Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[Turgon]

I think Ruppert Sheldrake expressed the problem well that people who argue with Atheists usually face in this short video:

The debate is actually a philosophical one between rigid materialism and other options that allow "higher realms" or the unknown that exists outside the framework of rigid materialism. But Peterson has no philosophical background and has never really thought through these things, hence he doesn't go there, and I think it's wise - the power of his presentations lies in the fact that he has deeply thought about what he's presenting; he doesn't just repeat some arguments he has read about somewhere.

That's true! Peterson is a psychologist, so a lot of what he talks about centers around understanding problems from a psychological perspective, not a philosophical or theological one, which is where he was trying to come from throughout most of the debate. Haha, I've tweeted the video you posted from Sheldrake to Jordan, hopefully he has a chance to watch it.

 

[fabric]

The atheist/materialist generally won't even accept that, "I have my views, and you have yours". Even that's not allowed. In fact, it's disallowed with a ferocious intensity that is exactly the fiery type of "faith" that materialists claim to be against!

That's what I find so fascinating about the whole thing. It's really the other side of the coin! They are so attached to their dogmatic way of thinking - with the same fervor a religious fundy type would have - yet claim to be against it. Then throw some post-modernism into the mix and the only world they have left is a made up fantasy land with no more link to objective reality or even attempts to determine what that is.

 

[BlackCartouche]

From painful experience, that is a "debate" that I will simply not engage in anymore. I tried it several times, and there is simply no common ground to be found.

The atheist/materialist generally won't even accept that, "I have my views, and you have yours". Even that's not allowed. In fact, it's disallowed with a ferocious intensity that is exactly the fiery type of "faith" that materialists claim to be against!

That's a particular type of mind-BLEEP that is insanely strong, and the only one who can change it is the materialist/atheist themselves. The same is true of "true believers" of whatever religion. We think that those ideas and beliefs are SO central to who we are that we don't leave much room for discussion or doubt. To do so often means inner collapse.

The only thing that works is time, life experience, and more time... And even then, most people will go to their graves still clinging to the same ideas they formed at a rather young age.

The way I put it is this:

• If belief in the Divine is correct, and the Divine is indeed revealed upon death, then the life 'grooved' was fundamentally correct.
• 
  
• If to NOT have belief in the Divine is believed to be correct, yet the Divine is nevertheless revealed upon death, then the fundamental philosophy of life led is proven wrong and fundamentally foolish - as the Cosmos All is thine witness!
• 
  
• If, however, to NOT believe in the Divine is in fact correct, and therefor the Divine is certainly NOT to be revealed upon death, then the correct philosophy of life led can NEVER be proven to be the correct one because... *pop*... everything ceases to exist upon death. Proof of correctness will always remain unproven: Conclusion = null and void.
• 
  
• And lastly... If belief in the Divine is NOT correct, and therefor the Divine is NEVER to be revealed upon death because, again, the Divine simply does not exist, then the "wasted" philosophy of life led so erroneously 'grooved' can NEVER be proved wrong - in the same way to NOT believe in the Divine can ever be proven correct - because again... *pop*... everything most emphatically ceases to exist upon death. Proof of wrongness will always remain unproven: Conclusion = null and void (again).

Therefore, the logical conclusion must be concluded :: Might as well believe in the Divine!

 

[Alejo]

I watched the debate that JP just engaged with alongside Stephen Fry. It was painful to watch.. not the least because it felt like Jordan Peterson went in with an idea of what was about to happen and landed in an ambush where these two very agreeable people were there to mock him publicly, coordinated mocking, where Stephen Fry just wanted to talk and that's it. So I understand his defensiveness. It was visible also during the Vice interview for instance, when he knows he's about to get attacked he becomes rather rigid and vigilant about his words, it's quite interesting to witness.

The debate having time constrains wasn't a very good thing for his speaking style, he conveys his ideas best when he's not constrained to 3 minutes. He tried to be concise and succinct but he needs time to build his ideas effectively. The mocking, the lack of depth on the liberal side, the conversation style sounded extremely immature and grand standish... specially when ignoring questions posed to them.

And whenever JBP would make a comment and they'd just disrespectfully say something under their breath and immediately look to the audience for approval and laughter, I felt the strategy was to make him uncomfortable by denigrating using lies spoken in a witty manner that would give the impression of popularity.

What I found most interesting of all was that, most people on Youtube at least... saw through the lies and made rather appropriate comments, most everyone was able to point out the nonsensical style of preaching with big words and almost zero substance of Dyson, the lies that Michelle was spouting out and how that seemed to be her only goal, almost all her comments were..."well, yeah but this and that. and oh Jordan Peterson said this and he's wrong and evil... but yeah".

Even at the very end, Fry and Peterson said that they had enjoyed the experience and called their counterparts passionate and saw the experience in a somewhat positive light. The other two just couldn't have enough and had to come out to bash them one last time. Truly sad.

All in all, the debate doesn't clarify anything, it's more of a 2 hour video of people telling Jordan Peterson why they think he's evil and him attempting to reason his way through their nonsense, with an occasional Stephen Fry saying "can't we get along for crying out loud?"

 

[Alejo]

Found a good analysis of two of the sticking points in the debate that I wanted to share with you here:

 

[Cosmos]

Great idea! I would really like to see a video commentary

Same here. It would be really nice to see that!

I can't help but wonder if going on a relentless tour de force to promote his book, and coming across so many hostile interviewers, that it has put him on edge and hostile himself. Even the strongest and most put-together person must have their limits when faced with journalists and interviewers that are 'out to get him'. And having every little thing he say's scrutinized must be very difficult for him.

The above is something I haven't really thought about in context of the discussion Peterson had with Dillahunty. So thank you for bringing this up since I think that might in fact explain quite a bit of why Peterson conducted himself as he did there! It is an understandable form of protection from his side I think, after having gone through an imminence period where a whole bunch of "Journalists" and Mainstream Media "Reporters", Neo Marxist/Postmodernists and atheist/materialist types, have in most cases put actions and words in his mouth that he did not say or do at all. When you repeatedly get defamed in that manner and what you try to say gets misrepresented so crossly, it is just natural to get rather apprehensive when you are confronted with another atheist.

I also think that Scottie, luc and others brought up some good points about the way atheist/materialist think and conduct themselves and how very difficult, if not impossible, it is to really discuss things with such types in their true believer way of looking at things. I also think that a real discussion with a true believer type atheist/materialist isn't possible, because they simply operate on a completely other level and there is no common ground to really get into a fruitful discussion to begin with.

Further it seems to me that Ruppert Sheldrake advice and talk about atheist/materialistic thinking and behaving is right on point here. I think Ruppert is right to point out that true believer types of atheist/materialist put themselves on a pedestal and approach talks with humans who accept the possibility that there is more to life then just the material and feel that there are higher goods to aspire to, in a condescending and not scientific manner. Such types frequently conduct such talks from the position of the Inquisitor on his pedestal as Ruppert rightly points out. There is no real talk that can develop out of such a combination. Rather the Inquisitor feels the right to sit above "the believer" and that this believer has to defend his position to prove to the Inquisitor that what he says is true.

Although it seems like Dillahunty was rather open to what Peterson said and did not put himself into the Inquisitor position as much as other atheist do, there is certainly also a flavor of it, since his beliefs about the material way of the world seem to be rather ingrained instead of open for revision. I think for true atheist/materialist types it is almost impossible to not go into some sort of Inquisitor mode, as is the case with all "true believers" I think.

 

[Voyageur]

Further it seems to me that Ruppert Sheldrake advice and talk about atheist/materialistic thinking and behaving is right on point here. I think Ruppert is right to point out that true believer types of atheist/materialist put themselves on a pedestal and approach talks with humans who accept the possibility that there is more to life then just the material and feel that there are higher goods to aspire to, in a condescending and not scientific manner. Such types frequently conduct such talks from the position of the Inquisitor on his pedestal as Ruppert rightly points out. There is no real talk that can develop out of such a combination. Rather the Inquisitor feels the right to sit above "the believer" and that this believer has to defend his position to prove to the Inquisitor that what he says is true.

Although it seems like Dillahunty was rather open to what Peterson said and did not put himself into the Inquisitor position as much as other atheist do, there is certainly also a flavor of it, since his beliefs about the material way of the world seem to be rather ingrained instead of open for revision. I think for true atheist/materialist types it is almost impossible to not go into some sort of Inquisitor mode, as is the case with all "true believers" I think.

Spent time finishing the offered talks after the initial Munk debate and was particularly interested in the Dillahunty/Peterson talk and the follow-up words by Sheldrake.

Perhaps Dillahunty was open to Peterson, yet something leaves me with the impression that he was politely entertaining his position while knowing his own position is fixed. And the thing about this atheist/materialistic position (and he made many references to how inspiring it is to think this way - computers was one example), it seemed to me that it is circular-closed thinking; it has nowhere to go, it has no spark, it has no appreciation for the utter complexities (from just what we see) that threads life together, and we don't understand the half of it probably.

In sum, Dillahunty's thinking, for me anyway, leaves an empty entropic feeling that bypasses these foundations that Peterson talked about - we can't see them, we may feel them, yet they span time as some type of inner complexity of our interaction with consciousness, as best that we can touch on that. Also, while watching/listening, some of what Collingwood discussed kept cycling back - in many forms, and when Peterson discussed, or tried to discuss, consiousness itself (for Dillahunty it is fixed in the head), some of what T.C. Lethbridge described of his dreams and studies was want to enter my thinking - and I've no way to dismiss these things, it is something 'outside' that appear to have a resonance - memory, that does not appear to be accounted for in an atheist/materialistic worldview.

None of this is fully seated, yet the conversations were quite profound, osit.

 

[Timótheos]

I watched a couple newer JP interviews this week, while he was in the UK. He handles himself well in both situations, especially in regards to the presenters misrepresenting his ideas and trying to pigeonhole him as a spokesman for the alt-right.

The first one, from a show called The Wright Stuff, features the host plus another guest - Sophie Walker from from the Women's Equality Party...

The second, which starts off kind of slow with it's focus on Trump and Stormy Daniels, is an 18 minute excerpt from an hour long interview, and gets interesting around the 9:00 minute mark when the interviewer asks Peterson if he thinks trans-women are real women...

 

[Joe]

From painful experience, that is a "debate" that I will simply not engage in anymore. I tried it several times, and there is simply no common ground to be found.

The atheist/materialist generally won't even accept that, "I have my views, and you have yours". Even that's not allowed. In fact, it's disallowed with a ferocious intensity that is exactly the fiery type of "faith" that materialists claim to be against!

Pretty much my experience, which is why I don't engage very long, just enough to have the basic points of both sides outlined, and then I end it by saying "Actually, I agree that what you say about the fundamentally material nature of the world is true, but only for you". People tend to freak out at that.

 

[Joe]

I watched the debate that JP just engaged with alongside Stephen Fry. It was painful to watch.. not the least because it felt like Jordan Peterson went in with an idea of what was about to happen and landed in an ambush where these two very agreeable people were there to mock him publicly, coordinated mocking, where Stephen Fry just wanted to talk and that's it. So I understand his defensiveness. It was visible also during the Vice interview for instance, when he knows he's about to get attacked he becomes rather rigid and vigilant about his words, it's quite interesting to witness.

The sad truth seems to be that there are VERY few people who can think critically and grasp the level of objectivity that Peterson puts into his analyses. The Vice News idiot was a good example of this, as was that Michael Dyson idiot, although he also embodies a radical ideologue very well also.

 

[seek10]

This week we went to JBP's event here in suburbs of Philadelphia and here is a little run down. As usual, packed 3000 people in a rather small event hall with foldable chairs wherever there is some little space and Long queue to get in. As my son pointed out that it looks we are the only Asians in the hall and we haven't seen a handful of black people's presence either despite being in the suburbs of Philadelphia which is a predominantly black community. all white young and middle-aged male and some females here and Some old people too.

Dave Rubin started the event with a little joke "I am not the first choice for started the even, It's Cathy Newman. But, When she was asked about it, she asked "You want to sleep with me". After that some satirical comments which really went over of my head ( I guess crowd too) and then Candice Owens who happens to have borne in the Philly mentioned that NBC is calling her friends and college friends to inquire whether she has any black boyfriends at all. She followed similar lines, but crowd seems to have not that much thrilled about either. At this point, it looked the event as a political event. Then JBP was called on to the stage and literally every body woke up, clapped to invite him for a while.

He started the meeting with his endogamy article in response to NYT article. JBP's hour-long speech focus Rule by Rule, what it means in everyday life, responsibility to be one's own self, room, family before thinking about the broader world in order. It is full of passionate analogies (mostly from the book), with punches of strong words in between to stress the complexity of the situation. These strong words with deeper meaning effortlessly linking concepts ( psychological, historical, modern day political distortions) to create a coherent and relevant message evoked a ton of clapping throughout the hour. we both enjoyed every minute of it though I felt little overwhelming. I wondered whether everybody understood the deeper meaning of the word by word, but the concepts are pretty much from the book and this event is book-tour event. He covered only 8 rules, that itself too much.

Last 15 or 20 minutes are related to Q & A read by Dave Rubin to JBP. That is an entertaining part of a serious lecture.

- What do you think of Trump: He started with narrating discussion with Canadian celebrity( more of -ve side), then he said who cares my view of him anyway and said: " He is your GOD DAMN president and go figure out". After listening to it, he pointed out different angles of the picture and let people decide for themselves and he don't want to take bait.

- What do you think of Left and Right: parsing left between extreme left and moderate left differentiating the views based on issues, While at the same time pointing the extremities of these positions.

- Did you imagine whether you will be in this situation: Yes and No. Over the 25 years of the career, lot of students mentioned to him that "He changed their life" (Yes part), but he didn't imagine that he will hear from broader spectrum around the globe (No Part). He mentioned that most satisfying moment of his life is to hear atleast 4 people saying the same ("changed their life") in every visit. He became emotional while saying this (tears), just like in his interview in Australia.

If I remember correctly, this question branched in to how the life during last 2 years, challenges with her daughter's critical health issues, challenges his family faced, diet changes that helped her during recent years ( Though he didn't say it as Keto Diet explicitly ) and how he adapted it, that helped him tremendously.

- What car you drive?: Typical JBP style of storytelling with an inherent message, he started saying his BIL has a BENZ, somebody crashed and totaled it from behind when the car was parked on the side of the road. He too bought a used Benz with 50K mileage.

There are other questions, doesn't come to my mind for now. This is a powerful event and crowd response is extraordinary. He skilly fully avoided getting lumped into any categories and the crowd really appreciate it (based on the clap response). We enjoyed most of his speech (order of responsibility, practical part of the implementation, Psychological, anthropological insights that are relevant to modern day events) though I am somewhat an outsider to the Left-Right paradigm to have an opinion of the Dave Rubin/Candice Owens Right wing part, though I appreciate their stance given the agenda that is going on to make Male irrelevant (Probably to introduce some new characters in the picture in future like Nazi pure Aryan race).

There was no Book signing event- Maybe there is no space in the theater or too late or too risky to put it in the Philly.

I may post more impressions of the evens later.

 

[Voyageur]

Yesterday, was passed an article published in the Sun (Toronto paper) written by a so called JP friend, Bernard Schiff- a colleague of Peterson who claims, which might be, that he was instrumental in getting JP's uni appointment. JP and family lived with his family during a period when JP was renovating a house. They all got along and thereafter, until the heat was turned up.

It's a long article and it takes some time to see where this prof switches and goes on the attack (aside from the headline) - essentially, when JP called out Bill-C16 and Bill-28, however, the underlining issues is perhaps revealed when he talks about his own Trans-child.

{Headline} I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous

It's a real example of throwing your colleague under the bus in a professional way and driving forward and backwards. The guy is a fellow psychologist prof.

Here is a sample after discussing JP and his stance on the federal Bill - "I have a trans daughter, but that was hardly an issue compared to what I felt was a betrayal of my trust and confidence in him. It was an abuse of the trust that comes with his professorial position, which I had fought for, to have misrepresented gender science by dismissing the evidence that the relationship of gender to biology is not absolute and to have made the claim that he could be jailed when, at worst, he could be fined."

Perhaps it was the main issue (not "hardly an issue") with his ideological slant?

I'm not saying JP does not have some quirks, who doesn't, yet this is pretty nasty and the guy is aware it will promote some backlash;

I was warned by a number of writers, editors and friends that this article would invite backlash, primarily from his young male acolytes, and I was asked to consider whether publishing it was worth it. More than anything, that convinced me it should be published.

He then plays the 'woman' writer card of being threatened by JP to help round off his rational for publishing.

He ends by saying he should have seen it all coming. JP might think the same of his so called friend/colleague, and perhaps he did.

Anyway, the article is long and full of angles used by others before and repackage in an authoritive (and personal) way. This prof is trying to rally the faculty and students back into the fold. There is no doubt that this article will be used as fuel in the media to further slight JP.

I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous | The Star

 

[luc]

Thanks for sharing voyageur, I read that piece, too, and it's quite something. My impression was that on a spectrum of ideological and "unconscious lefties", if you have screaming SJWs on one end of the spectrum, this guy is on the other end, meaning he gets at it in more subtle and intellectual ways. But there's still all that ideological nonsense, and it seems to me he reconstructs his whole personal story with JP "after the fact" through his ideological lens. Because now, JP threatens the liberal universe. He got world-famous. He has a huge impact. He has authority. People listen to him and change not only their minds, but their lives. But according to leftist illusions, there can't be any authority or any wisdom. Authority is always oppression, wisdom always just a power play. It seems to me this guy is incapable of grasping the concept of real, good authority. That people voluntarily listen to someone and follow someone, because they recognize on a deeper level that the path they're presented with is worth pursueing. It's like Gurdjieff said - people need to voluntarily submit their will to something bigger if they want to advance, but this very idea makes most modern lefties cringe and scream "cult!". Again, even if they can't see it themselves, these people are completely possessed by postmodern ideology, where the only real thing is "muh feelings", which means they are forever locked into Pinochio's pleasure island.

As for the content of Schiff's critique of Peterson's ideas, there is so much wrong I don't even know where to begin. It's deranged "modern leftist" thinking that is totally disconnected from reality. Just a few examples:

His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He can be very persuasive, and toys with facts and with people’s emotions. I believe he is a man with a mission. It is less clear what that mission is.

You live in a different universe Mr. Schiff, so you can't understand his simple message of responsibility and truth. And what you call "mission" is simply action based on values. There is no such thing in the postmodern mindset though; it's all power - so all you can see is Peterson becoming a cult leader who "plays with people". You are vindicating JP's critique of postmodernism right there.

As for the "oversimplifications", there is no escaping it if you want to make a point and add something to the discussion. We don't have access to absolute truth, so we need discuss ideas that always will be an oversimplification, but through dialogue, we can advance. The alternative is hiding behind word salad and relativism - maybe it's like that, maybe not, some say so, some say otherwise. Again, postmodern thinking in action: no values, no truth. It's also connected to the whole "safe space" thing: you don't present people with ideas anymore that are different and challenging. The concept of "entertaining ideas" without necessarily identifying with them is lost. So you need to water down everything and "put it in context", because you think people are too stupid to handle challenging ideas. Again, postmodernism in action. Plus, it's convenient to call ideas you don't agree with "oversimplification", yet don't question your own oversimplified assumptions.

His strategy is eerily familiar. In the 1950s a vicious attack on freedom of speech and thought occurred in the United States at the hands of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. People suspected of having left-wing, “Communist” leanings were blacklisted and silenced. It was a frightening period of lost jobs, broken lives and betrayal. Ironically, around this time the Stasi were doing the same to people in East Berlin who were disloyal to that very same “murderous” ideology.

What people like Mr. Schiff cannot grasp is that times are changing, and the content of ideologies is changing. We don't live in a conservative, anti-communist society anymore where the right-wingers persecute lefties. It's the reverse, for god's sake! And it's blatantly obvious!

When he caused a stir objecting to gender neutral pronouns, he thanked his YouTube followers who had supported his work financially, claiming he might need that money because he could lose his job. That resulted in a significant increase in monthly donations. There was no reason to think he would lose his job. He was on a sabbatical, and had not even been in the classroom. The university sent him a letter asking him to stop what he was doing because he was creating an environment which would make teaching difficult, but there was no intimation that he would be fired. I saw that letter. Jordan may have, however, welcomed being fired, which would have made him a martyr in the battle for free speech. He certainly presented himself as prepared to do that. A true warrior, of whatever.

This is so condescending and appalling. JP has stood up for his convictions, knowing that he won't give in no matter what, which could have easily led to dire consequences for his career. And that was before he had any alternative sources of income! But yeah, according to Schiff, this was all a great masterplan to fool the gullible. Again, Schiff and the lefties simply have no frame of reference to grasp the idea that if you stand up for your convictions firmly and with faith in a hostile climate, knowing that you won't give in, this is a very dangerous path that can lead to the Gulag, metaphorically and literally. People like Schiff can't see the danger because they would always cave in, make deals and retreat, right till it's too late and the next horror regime is slaughtering people. When it's all over and burnt to the ground, they will claim that they "didn't know" or "just did what everyone else did".

“What they do have in common is … that they have the answers and that their instincts are good, that they are smarter than everybody else and can do things by themselves.” This was Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state in an recent interview with the New York Times referring to the authoritarian leaders discussed in her new book, Fascism: A Warning. It sounds familiar.

Jesus Christ, Madeleine "killing children was worth it" Albright!!

I discovered while writing this essay a shocking climate of fear among women writers and academics who would not attach their names to opinions or data which were critical of Jordan. All of Jordan’s critics receive nasty feedback from some of his followers, but women writers have felt personally threatened.

What whiny, lefty nonsense based on hearsay! And you accuse Peterson of stretching scientific rigor? Maybe there are sooo many critical comments when some leftist attacks Jordan is simply because these attacks are so ridiculous and wrong. But hey, it must be because Jordan manipulates his hordes of "cult" followers into attacking any critics... Insanity!


It goes on and on. Sure, JP is not without faults, and some of wat Schiff says about his personality quirks has a kernel of truth in it. But overall, IMO this is one slanderous hit piece based on deranged leftist ideology, resentment and pure ignorance. It's really a pity, but I guess if you are on a path like Jordan's, you lose a lot of friends, but also make new ones.

 

[Scottie]

I discovered while writing this essay a shocking climate of fear among women writers and academics who would not attach their names to opinions or data which were critical of Jordan. All of Jordan’s critics receive nasty feedback from some of his followers, but women writers have felt personally threatened.

What whiny, lefty nonsense based on hearsay! And you accuse Peterson of stretching scientific rigor? Maybe there are sooo many critical comments when some leftist attacks Jordan is simply because these attacks are so ridiculous and wrong. But hey, it must be because Jordan manipulates his hordes of "cult" followers into attacking any critics... Insanity!

What's totally hilarious about this guy's comments is that in saying that those women felt personally threatened, he's basically saying they aren't strong or empowered and cannot hold their own against The Big Evil Man.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what this lefty "liberation" is supposed to be accomplishing?

I know plenty of women who could take JP's head off if they needed to. And if the women Schiff speaks indeed can hold their own, then he's actually belittling women while pretending to fight in their corner.

 

[Siberia]

Schiff's supposed "hit piece" turned out to be a nothing-burger, osit. All the way through the text Schiff hints that he knows some damning details about Peterson that could change people's perception of him, yet in the end Schiff actually didn't provide anything new or damning. His concerns are basically that Peterson is "too eloquent," "too interested in politics and health subjects," "too popular" etc. Schiff's bottom line is basically that Peterson may knowingly or unknowingly lead his huge group of followers in some dangerous direction at some point - is he implying that Peterson's followers are merely sheeple who cannot think for themselves and will gladly follow whatever is offered to them? Schiff says:

In the end, I am writing this because of his extraordinary rise in visibility, the nature of his growing following and a concern that his ambitions might venture from stardom back to his long-standing interest in politics. I am writing this from a place of sadness and from a sense of responsibility to the public good to tell what I know about who Jordan is, having seen him up close, as a colleague and friend, and having examined up close his political actions at the University of Toronto, allegedly in defence of free speech.

But why even publish a hit piece on your friend and colleague - especially when he is a very public person - if you don't even have any particular details to back up your vague accusations? Schiff says:

He joined us in the summer of 1998. Because I liked him, and also because I had put myself on the line for him, I took him under my wing. I made sure he went up for promotion to associate professor the following year, as the hiring committee had promised, and I went to the dean to get him a raise when the department chairperson would not.

Is this professional jealousy? That at some point Schiff somewhat helped Peterson in his carreer, but it is Peterson who is a "rock star" now and not him?