Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

The latest Q&A from Jordan Peterson. He talks about the progress of the online university. He has four people working on it and says they're about 1 year ahead of schedule. He plans on starting a publicly funded campaign to get it up and running. He's working on his second "12 Rules" book which should be out early next year and also answers a short question on how to speak properly.

 
Joe said:

Just a note that after the 23min mark in the above, JB talks about the fact that taking on the challenge, voluntarily, of confronting evil and suffering and facing the 'terror' of life calls upon the strongest part of yourself, provokes psycho-physiological changes and turns on new genes, and builds new structures inside of you. And that none of that is going to happen without the demand that's placed on you by being willing to confront the full terror of life.
Click to expand...
Yes. Its the act of mustering "courage" from within, in and of itself in spite of the fear, that which Evil abhors most - more so than the follow-on act of "confronting" evil.
The "courage" to confront evil and terrors is like the little match being struck in a pitch-black cavern. As that pin-point of light casts forth in all directions, the black abyss is broken up into little shadows as they retreat to the deepest darkest recesses.
 
c.a. said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1018599332835221509
26 Retweets 226 Likes

NCAC Cautions Durham Elected Officials Against No-Platforming Jordan Peterson
July 11, 2018 by NCAC
A group of Durham city officials, including the mayor and all members of the city council, issued a joint statement on Facebook that suggested the Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC) should deny controversial professor Jordan Peterson the opportunity to speak there.

The statement opens explains that, “Though the DPAC is owned by the City of Durham, the theater’s management companies, Nederlander & PFM, are entirely responsible for the choice of shows and performers who appear at the venue. We would like to be clear that we respect Mr. Peterson’s right to hold his opinions and to freely state his opinions without government interference. However, we wish to emphasize that a person’s right to free speech does not include the right to a platform or an audience. As many in our community have been disturbed and angered by Mr. Peterson’s racist, misogynist, and transphobic views, we would like to use this opportunity to reiterate our commitments and values to all of you as your elected representatives.”

Jordan Peterson is scheduled to speak at DPAC on September 10th and has confirmed that he rented the space.

Calls for “no-platforming,” or denying people with extreme views access to an audience, have increased recently. Advocates suggest that venues should allot access based on the merit of a speaker’s ideas and whether they benefit the community. But the question of who determines that “merit” remains unanswered.

NCAC has written to the authors of the statement cautioning them against chilling free speech by impeding to DPAC’s ability to book speakers with a diversity of views.

Our full letter can be read below. Click here for a full screen view:
307e74f2e96220507c90064babc75013.png

3836f6aa83cbf42b5d1fc3a5146e85f4.png

aa779ac46902f5e30e927fac8070917d.png
Click to expand...

In response to this, Peterson wrote a piece that tears-down, line by line, the statement that the Durham City Council posted. Pretty scathing but right-on, in my opinion.

BTW, tickets are still available--but not many!

Durham City Council Purchases Unearned Virtue with the Currency of Denouncement
A few days ago (July 6, 2018) Mayor Pro Tempore Jillian Johnson and her colleagues on the Durham city council saw fit to release a statement on FaceBookconcerning my upcoming 12 Rules for Life Tour appearance September 10 at the Performing Arts Center in their city. These are the signatories:
Steve Schewel, Mayor: Steve.Schewel@durhamnc.gov
Jillian Johnson, Mayor Pro Tempore: Jillian.Johnson@durhamnc.gov
Vernetta Alston, City Council Member, Ward 3: vernetta.alston@durhamnc.gov
Javiera Caballero, City Council Member At-Large: Javiera.Caballero@durhamnc.gov
DeDreana Freeman, City Council Member, Ward 1: dedreana.freeman@durhamnc.gov
Mark-Anthony Middleton, City Council Member, Ward 2: Mark-Anthony.Middleton@durhamnc.gov
Charlie Reece, City Council Member At-Large: charlie.reece@durhamnc.gov
The entire council can be contacted here: council@durhamnc.gov
Lest anyone accuse me of doxing, let it be known that all these email addresses can be found on the Durham city council website.
The City of Durham’s statement is one of the purest demonstrations I have yet seen of the tendency for the ideologically possessed to use denouncement tactically as a means to amplify and exaggerate personal or identity-group virtue. To lay this bare, I have composed this analysis of the psychological motivations and narrative structure of the statement.
It opens with what appears to be a purely objective account of my upcoming 12 Rules for Life tour lecture/discussion in Durham, but is in fact an outright lie, as well as an act of betrayal (quite the accomplishment for a single sentence): “We recently learned from coverage in the Indyweek [a local newspaper self-described as ‘progressive’ and one founded, by the way, by the mayor Steve Schewel, a signatory to the statement] that the Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC) has invited Jordan Peterson to speak in the venue this September.”
The lie? The Durham Performing Arts Center did not invite me. I rented the theater. There is a world of difference. But, of course, without the allegation of ‘invitation’ there is no one to cast into disrepute. And that leads us to the betrayal, which is the purposeful and motivated casting of aspersions on the character of the people who run the DPAC, who are in any case directly or indirectly under the supervision or jurisdiction of the mayor and councilors. So the perpetrators have been identified.
It’s so interesting in a very dark and terrible way to observe this happening. Why? Because it’s a great example of the tendency of radicals to devour their own. Consider this: people who run theatrical operations are likely to be high in openness to experience (the very trait that also best predicts left-leaning political views). Thus, the DPAC administrators being thrown under the bus for committing a crime (inviting me) that they didn’t even commit are likely of similar political mindset to the councilors and mayor/mayor pro tem. What could possibly motivate such an act? (other than desire to deflect responsibility for my appearance in Durham). Here’s an answer: There is little self-aggrandizement involved in claiming moral superiority to me (particularly given my reprehensible characteristics, as outlined below). But if the mayor/mayor pro tem and the councilors can claim moral superiority even to their left-leaning compatriots, then they shine forth from the background ever so much more brightly and purely – better as they apparently are even than those already on the side of the true and the good.
That first sentence is followed by a statement specifically disavowing any responsibility on the part of the council for my invitation (this is also the first and comparatively most subtle indication in the statement of the absolute and self-proclaimed moral purity of the authors): “Though the DPAC is owned by the City of Durham, the theater’s management companies, Nederlander & PFM, are entirely responsible for the choice of shows and performers who appear at the venue.”Simply put: “the fact that this person is appearing is not only someone else’s responsibility but someone else’s fault.” This statement has the dual advantage of alerting the reader in an initially subtle manner to the reprehensible nature of the speaker (without having to take the risk of saying so in a forthright manner so early in the argument) as well as reminding the reader once again of the poor character of the theatre management (already thrown to the dogs in the opening sentence).
The next three sentences are a conceptually brutal mishmash of self-righteousness, indignation and utter moral and political confusion:
“We would like to be clear that we respect Mr. Peterson’s right to hold his opinions and to freely state his opinions without government interference.”
First, that’s Dr. Peterson to you all, bucko. Second, why is this proviso necessary? Such a right, granted by elected officials, should be respected without saying. The next sentence reveals the necessity: “However, we wish to emphasize that a person’s right to free speech does not include the right to a platform or an audience.” What “right to a platform or an audience” are we talking about here? I don’t have and am not claiming any “right to a platform.” I RENTED THE THEATER. What of my “right” to an audience? People can either come and see me (tickets available here, by the way: ) or not, as they see fit. But none of those fine details matter, because this sentence was only written to justify the next, the kicker—around which the statement truly revolves in its entirety:
“As many in our community have been disturbed and angered by Mr. Peterson’s racist, misogynist, and transphobic views, we would like to use this opportunity to reiterate our commitments and values to all of you as your elected representatives.”
“As many in our community…” — Who? Best that they remain anonymous, I suppose, for their supposed safety and peace of mind. How many? That is not something that needs to be stated or known, apparently – and how convenient for the denouncers that such is the case.
“Have been disturbed and angered…” Why? Justifiably or unjustifiably? Because of their sensitivity, or because of what was said? What was said that was so disturbing and angering, by the way? Of course, none of that matters in the least, because if anyone anywhere is “disturbed and angered” about anything whatsoever then whoever is blamed for that disturbance and anger is deemed in keeping with such thought as (1) guilty and (2) reprehensible.
“Racist, misogynistic and transphobic views…” That’s quite the evil triad. I’m a racist and I hate women (or disapprove of them, or something of that sort). I’ll ignore “transphobic” as it’s a word I despise, although trans people are welcome to go to hell in a handbasket or ascend to heaven in their own particularly manner, as far as I am concerned, as long as those of them who are activists keep their damned mitts off the rights and responsibilities I bear in relationship to my words. Note as well (and this is also of primary import): this statement is not written merely to denounce me. No: it’s written to denounce everyone who has the temerity to buy a ticket to this event. If my views are “racist, misogynistic and transphobic” then clearly everyone who wants to hear me express them is deplorable in the same manner.
Note that the writers provide no documentation whatsoever to indicate that these allegations are true: no quotation, no sourcing, no evidence whatsoever that any of the denouncers are familiar in the least with anything I have actually said or done. Furthermore, since the allegations are put forward merely as a matter of fact, the statement is written to imply that all those who are good will unquestioningly hold such opinions (since no proof of their validity is necessary). And then, a mere two sentences later, this claim: “Those who seek to exclude or deny the humanity of others will find no comfort here.” I presume by “others” the writers mean “groups of others” because they certainly have no problem generating and distributing serious allegations against identifiable and particular individuals (myself, the DPAC administrators and all those who wish to attend my lecture) when they feel warranted to do so)
So far, the writers aimed at the following ends:
1) To avoid responsibility and point a finger of blame at erstwhile colleagues.
2) To denounce me and my hypothetical audience (and claim moral superiority)
This does not yet satisfy their ambitions. Next, a little egregious and self-serving electioneering is inserted, based upon that avoidance, blame and denunciation, in case the readers have failed to notice that the writers were career politicians: “we would like to use this opportunity to reiterate our commitments and values to all of you as your elected representatives.”
Even that does not suffice. Following that, in sequence? A lengthy and cliched declamation of the self-evident virtues of the left, written to ensure that the writers and everyone who encounters the article is left with no doubt about just who is on the side of the angels and who is not – complete with all the requisite gestures, identity-politics references and ideologically appropriate buzzwords:
“We believe that Durham is a place for all of us – black, white, Asian, Latinx, indigenous, and mixed-race, trans and cis, gay and lesbian, queer, and straight, disabled and able-bodied, young and elderly, women, men, and non-binary, native and immigrant, secular and people of faith.”
“We believe that everyone in our city should have the opportunity to thrive in an equitable and inclusive community.We understand that this opportunity has been intentionally and unjustly denied to many of our residents on the basis of race, class, gender, and other aspects of their identities.”
“We honor single parents, non-nuclear families, gay, lesbian, and queer families, and chosen families who are building lives full of love and support for each other and for the children in our community.”
“We believe that all types of families raise healthy children who are prepared to succeed and make a positive contribution to the world.”
“We believe that men and women are equally competent leaders and thinkers and that women should be in leadership roles in our community. We believe that violence against women is horrific and unacceptable under any circumstances. Women do not owe anyone access to or any level of control over their bodies or sexuality. We honor trans and non-binary residents and believe that respecting each other requires a commitment to using the names and pronouns that each of us identifies with. We will do all that we can to ensure that trans and non-binary people feel safe and respected in our community.”
“We invite the Durham community to recommit ourselves to these values as a city and a community and to reject and resist bigotry wherever we encounter it.”
Everything that is reprehensible about the radical and ideologically-possessed left – all the moral self-righteousness, the platitudes, the clichés, the mindless celebration of diversity for the sake of the demonstration of tolerance, the naivete, and the appalling malevolence of casual denunciation – is on painful display in this missive. Exposure to such a piece of writing left me with a strong desire for a hot shower accompanied by plenty of soap and a scrub brush.
Click to expand...
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1027913459323871233
Hamilton Spectator
by Paul Benedetti Opinion: Jul 30, 2018 Hamilton, ON
Last Friday I convinced my 29-year-old son and my 22-year-old daughter to go out with me.

Now, anyone with quasi-adult kids knows this is no small thing.

Usually, inviting James out is met with something like, "Love to, but it was a busy week at work. I think I'll just chill."

I'd like to say: "First, you don't have air conditioning so unless you've wedged yourself in the fridge, there will be no chilling. And second, don't worry about visiting the people who gave you human life and spent most of their retirement savings raising you, that's fine." But I usually text, "No probs. Next time!"

With Ella, it is worse. Even after being abroad for three weeks, it took her all of a few hours home before she "had to go out with friends" and she's really barely spoken to us since.

But this night I invited them to dinner and, of all things, a public lecture.

So, that's how we found ourselves with more than 2,000 other people at FirstOntario Concert Hall to listen to Jordan Peterson on his 12 Rules for Life Tour.

Yes, I actually took my children to join the throngs of fascists descending on our downtown. And though a city councillor had warned me about the "far-right" types this event would attract, oddly, we did not encounter anyone wearing brown shirts, black arm bands or jack boots. It was mostly young women and men, dads and moms, in shorts and T-shirts, summer dresses, chinos and jackets. I saw a dentist I know in the men's room who was there with his kids. I also bumped into a student I taught this year. Overall, it looked more like Saturday afternoon at Canadian Tire than a Rally for Alt-Right Haters.

And though this very newspaper warned me about the "messianic musings" of a crucifix-bearing, promoter of hate and distrust, what greeted the crowd was a slim man in a brown three-piece suit, who walked out onto an empty stage to resounding applause. And what happened for the next two hours was something extraordinary: thousands of people on a hot, summer Friday night in Hamilton quietly listened to a university professor talk. Just talk. No music, no CGI or special effects, just a man, wearing snazzy two-tone shoes, pacing back and forth reflecting on the challenge of living a good and meaningful life in a hard and complicated world.

On this night, the 49th stop of the tour, Peterson decided to talk about courage. About how each of us needs courage to overcome our fear and anxiety, courage to face the terror of existence, courage to map and follow what he called "the adventure of your life."

If that sounds bleak, it wasn't. Peterson was at times funny and expansive, one moment mimicking the body language of a frightened cat, the next quietly telling the men and women in the audience that, "Life is an expanse of potential" and that it is up to each and every one of us to "transform that potential into a good world or a bad world." And that to do good in the world is a noble pursuit that each person must take up.

He told young people that they should "aim at a goal" however modest it might be, even if it simply meant cleaning up their room. And that even if they were confused and lost, they should pay attention to what sparks their attention. "Follow your interest," he said. "It glitters in the darkness."

And in the darkness, people listened for more than two hours and during the Q and A, Peterson was asked if he found all that he was doing stressful. He paused for a long time and then said he marvelled at the fact that night after night he could have a conversation with thousands of people. "It's wonderful," he said. "I can't believe it."

And as the evening came to a close, he told the crowd, "I can't think of anything better to do than to talk to all of you. That's not stressful, that's great."

After the lecture, James and Ella and I grabbed a beer and talked some more.
 
Thanks for posting the above article c.a. I took my son to see a talk by JBP in Sydney earlier this year, and it was one of the best nights. He really has a presence, and like the above article states he walked out on stage resounding applause and a standing ovation, before he'd even begun the talk. There were no protests, no extremists of any kind, just a mixed audience all eager to see and hear the man in person. And he delivered.
 
Interesting development on the JP front: he dipped a toe into 'geopolitics':

https://twitter.com/x/status/1028746202639216640

JP_Saudi.JPG

There are of course solid reasons why 'we' can't ditch the House of Saud, but JP presumably doesn't want to go there.

He may have had the recent Canada-Saudi spat in mind, but the Guardian piece likely just came to his attention because it mentions him:

"According to the Saudi press, Canada has no moral high ground from which to judge Saudi Arabia because it oppresses the good people of Quebec, and is holding the public figure Jordan Peterson as a prisoner of conscience."
Click to expand...

So the Saudis are citing the attacks against JP as a counterpoint to being accused by the Canadian foreign minister of lacking respect for human rights :nuts:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
monotonic said:
JP just posted a fascinating video on free speech that seems to contain a lot of his most recent ideas. He's so energetic he smacks the microphone by accident and gulps down his water like mad.

Click to expand...

This is one of the best lectures I've listened to in a while. He really has a way of distilling big ideas down to their simpler components and make applicable and pragmatic for everyone. Very inspirational!

When I watched the video again, I noticed that, seated in the centre front row of the audience, is none other than Canadian MP Maxime Bernier, who recently quit the CPC in order to start his own conservative party. Here's hoping that an actual politician is willing to put forth and act upon the ideas that JP espouses. It will be interesting to see how this develops...

MP Maxime Bernier quits federal Conservatives, 'will win the next election' | CBC News

MP Maxime Bernier quits 'morally corrupt' Conservatives, plans to start new party
 
Timótheos said:
When I watched the video again, I noticed that, seated in the centre front row of the audience, is none other than Canadian MP Maxime Bernier, who recently quit the CPC in order to start his own conservative party. Here's hoping that an actual politician is willing to put forth and act upon the ideas that JP espouses. It will be interesting to see how this develops...
Click to expand...

Yes the front row is quite intersting. Once I noticed the hand with the ring it brought a smile to my face. At 18:32 Jordan is talking to them :-)
 
What Jordan says is at the deepest level the Truth. However he is up against the Top of the Pyramid which has other ideas. Ideas that you may not question what they think is Best and that atomization of Society is not the Best Future.

Speaking Truth to Sheep
 
Humans are chimps version X1000. Blaming everything on Religion is a mistake. Khmer Rouge Holocaust in Cambodia had nothing to do with religion. It was simply chimp behavior of extreme kind.
 
Well I got through the two debate videos between Harris and Peterson. Quiet interesting. I would love to ask Harris how he will know that he has found absolute objective Truth of Reality. For all we know we could be running around circles as the scientific method is entirely based on instruments we build (constantly changing) and use as well as OUR interpretation of what they present.

Rummaging on the Net I found this article which (as usual) put a smile on my face. I have no clue if he is a straight shooter or a fraud. However my intuition was sending me a "Danger" signal.

Enjoy,
Intersting Info
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom