Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[Revolucionar]

Some comments on the Amazing Polly video that @Ina posted above.

Amazing Polly is pulling a few threads with Jordan Peterson. She goes out on a limb from time to time, and even pushes the issue too far here and there, but IMO she's making some good points.

This is apparently part -1 as she says she now is going to make another video about his associations.

Here are a few issues she covered:

Was JP institutionalized and hijacked? (She relates this to Kanye West's warning about “handlers”)

JP has a 3-week memory loss? (Dec 16th, 2019, to Feb 5th, 2020)

Was JP’s online personality assessment a data harvesting program?

Polly “I’m not saying JP doesn’t have good intensions, I’m saying, can we trust him anymore?”

Is JP paralleling the WEF with a new story of the same thing? (Easier for the public to swallow coming from JP)

Should a “good family” belong to the policies of the government?

Is JP capable to running this new “consortium” or is he too big of a mess now?

Related articles she posts:

"Jordan Peterson in a new interview described his spiral into drug addiction and suicidal thoughts — and then undergoing a controversial Russian treatment that placed him into an induced coma for eight days."

“I don’t remember anything. From Dec. 16 of 2019 to Feb. 5, 2020,” the self-help author said of period he was sent Russia for treatment. “I don’t remember anything at all,” Peterson told the British newspaper."

"In Russia, Peterson was intubated for undiagnosed pneumonia and administered propofol so that he could be induced into a coma for more than a week while medics cleared his system of drugs."

full article here:

Jordan Peterson says he was suicidal, addicted to benzos

Jordan Peterson in a new interview described his spiral into drug addiction and suicidal thoughts — and then undergoing a controversial Russian treatment that placed him into an induced coma …

nypost.com

February 1, 2023

"Professor of psychology and public speaker Jordan Peterson has announced the formation of an international consortium that would serve as a kind of populist alternative to the elitist World Economic Forum (WEF) and provide a countervailing force against globalist aims and narratives."

Full article here:

Jordan Peterson Announces World Economic Forum Alternative

Reading Time: 4 minutes Professor of psychology and public speaker Jordan Peterson has announced the formation of an international consortium that would serve as a kind of populist alternative to the elitist World Economic Forum (WEF) and provide a countervailing force against globalist aims...

www.cf.org

Repost of part-1 of Polly's video:

Jordan Peterson's WEF Dreams

JBP is creating an "alternative to the World Economic Forum" which will offer a New Narrative for the Future. RED FLAGS abound! My website is here: https://www.amazingpolly.net/contact-support.php **THANK YOU to all who have been able to support this work in any way. I appreciate you!** #UN...

www.bitchute.com

I stopped watching after 15 mins. In my opinion, she's severely lacking in intellectual rigor and keeps spinning data points to fit her favorite talking points. Kind of looks like pattern recognition gone amok, and conspiratorial thinking unmediated by rationality.

 

[Adobe]

@Revolucionar​

I wouldn’t argue with your assessment, and I think I stated basically the same thing myself, in the introduction of the video. I do put some value on her investigating of; was there an opportunity for someone to program him, which I don’t see anyone else doing. Who are, and who have been his associations. Which is something I have been looking into myself such as Dave Rubin.

As far as Polly, sure she has her weaknesses, and blind spot of course, but I “think” she is honestly trying to sort things out and does a good job with documentation. In her situation, I don’t mind going through a little more bath water to see if there is a baby in there somewhere.

 

[Ina]

@Revolucionar​

I wouldn’t argue with your assessment, and I think I stated basically the same thing myself, in the introduction of the video. I do put some value on her investigating of; was there an opportunity for someone to program him, which I don’t see anyone else doing. Who are, and who have been his associations. Which is something I have been looking into myself such as Dave Rubin.

As far as Polly, sure she has her weaknesses, and blind spot of course, but I “think” she is honestly trying to sort things out and does a good job with documentation. In her situation, I don’t mind going through a little more bath water to see if there is a baby in there somewhere.

@Adobe,
Thank you for making explicit my initial attempt, and also for your comments.
@Revolucionar ,
I like Polly because she seems to be consistent to a common sense approach that is sincere to herself and her circumstances and environment meaning, the Canadian style, culture, as much as one could consider a Canadian style, or culture, that is.

 

[iamthatis]

@Adobe,
Thank you for making explicit my initial attempt, and also for your comments.
@Revolucionar ,
I like Polly because she seems to be consistent to a common sense approach that is sincere to herself and her circumstances and environment meaning, the Canadian style, culture, as much as one could consider a Canadian style, or culture, that is.

I had a chuckle at this. Canada - a culture?! Has it been discovered at last?

On that note, I liked this article by Matthew Ehret that tells a story of why Canada and other British colonies don't seem to have much by way of unique culture or identity. It was a deliberate stunting of human potential and creative expression. It gave me another perspective on my own long-standing disappointment with Canada's lack of 'that certain something' called culture.

The Origins of the Deep State in North America Part I: The Round Table Movement

By Matthew Ehret “Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the …

canadianpatriot.org

Canada’s struggle for existence as a sovereign nation has been caught between two opposing views of mankind represented by the British and American System of social organization. As the great economist Henry C. Carey laid out while he was advancing the policy of Abraham Lincoln, the American System was designed to become a global system operating amongst sovereign nations for the progress and mutual benefit of each and all. By the end of the 19th century, American System thinking was resonating with statesmen and patriots in all corners of the globe who were fed up with the ancient imperial system of British Free Trade that had always strived to maintain a world divided and monopolized.

Although British propagandists had made every attempt to keep the illusion of the sacredness of the British System alive in the minds of its subjects, the undeniable increase of quality of life, and creative thought expressed by the American System everywhere it was applied become too strong to ignore… especially within colonies such as Canada that had long suffered a fragmented, and underdeveloped identity as the price paid for loyalty to the British Empire.

 

[Revolucionar]

@Revolucionar​

I wouldn’t argue with your assessment, and I think I stated basically the same thing myself, in the introduction of the video. I do put some value on her investigating of; was there an opportunity for someone to program him, which I don’t see anyone else doing. Who are, and who have been his associations. Which is something I have been looking into myself such as Dave Rubin.

As far as Polly, sure she has her weaknesses, and blind spot of course, but I “think” she is honestly trying to sort things out and does a good job with documentation. In her situation, I don’t mind going through a little more bath water to see if there is a baby in there somewhere.

Here's a comment on the video that touches upon a lot of the stuff that I've seen in the video after trying to watch the rest.
Not exactly the way I would write it, but saves me the trouble of going point by point, poiniting out the leaps in logic and her misunderstanding of JBPs arguments.

elidumitru
This is one of the lamest hit pieces I have ever heard. The Communists had 12 rules and so did Jordan Peterson. Well that proves it right there, he's a Communist. And, look, he wants to eliminate poverty. Obviously a communist. And he wants to have policies that help families. Totally evil. By the way, what kind of policies would help families? Maybe welfare and tax policies that encourage parents to stay together? Maybe school vouchers that allow parents to spend their education tax dollars on whatever kind of schooling they choose. Those are policies. Yeah, but still totally Communist, right? Have you not heard his lecture that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn proved that the Communist ideology lead inevitably to the Gulags? Jordan Peterson is one of the biggest critics of Communism in the modern world. Did you miss that part? And then you pick on him for having medical problems that you, The Fantastic Amazing Polly, don't understand, because, you know, Polly knows all about rare medical problems of other people, right? And then you're suspicious because he goes to Russia for treatment he can't get in the U.S. Haven't your heard that Pfizer and their ilk have a lock on what kind of treatments you can and can't get in the U.S.? And, Polly, have you not heard Russia overthrew Communism and is no longer a Communist nation? Did you miss that part? Then you criticize him for wanting decentralized authority because it's still a hierarchy? Have you not heard his lecture on Hierarchies? You really need to do your research before you criticize what you don't know anything about. And when he says that the story of Power Rules Everything isn't a good story, your criticism is that you imagined that he morphed into a child. Uh, no Polly, he didn't morph into a child. What the Hell? That's your criticism of not wanting to live in a world where Power Rules Everything? Then you point out where decentralized subsidiarity was misused and corrupted as if that negates the principle of decentralized subsidiarity. Really? Haven't you noticed that tyrants routinely subvert and corrupt noble principles as part of their manipulation for power? What's your suggestion? That we just stick to Power Rules Everything? Then you claim that you have "demonstrated" how Peterson is re-framing the same themes of the U.N. Uh, no, you haven't "demonstrated" anything. You've just used sneering innuendo to try to discredit things like supporting families, taking responsibility for your own life and your own family and keeping power decentralized. Very sad.

My favorite is her impying that him having a painting of Lenin is somehow suspicious or that inplementing policies that help and incentivize traditional families is the same as eugenics. Feels like she got herself a hammer and now keeps seeing nails everywhere.

 

[Ina]

Here's a comment on the video that touches upon a lot of the stuff that I've seen in the video after trying to watch the rest.
Not exactly the way I would write it, but saves me the trouble of going point by point, poiniting out the leaps in logic and her misunderstanding of JBPs arguments.


My favorite is her impying that him having a painting of Lenin is somehow suspicious or that inplementing policies that help and incentivize traditional families is the same as eugenics. Feels like she got herself a hammer and now keeps seeing nails everywhere.

OK. Looks like emotional waters were stirred, so I propose to revisit the discussion on the JP Consortium in November. Until then I would like to ask if it is possible, to give us some info about the user you quoted.

 

[luc]

Until then I would like to ask if it is possible, to give us some info about the user you quoted.

Why would that matter?

Personally, I'm tired of these emotional accusations of "controlled opposition" and "this person bad! This person good!"

Jordan Peterson is Jordan Peterson. Rather than putting him into some kind of box, why not try to understand where he's coming from, why he says certain things, where he is right, where he might have a point but misses something, and where he is wrong... Same with other public intellectuals.

There obviously is such a thing as controlled opposition, most often not in a conspiracy sense though, but simply because of human weaknesses. There are so many grifters out there, smart people with too much unchecked pattern recognition, those seeking false clarity about good and evil in the face of emotional stress, etc., and this alone can stifle conversation and "control" opposition movements.

Then there's all those trigger topics, like welfare, commies, nationalism, globalism... which tempts many to simply attach some label to people and then calling them good or bad based on their own biases and emotional attachments. And so on.

 

[Revolucionar]

Why would that matter?

Personally, I'm tired of these emotional accusations of "controlled opposition" and "this person bad! This person good!"

Jordan Peterson is Jordan Peterson. Rather than putting him into some kind of box, why not try to understand where he's coming from, why he says certain things, where he is right, where he might have a point but misses something, and where he is wrong... Same with other public intellectuals.

There obviously is such a thing as controlled opposition, most often not in a conspiracy sense though, but simply because of human weaknesses. There are so many grifters out there, smart people with too much unchecked pattern recognition, those seeking false clarity about good and evil in the face of emotional stress, etc., and this alone can stifle conversation and "control" opposition movements.

Then there's all those trigger topics, like welfare, commies, nationalism, globalism... which tempts many to simply attach some label to people and then calling them good or bad based on their own biases and emotional attachments. And so on.

Thanks for that reqlity check.
I'm personally less and less partial to any kind of conspiratorial thinking. Yes, there are conspiracies, but I feel like most things are just a result of people genuinely doing what they think they need to do, whether they're psychopaths or not.

Polly made absolutely zero legitimate arguments in my opinion. It was all just, "Well, I see him doing this and saying that, and that, to me, sounds and looks an awful lot like this thing that I think is evil, so he's in on it and must be doing things for nefarious purposes."

OK. Looks like emotional waters were stirred, so I propose to revisit the discussion on the JP Consortium in November. Until then I would like to ask if it is possible, to give us some info about the user you quoted.

Even if the comment from the user I quoted was somewhat emotional, what did he get wrong exactly? Maybe that's something that should be addressed before we start with arguments about people's character.

 

[Ina]

Polly aside, please, the issue I am raising is related to JP And JP Consortium of 2000 by invitation members that will attend their first meeting in November with the purpose of asking the most important and pertinent questions of our current times.
I used to keep JP in very high regard before his hospitalization. After his return, and especially after starting his new well resourced venture, I started to observe that he meant what he said, ‘I will basically do what I want’. Not that I find anything wrong in it, but there are some disturbing, for me, behavioral traits, that are coming from an entitlement position of control over x, y, z. Not only that but some times he’s downright rude, nevermind the tone and the pitch of his voice.
I would have kept quiet because people are people at the end of the day, but when on top of the above I realized his grandiose ambitions, I decided to have my trusted friends, aka, members of this forum, have a go at the announcement of his sudden and grandiose innitiative.
Like @luc was saying, try to understand where he is coming from. Yes, I am trying, but chances are, I will never get to understand. So, Do I want JP and his 2000s to ask life or ... death questions for me, personally? No, because I do not trust him anymore.
In one of the posts above I proposed to leave this discussion for November. Many events might take place that will show more light on the matter and we’ll all know whether is a transposition of the WEF disaster into a better narrative or not.
Otherwise, for all my friends, Carpe diem.

 

[Ina]

Why would that matter?

Personally, I'm tired of these emotional accusations of "controlled opposition" and "this person bad! This person good!"
...

I perfectly understand, and I am also tired of all you mentioned, however, I felt somewhat puzzled for being ‘served’ with a vented rant quoted (!) from a random unknown user, irrespectivelly whether the reply quoted was in response to the video I posted.
For me this belongs to ‘Thou shalt not quote random users, from all over the show, in lieu of your own thinking, because it is not intellectualy polite to do so.‘

So, it mattered.

 

[Revolucionar]

Polly aside, please, the issue I am raising is related to JP And JP Consortium of 2000 by invitation members that will attend their first meeting in November with the purpose of asking the most important and pertinent questions of our current times.
I used to keep JP in very high regard before his hospitalization. After his return, and especially after starting his new well resourced venture, I started to observe that he meant what he said, ‘I will basically do what I want’. Not that I find anything wrong in it, but there are some disturbing, for me, behavioral traits, that are coming from an entitlement position of control over x, y, z. Not only that but some times he’s downright rude, nevermind the tone and the pitch of his voice.
I would have kept quiet because people are people at the end of the day, but when on top of the above I realized his grandiose ambitions, I decided to have my trusted friends, aka, members of this forum, have a go at the announcement of his sudden and grandiose innitiative.
Like @luc was saying, try to understand where he is coming from. Yes, I am trying, but chances are, I will never get to understand. So, Do I want JP and his 2000s to ask life or ... death questions for me, personally? No, because I do not trust him anymore.
In one of the posts above I proposed to leave this discussion for November. Many events might take place that will show more light on the matter and we’ll all know whether is a transposition of the WEF disaster into a better narrative or not.
Otherwise, for all my friends, Carpe diem.

Nothing wrong with what you're saying here. I have had my own misgivings about JBP which I voiced in this thread.
Might have been better if you just linked the actual video clip of him talking about it and added your own commentary to it rather than linking Polly.
All she did was cast aspersions without actually engaging with what he was saying.

I don't see anything wrong with the outline of this platform that he's creating, but certainly putting powerful people together in a room to come up with a direction for all of humanity should raise eyebrows.
At the very least, it's giving the PTB the opportunity to infiltrate and redirect, but JBP seems very naive to this possibilty.

 

[Revolucionar]

I perfectly understand, and I am also tired of all you mentioned, however, I felt somewhat puzzled for being ‘served’ with a vented rant quoted (!) from a random unknown user, irrespectivelly whether the reply quoted was in response to the video I posted.
For me this belongs to ‘Thou shalt not quote random users, from all over the show, in lieu of your own thinking, because it is not intellectualy polite to do so.‘

So, it mattered.

I don't see the issue with me quoting some random user. I clearly stated that I'm posting to save time writing something to the same effect. It was a bit of an emotional rant, but factually, the guy was spot on.
Why not address the points made in the comment instead of asking for his credentials?

 

[Ina]

I don't see the issue with me quoting some random user. I clearly stated that I'm posting to save time writing something to the same effect. It was a bit of an emotional rant, but factually, the guy was spot on.
Why not address the points made in the comment instead of asking for his credentials?

a luta continua vitória é certa.

 

[Voyageur]

Caught this November 22 show with professor of law, Bruce Pardy (people might remember him alongside Peterson). Here, Bruce takes a look at the managerial class, so to speak, the educations system, critical theory and how fast (culturally speaking) Canadians have adopted/adapted and became divided and vicious during covid or in general social activism. This fingerprint is the same in other states, yet the focus is on Canada.

He has a long view of the changes without all of tied to a legal base, yet culturally, and how the state has taken over with citizens bending to their will. There is a bit of a message on the word (in law) discrimination, to discriminate against and its pure english language meaning (i.e., a person has discriminating tastes or how we all discriminate everyday - how we choose even our friends; it is natural) flipped on its head. It is also a word that came up against the test of being discriminated against (think mandates) and how they slipped around it in law. He speaks of the word race and anti-race and how it is all inverted ("blind justice is going out the window").

Peppered throughout the talk, it circles around to covid often.

He does not see how we might extricate ourselves from what has become this new fabric in our state of social being, and if possible, it would have to start at the education system level (which is well known as a driver of where societies go). Going back, also looks to going back to what, as the past is hard to nail down as it also contains all the pathological gears of how we got to this messy in the here and now. He also says, we can't go forward as things are.

Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe, a Toronto-based law & liberty thinktank, and professor of law at Queen's University. Bruce has long argued that Canada is threatened by an expansive managerial state and a legal system distorted by progressive ideology. He warned of dire consequences as soon as COVID lockdowns were imposed in spring 2020, and is one of the authors of the Free North Declaration, a call to arms to protect civil liberties from COVID irrationality and overreach. He has written on a range of subjects at the front lines of the culture war inside the law, including human rights and freedoms, free speech, environmental governance, climate change, energy policy, professional and university governance, property and tort theory, free markets, and the rule of law. He has taught at law schools in Canada, the United States and New Zealand, practiced civil litigation in Toronto, served as adjudicator and mediator on the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal, is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, and publishes and comments widely in traditional and online media.

Bruce is a self professed classical liberal, and in his talk, without having the language, he is simply offering a description of the ponorogenic process emanating from the education system. including now the legal system, and from those within and outside of the state (the state must include the corporate state (particular corporate state) that plays their part as can be seen - media etc.).

 

[T.C.]

One of the things Lobaczewski emphasises in the last chapters of PP is a dual-pronged approach to healing societies: meditation on values and rediscovery of cultural and societal norms, an emphasis on healthy common sense, a study of history and religion where these kinds of ideas are presented. Individual responsibility and moral courage and the building of character, and these approaches applied on the macrosocial level.

But that this isn’t enough, and objective knowledge about the causes of macrosocial evil and an education in psychopathy is also needed.

This reminds me of something JP mentions a lot, which is that you can always recognise an ideology by the fact that it only ever tells you one half of the story: Feminism’s focus on the patriarchy and toxic masculinity leaving out the positive male qualities; the environmentalists viewing nature as a passive, nurturing, beautiful and caring mother, leaving out the horrors of life being sustained by death, the occurrence of natural disasters.

So it seems to me that JP’s own thoughts on how to cure the ills of society have this one-sided nature to them - the very approach he warns against - focusing on individual responsibility and morality, but ignoring the study of evil. For him, one is just the result of the other. PP teaches us that the lack of moral and psychological knowledge and development of a population isn’t the cause of macrosocial evil; it’s just the fertile ground that allows evil to take root and grow. If characteropathies and psychopathy didn’t exist, a more hysterical and hedonistic society may not be a particularly strong and fruitful one, but it wouldn’t progress into totalitarianism, either.