Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

whitecoast said:
And he brings up 3-4% of the population composed of "Cluster-B" and "Dark Triad Traits."

I don't think he's late to the party.

I think he's straight-up plagiarizing Lobaczewski's and Harrison's (well, MindMatters's) dot-connecting.

He's aware of the book; he's been asked about it and responded acknowledging it; he's quoted people quoting from it.

But it's now "his" idea. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Quickly scanned the 3 hour transcript, which jumps around a whole lot. It doesn't appear that JP especially delves into the subject other than throwing out the usual DSM-V models, which is his profession to do so. Unless something else is already published by him, will have to wait and see where he goes with it, and yet it might be likely he does lift concepts from PP and then look to make them his own without every offering true acknowledgements.

Windmill knight said:
I apologize if I sound annoyed by him (I am, ever since he went full Zionist). I often need to remind myself of what the Cs said about him, and then I do feel sorry for him.
Click to expand...

No apology required, and yes, as the C's said.
 
Navigator said:
Here is James Lindsay entering the chat, he references his own article from 2020 (posted on SOTT, too), it could be the case he's not aware of the Dr. Andrew's work, but seems plausible he read the book. Anyway, no attribution to Political Ponerology.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1914876002078953651
Click to expand...

I’m feeling really triggered by these two but I’m going to post anyway.

Lindsay is really showing his own lack of development by elevating political slogans and the memetic slurries to a “metaphysic.” If he grasped ponerology he would know the semantic aphasia psychopaths operate under and the stunted skinner (sand)boxes schizoids play in. Lindsay and Peterson play similar games in their own ways, and I suspect projection may be behind some of their vehemence.

In my eyes Lindsay is just another political gatekeeper like Peterson getting high off his own supply. Like the whole “woke right” nonsense. Lindsay, Peterson, and Shapiro are probably the biggest exemplars of it. Special victim classes abound in Trump’s America, and the people Lindsay slings the “woke” slur at are just the tip of a vast iceberg they collectively overlook.
 
whitecoast said:
And he brings up 3-4% of the population composed of "Cluster-B" and "Dark Triad Traits."

I don't think he's late to the party.

I think he's straight-up plagiarizing Lobaczewski's and Harrison's (well, MindMatters's) dot-connecting.

He's aware of the book; he's been asked about it and responded acknowledging it; he's quoted people quoting from it.

But it's now "his" idea. :rolleyes:

I sure hope the publisher doesn't sue. Wouldn't that be a bad look for this disaffected rebel academic?
Click to expand...


...Academic prowess vs Town crier?..
.......How to judge their values?.....

Is a conclusion more conducive for the prior or later?
' just plagerism' - as a quick doubtless response? Or the liberal ethics of reason?
Is he overriding rabble elitism so prevalent in the halls of academia with their groupies? Or is Infusing truth bound to upset a world impoverished of the Wisdom Of Crowds ?
All despite his foibles. Lol
 
Peterson is just being driven by his emotions, as usual.

He has been talking (lecturing/writing) about psychopaths for a long time, including internet psychos etc. so the concept is very familiar to him. I think his reason for coming up with a "theory" of "political psychopaths" now is because:

a) he's seeing it much more on the internet

b) he's seeing it in a very particular context that is personal to him (see below)

Peterson is personally invested in Israel being good because he associates Israel with the OT (and therefore, in his mind, the NT and Jebus "Judeo-Christianity" righ?) and he has invested a lot of time and effort in his personal quest for redemption and salvation by teasing out the esoteric truths from the OT and NT.

By extension, he feels personally impacted by the increase in anti-Israel/anti-Jewish sentiment - which as he says, he views as being the domain of psychopaths that have infiltrated the far right and are using that 'hot topic' (anti-semitism) to try to garner attention and a following - because it's an attack on his spiritual quest.

In his chat with Rogan, his reference to "guard rails" was not a call to censorship of so-called anti-semitic speech, instead, he was asking Rogan how he, or Peterson or anyone, should decide what guard rails to put up, i.e. what do you look for when trying to figure out whether someone is a fake left or right-wing psycho on the make, or genuinely motivated. He's implicitly stating that it's very hard for him to figure out if someone on the 'far right' for example, is a psycho or well-meaning but misguided.
 
Also, apparently Peterson's new theory involves the ground breaking idea that ideas alone are not the problem, it's also the people who deliberately spread those ideas disingenuously :scared:

He really must have lived a very sheltered life, sheltered by his own emotionalism and the associated relative inability to see and accept the "ugly face of god".

He's a profound thinker with a genuine and deep desire and ability to help people (perhaps, as is often the case, motivated by his own suffering and need for help). That's what makes him a "great soul", but as we all should know by now, all such heightened ability nearly always comes at the necessary expense of other abilities that leave the person open to blindness and error.

Basic example: in this world, a genuinely good person with a really big and open heart and the capacity to truly help others, usually cannot also easily switch to being ruthless and cold (when necessary), although they may try to pretend to be that way at times, usually without effect.

Even more basic example: No on should expect a person who is genetically and spiritually wired to be a very effective 3D soldier, to also be as gentle as a lamb when he comes home from 'work'. Doesn't, and generally can't, work that way.
 
Last edited:
Joe said:
In his chat with Rogan, his reference to "guard rails" was not a call to censorship of so-called anti-semitic speech, instead, he was asking Rogan how he, or Peterson or anyone, should decide what guard rails to put up, i.e. what do you look for when trying to figure out whether someone is a fake left or right-wing psycho on the make, or genuinely motivated. He's implicitly stating that it's very hard for him to figure out if someone on the 'far right' for example, is a psycho or well-meaning but misguided.
Click to expand...
Here's the relevant clip from the podcast. [Put to one side the poster's 'highlight' about "jealousy of Jews"]...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1914905850159779973

By the end, Peterson gets to his point by asking Rogan, "how do you know you have the proper aims?" [in who Rogan chooses to have on his podcast].

It's a good question, actually, and one we're familiar with, but the context in which he's asking it - the exposure of his friend/peer Douglas Murray's woeful defense of Israel on Rogan, and Peterson's apparent belief that criticism of Israel is synonymous with anti-Semitism - you get the sense that he'd be relieved if these new anti-Semitism laws/policies take hold in North America, because then he'd have a "conceptual framework" with which to parse the "good" from the "bad" in discussion around Israel and Jews.

So no, he's not calling for censorship, but would he speak out against it like he did in 2016?
 
It's incumbent of us not to fall into the dissident culdedac he has. The good fight he has brought to our attention is admirable, his knowledge of his practice was distributed to a large audience of young people hungary for his wisdom, despite the attacks on his person. His accolades now need to be separated from his emotional ties, to beliefs that have captured his imagination.

Where some of his obvious skills are made to appear insensitive to say the least, made incompetent by the disparities of fundamental religion, and perhaps pharmacological toxicity. His thinking process has created cognitive dissonance, one of the most destructive environments we face. And no doubt his weakness has been leveraged!

Therefore, if we are tempted to throw out the baby with the bath water in a reactive response towards his errors, we may also find our selves infected by cognitive dissonance. A weakness many of us suffer from, do to the entrainment practiced for countless generations in all societies usually fostered by pathological wizards.

We must acknowledge truth and and the same time weed out the lies and ills in our thinking process that often are tangled together. I'm saying all this not so much for the sake of those on this forum, because

I know I'm communicating with good and intelligent people, but rather I'm responding to what I see happening out with some of the public at large, who for the most part are caught up in mass hysteria on the worst of all accounts, especially in urban environments sadly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Niall said:
but the context in which he's asking it - the exposure of his friend/peer Douglas Murray's woeful defense of Israel on Rogan, and Peterson's apparent belief that criticism of Israel is synonymous with anti-Semitism - you get the sense that he'd be relieved if these new anti-Semitism laws/policies take hold in North America, because then he'd have a "conceptual framework" with which to parse the "good" from the "bad" in discussion around Israel and Jews.
Click to expand...

I think that's an assumption that isn't really backed by what he said. He said about the discussion with Murray that "all three did a really good job of navigating the topic." So there's no evidence in what he said there that he's concerned about Murray's reputation, at least not openly.

He also didn't say that criticism of Israel is synonymous with anti-semitism, and I think his take on anti-semitism would be a lot more nuanced than that (even if still misguided).

So I don't think he'd necessarily support any criminalization of anti-semitism, again, at least not openly. It seems to me his effort to come up with a conceptual framework to separate the normies from the psychos comes from an impetus towards gaining more understanding, and protection of himself and his sacred cows (his personal investment in Israel and all things "biblical"). But he's still intelligent enough to not so easily leave himself open to being justifiably accused of being a raging hypocrit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom