That video was funny, Laura. I had been calling myself 'progressive'. But it seems that progressive has now devolved into 'regressive'. Maybe I need to stop calling myself anything. Except my name. LOL
I watched several of the Peterson videos. And read through some of his website as well. I think I'm still attempting to figure out what the heck is going on vis-a-vis all these PC and gender identity politics arguments. Haven't reached any conclusions. Still gathering data and trying to wrap my wits around all this.
In that light, I wondered what others here on the Forum would make of the following video and the comments I've included here. I do not trust my ability to unpack and think critically enough about this stuff yet. It's sort of mind-blowing to consider that there are Left-Wing Authoritarians as well as Right-Wing A's. In hind-sight, it should have been obvious to me. But I feel as if I got hit from left field on that possibility.
Thanks for finding and posting the Peterson videos by-the-way. Very interesting. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_fBYROA7Hk
Title of Video: Where Do SJWs Come From?
Video: PC Egalitarian vs. PC Authoritarian
19:25 minutes discussion
Interview by Lauren Southern of TheRebel
Does anyone have any thoughts about this breakdown and argument presented by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and PhD student Christine Brophy?
Then there were these 3 comments below the video presentation which I wanted to post here for any feedback as well.
Video Comments:
Paul Rothwell2 weeks ago (edited)
Great video! Awesome!
@17:15 "Whereas those who are high in compassion ….. left-wing authoritarianism....they like to commiserate with those at the bottom of the hierarchy...those who are oppressed…
Because they (left-wing authoritarians) have a relatively higher level of compassion, anyone who deviates from the norm, they are going to try to include them but force them to all be the same."
This is an example of a Paralogism, ie; an unconscious violation of one's own logic. It is a very common trap we all fall into as a result of not having thoroughly questioned our assumptions. The assumption here being that the left-wing authoritarian is more compassionate, or is compassionate at all. In other words, that you can have the words "compassionate" and "authoritarian" in the same sentence to describe the same person.
Just look at the available data on the left's higher level of "compassion" in Robespierre's France, Leninist-Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia? Or, of course, Marx, and today's manifestation of Marxism, Political Correctness which is fast robbing us of our freedom of speech and right to free assembly. PC culture being the obvious breeding ground of all SJWs.
That's not where they come from though, but we're not ready to turn to that yet.
Where is the compassion in these examples? I see phoniness, posturing, the deliberate intent to deceive, and self-deception. More importantly, I see a confirmation of an historical fact that the full terror of human behavior always justifies itself by an appeal to society, equality, freedom and love (as both sides have used those words). But I see no evidence of compassion, and for this reason.
Authoritarians impose their will on others. And to impose your will on others is to violate them. As you cannot use "authoritarian" and "compassionate" to describe the same person, you certainly cannot use "compassion" and "violation" to describe the same personality type. Why not?
Because, if one has a self beneath the roles that we all have to play as part of our admission into society, than so do other people. And one can assert the existence of the self only by recognizing the self in others, through empathy. Not by an authoritarian imposition of the will.
Empathy, by the way, is not to be confused with sentimentality, which is a desire to hear the tune without paying the piper (like crying during a movie, only to turn around and be cruel to the person you're watching it with).
And this is the kind of "compassion" we find in both the egalitarian and authoritarian Left. In the right-wing version of both we tend to see some sentimentality, but mostly cynicism masquerading as realism.
To impose one's will on others, even for the sake of "saving" them is to treat them like an object. It's to treat them, in short, the way the "compassionate" left-wing authoritarian claims that their enemy treats the oppressed!!
A better example of a dangerously deluded psychopath would be impossible to imagine. The temptations for such morally self-righteous people, once they seize power, are breath-taking, as a glance at the 20th century makes perfectly obvious.
So, does the left-wing authoritarian really commiserate? Or would "manipulate" be a more accurate word? Or, better, to put it bluntly, "use", or simply "violate in the name of love."
In any event, the only way out of this dilemma is to abandon the entire Right/Left paradigm. And it can done. In fact, not only can this be done, but it's been going on for over 200 years. Cultural History is filled with examples and from all areas of thought and creativity.
And, though the trend setters in this regard have obviously been mostly White men, that has not been entirely the case. Ralph Ellison, Jimi Hendrix and Martha Graham are excellent examples among many others.
It's something open to all of us. And it shows the most promise exactly because it confronts reality head on and doesn't run from it as the Left does, or pretend to understand it completely as does the Right.
But, because it is true that White men have provided the most powers of example, they are all placed in a bag of "deplorables" and tossed into the garbage heap of history by those who would rather die than think.
And now we arrive at the answer to the question, Where do SJW's come from?
They come from, or, are born out of, the same age old desire to live in a perfect world, a heaven on earth (Left), or, just as bad, one in the after life (Right). Heaven, after all, is a place where no one creates, where no one has to try, or innovate. It's a place where all responses to life's demands are entirely adequate, because there are no demands, and, no problems. Given life's complexities and our longing to avoid them, is there any surprise that every culture around the world has its own version of heaven?
Life is filled with problems, heaven isn't. And the desire to avoid problems, by creating utopias, or, a perfectly comprehensible and predictable world, is the desire to be free from the intellectual tension, psychological disorientation, and emotional disturbance that come with all problem-solving and innovation.
What we are witnessing today is an attack on civilization - not because it is the creation mostly, though not entirely, of White men. That's the red herring of red herrings. No, it's because (and here's our opportunity to practice some empathy, though not unconditional) those attacking it have never learned how to confront reality and the problems it inevitably brings, nor have they ever been properly taught to accept the fact that those problems are inevitable, simply because we are imperfect, not perfect, and life is dynamic, not static. In short, they have not been acculturated into the modern world. As everyone can see, the consequences are immense. We are living with them now.
But why get into all of that when you can just blame someone else? And that is what the Left and Right do. But this response is symptomatic of our problem and in no way an answer to it. In this respect, the Right, it has to be admitted, has lost, and lost badly. Mostly because it doesn't promise heaven on earth. So, it's a hard sell to the thin-skinned and soft-minded who live out their lives in an endless search for new ways of being offended by reality.
But, more importantly, the Right has also failed because it's as much of a dead end as is the Left. This is the conclusion Dr. Peterson comes to at the end of the discussion in this video. He doesn't know all of us who watched this and agree with him and many, myself included, never heard of him until we saw this video. That's an example of a cultural convergence; when people from different parts of the world unknown to each other have similar responses to the problems they face, but are able to resist the temptation to respond with quick fixes and easy answers.
Forget the Right and Left, they are both polarized and polarizing. They are old mental models being applied again and again to new and complex problems that are themselves growing more complex every time the old mental models are applied. It's a vicious cycle. They trap all discourse into a corner and lock up all potential to more adequate and satisfactory alternatives to the the problems we all face today.
In short, they're dysfunctional and mal-adaptive. The Right/Let paradigm is literally an obstacle to survival. The paradigm is certainly a very obvious obstacle to our ability to enhance the quality of life, which is what Western civilization has been about all along (and from this perspective it has nothing to apologize for, and those who attack it have a lot of explaining to do). To many, this is a distressing state of affairs. But for more courageous spirits it represents an opportunity. The discussion in this video is an example.
All theologies and ideologies end up in the same cul-de-sac, sooner or later. And that's why the only sensible response is to ditch the whole paradigm once and for all. Again, it can be done.
Time to replace a vicious cycle with a virtuous one. Instead of identifying with a group that insists on placing itself above criticism, we form collectives of individuals capable of self-criticism without anxiety, who can expose their ideas to a process of continuous feedback and correction for the purpose of living in reality and enhancing the quality of our lives. Maybe then we'll have a real democracy, for the first time.
Free Spirits of the World Unite! You have nothing to loose but your Souls!
Luke Hulm2 weeks ago (edited)
Very well written & expressed. I hold similar ideas and am waiting for a new religion to arise - a religion that has as its first tenant that all who follow it must acknowledge that the religion itself is a work in progress, that its truths are only a best guess at this stage (and in need of modification) and that continuous change and improvement will be necessary. Basically a religion that embraces change but one that does so intelligently, not galloping off in every new direction but one where people adhere to the constant search for truth with open minds and where change comes about via earnest discussion between non-ideologues, for the religion itself excludes ideologues by its nature of trumpeting its incompleteness and lack of perfection. (I am using the word religion here loosely - as I see religion - an explanation of the universes around us as we feel it is or might be. Here as I express it, similar to science and the scientific method - similar in its attempts to explain what is and what might be).
Paul Rothwell2 weeks ago
Thanks Luke. Couldn't agree more. And I get what you mean about the use of the word "religion". It might be better to have a different word just to avoid confusion. Terms like "belief-system", or "value-system." The best one I know of for which there is an historical record is what is known as "Romanticism", which started in 1790 with people like Kant, Goethe, Wordsworth, Beethoven, etc. It culminated with Nietzsche, and continues to this day.
Could go into it more, but maybe it's better to just recommend a book on the subject. "Beyond the Tragic Vision" by Morse Peckham. It's out of print, but most libraries and used bookstores have copies laying around. But he's got some books that have been reissued that should be easier to find. His books are great. His writing is challenging, but not so difficult that one gets discouraged or turned off, and focuses on behavior, is not at all ideological, and never talks down to the reader. He was a Cultural Historian at U. of Penn. He was at home with both the Arts and Sciences (he edited the 100 year Anniversary edition of Darwin's Origin of Species).
I seriously had no idea that the PC and Gender pronouns had gotten to such an insane level. After seeing what is going on with the anti-Trump snowflakes protest and this - it is jaw dropping.
