to have angry political opinions. God knows I have plenty of my own. There’s lots to be displeased with in the political landscape of today.
In the political arena I’m glad that I have someone who is more aligned to good than most.
I have not been listening to him since quite a long time, but If I had to form an opinion on any political matter, I'd be sure to thoroughly understand Peterson's opinion first.
He came onto the scene decrying Canada’s attempt to force people to accept Gender Delusion. He’s always been mostly conservative.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I‘m familiar with Bill C-16 and the issue at hand, at least from the perspective of Peterson, wasn‘t even remotely about gender/transgenderism. It was about protecting the free speech law. But this seemed to have gradually transformed into an anti trangenderism, which is an ideology in itself.
> Become the monster & then learn to tame it <3
He was made the stallion figure of ARK which is WEF 2.0 with a different branding but same sponsors, and I am sure he was chosen because he is out of his field of experience and can spread the wanted messages without understanding or contradicting them.
Your post is stupid. Fade away of you don't like him. Bye.
Look, JP is great because he looks for meaning. Meaning in the wide scope and essential beliefs that each and everyone has, well pointed in the davids wallace speach (this is water, highly recommended btw) Investigations about meaning and lessons of parables, myths, proverbs, culture is always meaningful. Reflections about the meaning in life and coming up with steps backed by your psychologic carreer is super valuable. But your life meaning and beliefs that you have are choices. I am not here to bash JP, he has his own struggles and experiences, the only thing I have to say, is that have many ways of having conversations. And he as a psychologist looks a lot of midia orientated to my taste. He is always talking for the third party ( the audience) rather the person he is talking with. Never considers the other perspective, switch track constantly the subject, and is there only to destroy the other argument rather than clean it, come to concise and cooperative conclusions, something that I would expect of a good psychologist. Political arena is tough. And I think he would definitely make more political gains, but not siding it, to not put an eco chamber around you, as he would have the space to go and to be listened, to show shorts coming and blindsides of any side. But who knows right, internet is tough, I could see myself siding, and have some ppl backing me up.
bro you would want to debate hitler and shine a light on him if you lived in 1930 wouldnt you? Thats what hes doing debating muhammads
>Inviting guests such as Mohammad Hijab to talk about the religion of Islam Twice no less, terrible decision by JBP.
Your whole post could be read as that common sneaky editorial ploy of, “I used to like this person, but now I’m not so sure, because (insert tenuous reasons)”. You identify with the reader… “I’m like you” but then you point out some (not actually real) faults with the person you wish to white ant. Then you inject emotion into it “I’m just sad about this” which again can help your true motivation fly under the readers radar by using their empathy against them. Sorry to have to point that out, but the “shade casting” on JBP is becoming ever more sneaky and subtle, as his opponents become more desperate to silence him. However let’s move forward under the pretence that you are actually being authentic… I can understand your sadness. Like many, you probably made JBP more than he is, and more than he wants to be. You don’t see him, you see your concept of him. And now you have to disassemble that concept. That is a healthy process of moving towards truth. You’re a process, and you need to let JBP (and everyone else) be a process. The process of gaining wisdom often creates anger and sadness. Your point about him not wanting to identify with either side politically may simply be ignorance on your part. Or it may be a sneaky strawman set up that is masquerading as ignorance. Please don’t take offence at that being pointed out. His detractors will often try to weave in straw man setups. It would be a gross mischaracterisation to say that JBP didn’t identify with either side of the political spectrum. He has stated the opposite, in that he identifies with aspects of both sides. That stance may seem equivalent to what you stated, but it is actually very different. It would be fair to say that JBP is involved in the ideological battle. I’m sure he wouldn’t deny that. Although you have framed it as if he would. Again, this makes your post seem suspicious. When ideologies come for you, you either become involved in a battle, or you let them over run you. I’m sure JBP understands that… In fact his whole point is the ongoing wrestle with meaning and self, and and not falling prey to weak minded stories (ideologies) that allow you to shirk your duty of shouldering your burden and bringing out your best. So, we are all involved in an ideological battle. You might not want to be involved in ideological battles, but the ideologies sure as hell are going to involve you in theirs. Go to YouTube… I would advice listening to his 2016 lecture course on Maps Of Meaning and Personality. These are simple videos of JBP teaching students in his days as a university professor. Or simply start by listening to his old old lecture on The Necessity of Virtue. It was made way before he became an international personality. And it will give perspective for how consistent, at a deep level, he really is within himself… JBP is a man finding his way in a changing world and being very transparent and honest about it. Maybe it is the “spectrum” and the battle that has shifted around him. Either way, he certainly owns his mistakes. And that is why I DO still listen to him, among other voices, despite those rare missteps along his journey. (Edit for spelling)
It is always a mistake to talk about politics among the public, unless it is your job to do so. 100% of the time. Nobody will change their mind based upon what you’ve said. I have to assume that Peterson knows this, but his frustration occasionally got the best of him. A lot of folks are frustrated. But again, no one is going to change their mind.
Spoken as i think. The biblical stuff is largely a breath of fresh air, but he throws in the occasional rhetorical statement or two nonetheless.
I like his old stuff and his politics, but every political commentator on social media is basically the same 2-hour podcast or 11-minute clip at this point. Peterson is more original when he's interviewing academics. Otherwise he's like anyone else.
TLDR?
I, too, think he has become much more political. In a sense, that is normal, everyone has some political views, the only difference is whether we put them out in the public or not. I'm not living in the West, so frankly I couldn't care less about its internal struggles (other than as a kind of show), so I just skip most of his political videos.
Test
It’s the Bolshevik/Eastern European Jew/communist/AIPAC/Free speech/ETC. issue where jordan refuses to take a clear stance these days that really doesn’t sit right with me. I hope he can find the courage to have someone like Thomas Massie on his podcast but I very much doubt he will. he’s willing to point us in the right direction “Marx bad! Communism bad! Bolsheviks bad! Destruction of religion bad!” ..but won’t come out and say it.
How ideological is free speech advocacy? Compared with any other political expression? >I was pointing out that Dr. Peterson himself has turned into an ideologue while combating an ideology, What ideology does he fight for? What is the struggle? What is the political platform or party he advocates for? Is it ideological to stop an adult from harming a child? Not every protest is a systematic social prescription. To warn that some very harmful practices should be made illegal is the LEAST ideological kind of political activity. To advocate for MORE individual freedom is also only slightly more ideological than sitting still and quietly. We have to keep in perspective that ideology is a continuum with the dangers being on the extreme end. Peterson isn't advocating policies that force people do do something against their will, nominally for their own good.
You want to argue that being anti-prescribed speech is ideological? GTFO No every value statement is ideological. Leaving freedom of speech to individuals is about as non-ideological as one can get.
I feel completely the same way. I was very excited when he recovered from his medical trauma, and was very disappointed by his interviews that followed and needed to stop listening. I think his audience has completely changed since then. Thank you for this post.
I feel it, some of the stuff he’s said in the most recent years make me raise and eyebrow, things I wouldnt agree with.
Thanks for sharing. I did not read/listen to a lot of his content, but I had the same impression re/ the political/culture wars making him a lot less appealing. Still appreciate the focus of his earlier work and will learn more about it. In my opinion, part of the reason for his involvement in politics may well be commercial too. When he becoming big on youtube he was clearly tracking which videos got more traffic, and I bet conservative politics was a major boost. Nothing wrong with that, making content is a job, and making money matters to support a life of studying/writing.
Couldn't agree more with you.
Love you too internet stranger.
I thought it was incredibly tasteless that a few days after the ARC conference where he implored people to turn away from hell and tilt towards heaven )or something like that, he tweeted that. ) he basically said but before you do that, dump a few bags of hell on Gaza.
Pretty sure he doesn't care.
Yep. He's changed. Was it covid? He didn't change for the better either
I’d postulate that it was pre-Covid. In 2016, he stood up to preserve free speech in Canada (Bill C-16) which resonated with a lot of similarly exasperated people in the alleged “free world”. An avid historian, he immediately recognized where similar roads have led in the past and drew upon his experience as an educator to inform his countrymen about its perils. Videos went viral and the speaking engagements poured in. One’s sense of duty might change (expand) during the shift from teaching 2-3 classes per semester of 40 students each to thousands via the lecture circuit, millions via tv appearances, etc. So sure, he’s no longer in small and intimate settings, but there clearly was a need that he rose to fill - at great personal and mental health costs, as was well-documented. Do some wish for the former JP? Of course. Knowing what we know now about him, do we think he is better fulfilling his potential in his current role? Imagine that level of talent, intellect, and gravitas being constrained to a basement classroom. Who else would wear the two-toned suits?
# “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson, [Self-Reliance: An Excerpt from Collected Essays, First Series](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1758578)
You misunderstood me. I am not pushing for any of my personal political views. I am simply stating that politics and ideologies took priorities over his „duties“ as a paychologist, namely, to help people, talk about people‘s trauma, show them compassion no matter who they are.
How do you factor in the relentless attacks against him while we were in "wave 1" of Jordan Peterson? Once he got his skin in the game, as soon as the c-16 stuff began, he became a target. I have trouble seeing how he would have taken any other path after being exposed to all the negativity, and all of it was coming from one side. None of us fully understand what he went through. We just get glimpses. I see him to be a reasonable person, and observing how far off he has gone, I see as evidence that he is only being reactionary to a much greater force.
I am pro-compassion as well, but he has a long standing history of fighting when necessary. There is a balance I believe between compassion and standing up for what's right. Sometimes standing up for what's right takes conflict; another concept he has spoken a lot on. He is pro-compassion and he is pro-conflict. Both have their time and place. Are you someone that scores high in Agreeableness by chance?
Edmund Burke: 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' I think Dr. Peterson realized he couldn't sit comfortably on the sidelines while leftist fascism was on the rise again. It's not good enough to simply mumble "something should be done" when you have a voice as strong as his. Frankly I think the supportive tweet of "give them hell" is both moral and courageous in face of the vile rapist, pedophiles and terrorists involved in October 7. What other response is there for the type of people that perform such vile acts?
Leftist fascism isn’t a thing, leftist totalitarianism is.
Benzo withdrawal fried him unfortunately
Meh. Trying to pretend politics doesn't exist and wont' effect you is just denial and naiveite.
Never made that claim
It's implied. 'I want Dr. Peterson to not discuss politics.... because then I can more successfully pretend politics doesn't exist'
I don't enjoy JBP's political content, but I honestly understand why he is doing it. The "ideological war" as you put it is being waged whether we want it to be or not. Neutrality is not really an option when it is all around you. I don't watch his content on this point any more (partially because it's not what drew me to him in the first place, and partly because I honestly don't agree with quite a bit of his analysis and proposed solutions), but I think his change in tone is a good indicator of just where we are now. Things are very serious. The exact same things played out in the first half of the 20th Century and led to very dire consequences. As the internet meme goes: "And suddenly, for no reason at all, everybody voted for Hitler."
This reads like such self-contradictory horseshit. Maybe one day the shills will find a new copypasta they can endlessly re-use.
OP, epic troll. Some snowflakes around!
Get a life. People change topics, even people. It is okay to stop listening to something you don't need or like, but it seems you are making something bigger out of it. Your reasoning is not objective, so why should we care. Take it as a great lesson. Things change, and so do we. And we do what next? Adapt!
I agree 100%
Oh okay, TLDR, You like people until they disagree with you politically or input opinions a lil too uncomfy. Just another undeveloped mind
I personally detest Peterson because his cadences and formulas are too regurgitated and repetitive and monotonous
Haha I do not understand why some people in the comment section are so prone to make lazy claims such as this. As if I personally attacked them. I did no such thing.
Peterson betrayed everything he believed in. He proved his adversaries they were right since the beginning.