Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Just wanted to share this one - Petersons second 'ghost story', including a mention of Carlos Castaneda.
angelburst29
The Living Force
Despite his tremendous success and popularity both online and offline, Dr. Jordan Peterson is unlikely to save the West from cultural decline. He is a brilliant intellectual, but he is ill-equipped to deal with the powerful post-modernist lobby.
Jordan Peterson is Too Nice to Win the Culture War 07.03.2018
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201803071062312876-jordan-peterson-nra-guns/
The story of Jordan Peterson, a soft-spoken clinical psychologist from Canada, who has become an Internet sensation and something of an icon for a disenfranchised generation of Western males, is fascinating. If you don't know Peterson, you don't spend a lot of time on social media. This Canadian intellectual has something of cult-like following on the Internet and millions of views on Youtube. He is also vilified and hated by progressive politicians and the mainstream media in the US, Canada and Great Britain.
He is one of the few people, who can boast that The Guardian, VICE and a host of other media outlets tried to smear both his character and his views.
His interview with Channel 4's Cathy Newman became an instant hit on the web, and his book "12 Rules for Life" is breaking records on Amazon. Some hope that Peterson's success and popularity across the Western world (and even China) can help change the current cultural and ideological landscape that is dominated by the so-called "social justice warriors" and the "politically correct Inquisition," that stifles any kind of dissent, free speech and creative expression.
People tired of being forced to kowtow to the latest progressive fad, like "inclusiveness" or "equality" (understood as an equality of outcomes and not an equality of opportunities) see Peterson's popularity as an indication that the pendulum of the culture wars is swinging in the right direction. I hate to say it, and I'd like to be wrong, but it seems that it's too late for such hopes. Again, I'd like to be wrong, because like any other human being on the planet, I have a horse in this race. If the so-called "progressives" succeed in their attempts to establish total control of the US political system, economy and academia, then everyone in the world will be affected in a very negative way. People who believe they have the right to make the world a better place through tyranny, oppression and violence, never ever stop at the borders of their countries. They believe that the whole world is their playground and act accordingly.
It often seems that Peterson and his fans find solace in the fact, that the radical progressives represent nothing more than a loud minority in politics, academia or on university campuses. It may be comforting to hope that the radicals, who want to censor free speech and impose some form of politically correct tyranny, are a minority, but it is a false comfort. Nassim Taleb, in his brilliant book "Antifragility," describes the "Minority rule" which perfectly explains why the most intolerant minorities shape the tastes, politics, laws and even lifestyles of entire societies.
According to Taleb, "It suffices for an intransigent minority – a certain type of intransigent minorities – to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority."
The only counterbalance available against an intolerant and militant minority is another intolerant and active minority with a different ideology. It seems that Jordan Peterson is either too polite or too kind to become the leader of such a minority, despite his tremendous popularity and political experience. Western conservatives (I use the term very loosely, because in modern political discourse everyone to the right of Pol Pot is labeled as being "right wing" or "conservative" or "alt right") lack a leader who would be willing and able to leverage the collective anger in order to pressure politicians, academics and business leaders. On the other hand, there is no shortage of such leaders among the radical progressives and social justice warriors.
One obvious consequence of this "asymmetry of leadership" is that businesses, political parties and universities are easily bullied into submission by the internet mobs of assorted progressives led by virtue signaling celebrities or political activists. Case in point: progressives can easily force big companies to cut their ties with the NRA, despite the associated financial losses.
Conservatives can't do anything similar. Progressives can successfully target tenured professors and can get them fired for "wrongthink."
Conservatives couldn't force Wilfrid Laurier University to fire its professor, who organized an ad-hoc quasi-trial to bully teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd for showing a Jordan Peterson video in class. That alone shows other "progressive inquisitors" from academia that they can bully anyone with no palpable consequences, and even if they do get caught, they won't receive a punishment more severe than a slap on the wrist. It is obvious who is winning and who is losing in this political and ideological tug-of-war and the consequences of this trend will be dire.
In the aftermath of the world-famous "Cathy Newman scandal," it was easy to see why progressive media managers from Channel 4 were not afraid to publish the whole interview, despite the fact that Cathy Newman had been trounced by Professor Peterson. It is quite possible that they viewed the interview as a success and not a disaster, because in their view it showed Peterson's alleged bigotry, right wing views and misogyny. Only when the negative comments on social media started pouring in did they become angry, scared and frustrated. From their point of view, Peterson was dangerous not because of his intellect or polemical skills, but because he was the only conservative speaker able to use their preferred weapons against them. Progressives don't fear his logic or his ideas, but they fear his followers' ability to use emotional and social pressure for political goals.
Progressives, like all totalitarians, are bullies at heart and bullies hate to be bullied. That's why they make sure that conservatives behave like polite and shy beta males in public or on social media, while progressives bully and harass politicians, companies and universities. It is really hard to understand why Peterson, a psychologist who has helped thousands of men to stop being "nice" and start being assertive, doesn't use the same principles in his political struggles. Maybe he fears being labeled a radical, a bully or an instigator of harassment, but he is already labeled that way so, why bother? It doesn't mean that bullying is an okay tactic, but making sure that progressive bullies from business, academia or politics feel some strong emotional discomfort is certainly a valid approach. Ghandi used and preached no violence, but his political methods certainly packed a powerful emotional punch and played a decisive role in his political victories. Maybe if Professor Peterson rediscovers his inner Ghandi he will be able to turn the tide in the culture wars.
(The views and opinions expressed by Ivan Danilov are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.)
Jordan Peterson is Too Nice to Win the Culture War 07.03.2018
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201803071062312876-jordan-peterson-nra-guns/
The story of Jordan Peterson, a soft-spoken clinical psychologist from Canada, who has become an Internet sensation and something of an icon for a disenfranchised generation of Western males, is fascinating. If you don't know Peterson, you don't spend a lot of time on social media. This Canadian intellectual has something of cult-like following on the Internet and millions of views on Youtube. He is also vilified and hated by progressive politicians and the mainstream media in the US, Canada and Great Britain.
He is one of the few people, who can boast that The Guardian, VICE and a host of other media outlets tried to smear both his character and his views.
His interview with Channel 4's Cathy Newman became an instant hit on the web, and his book "12 Rules for Life" is breaking records on Amazon. Some hope that Peterson's success and popularity across the Western world (and even China) can help change the current cultural and ideological landscape that is dominated by the so-called "social justice warriors" and the "politically correct Inquisition," that stifles any kind of dissent, free speech and creative expression.
People tired of being forced to kowtow to the latest progressive fad, like "inclusiveness" or "equality" (understood as an equality of outcomes and not an equality of opportunities) see Peterson's popularity as an indication that the pendulum of the culture wars is swinging in the right direction. I hate to say it, and I'd like to be wrong, but it seems that it's too late for such hopes. Again, I'd like to be wrong, because like any other human being on the planet, I have a horse in this race. If the so-called "progressives" succeed in their attempts to establish total control of the US political system, economy and academia, then everyone in the world will be affected in a very negative way. People who believe they have the right to make the world a better place through tyranny, oppression and violence, never ever stop at the borders of their countries. They believe that the whole world is their playground and act accordingly.
It often seems that Peterson and his fans find solace in the fact, that the radical progressives represent nothing more than a loud minority in politics, academia or on university campuses. It may be comforting to hope that the radicals, who want to censor free speech and impose some form of politically correct tyranny, are a minority, but it is a false comfort. Nassim Taleb, in his brilliant book "Antifragility," describes the "Minority rule" which perfectly explains why the most intolerant minorities shape the tastes, politics, laws and even lifestyles of entire societies.
According to Taleb, "It suffices for an intransigent minority – a certain type of intransigent minorities – to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority."
The only counterbalance available against an intolerant and militant minority is another intolerant and active minority with a different ideology. It seems that Jordan Peterson is either too polite or too kind to become the leader of such a minority, despite his tremendous popularity and political experience. Western conservatives (I use the term very loosely, because in modern political discourse everyone to the right of Pol Pot is labeled as being "right wing" or "conservative" or "alt right") lack a leader who would be willing and able to leverage the collective anger in order to pressure politicians, academics and business leaders. On the other hand, there is no shortage of such leaders among the radical progressives and social justice warriors.
One obvious consequence of this "asymmetry of leadership" is that businesses, political parties and universities are easily bullied into submission by the internet mobs of assorted progressives led by virtue signaling celebrities or political activists. Case in point: progressives can easily force big companies to cut their ties with the NRA, despite the associated financial losses.
Conservatives can't do anything similar. Progressives can successfully target tenured professors and can get them fired for "wrongthink."
Conservatives couldn't force Wilfrid Laurier University to fire its professor, who organized an ad-hoc quasi-trial to bully teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd for showing a Jordan Peterson video in class. That alone shows other "progressive inquisitors" from academia that they can bully anyone with no palpable consequences, and even if they do get caught, they won't receive a punishment more severe than a slap on the wrist. It is obvious who is winning and who is losing in this political and ideological tug-of-war and the consequences of this trend will be dire.
In the aftermath of the world-famous "Cathy Newman scandal," it was easy to see why progressive media managers from Channel 4 were not afraid to publish the whole interview, despite the fact that Cathy Newman had been trounced by Professor Peterson. It is quite possible that they viewed the interview as a success and not a disaster, because in their view it showed Peterson's alleged bigotry, right wing views and misogyny. Only when the negative comments on social media started pouring in did they become angry, scared and frustrated. From their point of view, Peterson was dangerous not because of his intellect or polemical skills, but because he was the only conservative speaker able to use their preferred weapons against them. Progressives don't fear his logic or his ideas, but they fear his followers' ability to use emotional and social pressure for political goals.
Progressives, like all totalitarians, are bullies at heart and bullies hate to be bullied. That's why they make sure that conservatives behave like polite and shy beta males in public or on social media, while progressives bully and harass politicians, companies and universities. It is really hard to understand why Peterson, a psychologist who has helped thousands of men to stop being "nice" and start being assertive, doesn't use the same principles in his political struggles. Maybe he fears being labeled a radical, a bully or an instigator of harassment, but he is already labeled that way so, why bother? It doesn't mean that bullying is an okay tactic, but making sure that progressive bullies from business, academia or politics feel some strong emotional discomfort is certainly a valid approach. Ghandi used and preached no violence, but his political methods certainly packed a powerful emotional punch and played a decisive role in his political victories. Maybe if Professor Peterson rediscovers his inner Ghandi he will be able to turn the tide in the culture wars.
(The views and opinions expressed by Ivan Danilov are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.)
angelburst29 said:
I think Ivan's wrong. Jordan certainly can use his anger properly. He's not 'too nice'. But I don't know that anyone can save the West from cultural decline. It was well on its way before Jordan appeared on the scene, and has clearly ramped up the descent lately. But I wholly disagree that Jordan is ill-equipped to deal with post-modernists. He handles them pretty darn well, better than almost anyone.
Beau said:
JP would be the first to say, I think, that he has a side that is not nice and yet he is smart enough to hold his own in the way he does. If he ever came out with what he truly thought it would be a good lashing and he has to guard against it; think he has said it is a fear of his. To mix-up saving the West from decline, it seems to me to be way past that point of return and so all JP can help to do is point out to people what he can and they will have to make their own steps in life for themselves. It would appear that JP knows well his limits, and he is very capable of handling people, yet as history reveals the line of force is not suddenly reeled back in.
Beau said:
Eh, yeah. I never thought of Peterson as 'soft spoken'. Respectful, yes. Measured, absolutely. But he is firm and assertive. Perhaps Ivan wants JP to be more aggressive, but that would upend a lot of the work he is accomplishing.
The following inference about JP is just ridiculous and doesn't at all reflect how he interacts with SJW bullies:
I don't know how someone could come away with such a distorted conclusion. JP is effective because he walks the talk. He demonstrates the lessons he provides for others. Perhaps Ivan was looking for a unique slant for a story and got seriously carried away.
Renaissance said:
Exactly what I thought as well. Besides, he seems to completely miss the point that JP is not about starting a revolution or use the same tactics as the SJWs. JP's whole point is that only the individual can set things right, hence his "coaching" approach, his talks, leading by example etc.
lids4321
Padawan Learner
IMHO, Jordan performs a vital role - that of the wise village elder. Thus, no chest thumping, angry tones or sarcastic comments. Just well chosen words, spoken with the right tone, that penetrates one's being, causing hesitation, self-reflection and finally, full realisation of the idiocy of the liberal game. He makes one also realise that they too have a role to play and that he can't do it alone. His followers continue to grow because more and more people are accepting the batons of common sense, speaking the truth and getting their house in order, and passing the batons further on into their lives and communities. A great soul - that's for sure!
It is fascinating to listen to JP in these days of media monopoly and what once considered unthinkable and stupid, popping up out of nowhere and becoming new norm or even laws. His book was #1 best seller on Amazon for 2 weeks in a row. I ordered his book 2 days back, it looks they have a 2 to 4 week delay in shipping. I am glad to see people are realizing the importance of his message and feel the hope in his message.lids4321 said:
seek10 said:
Peterson's message has such an appeal the mainstream media can't afford to ignore him. And the more they try to twist his words, the more they expose themselves. The attempt to smear him, for instance, with Cathy Newman's shoddy rhetorical tactics, backfired spectacularly. That video has had 8 million views to date. Channel 4 handed Peterson an unintended publicity bonanza. His calm, compassionate, rational consistency must have the PTB seriously p*ssed.
Very True. People crave for common sense and when somebody like him comes along, people hold on to him. Not that surprising given the distance PTB and MSM went with so-called "War on Terror" and "New World Order". Probably, that may be one reason for John Stewart's popularity during the Bush-Obama days, though he is a comedian.herondancer said:
I came to know of JP's old posts on Quora Q &A which I thought interesting.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Jordan-B-Peterson
DianaRose
Jedi Master
Joe said:
Hmmm...I see where you're coming from but I'm personally a bit unsure. USA is a good ground for identity politics to propagate. However, I'm not entirely sure that it has exactly the same effect in Europe. Look for example at this: https://www.rt.com/news/420655-europe-rise-right-wing/
Outside elite circle, academia and some media fields (PR, film and music industry, journalism), very few people actually buy into a lot of the ideology spread by the new left. I can't wrap my mind around how minority, even helped with some of the majority could come to create some kind of revolution or a sort of totalitarian state with success and without a major backlash. Also, I feel like in Europe, a lot of people still try to cling to traditional values, at least at a higher rate than the US. Plus, identity politics isn't quite as developed, except maybe for Britain. Obviously, some Scandinavian countries are taken with gender theories and if I'm not mistaken, pedophilia is a big issue for the Dutch.
Of course, I may be way off.
herondancer said:
It appears to me that JP is under the protection umbrella of the Brotherhood of light. He was sent here to carry out this mission. The STS
may think its mission impossible but from what we are observing ,it is indeed possible for JP to shake a few persons from their sleep. One of my favorite YouTube video is titled: Full Harvard Talk posted on February 18,2018.JP has properly prepared himself for this chaos. He stated in his Harvard speech that there is nothing more powerful than someone who is articulate and who can think and speak.If you transform your self,you can shine a light on the whole world.
This is an interview by Richard Fidler from Jordan Peterson's Australian tour. The interviewer asks some good questions and seems quite interested in JP's responses. In the second half of the interview JP delves into his childhood experiences which I think some here will find interesting.
