Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[luc]

I find I fall somewhere in the middle. I think traditions are important and are what bind a community together, but I also think flexibility in our traditions is equally important, to be able to adapt to new traditions and ideas that come with each generation - with discernment, of course. I don't think it's impossible to reconcile traditionalism and progressivism, it just takes more work than both extremes are willing to put in to try and understand each other.

Well, when you say you 'fall somewhere in the middle', this sounds a bit mechanical to me - we do 'fall' to all kinds of opinions based on our upbringing, programming etc. The question then is not where we 'fall' in all this, but 'what is the truth, what is the right thing, given the bigger picture?' - I think this is the question to ask from an esoteric standpoint.

I think ideologies are only important insofar as we study how they twist the minds of people and ponerize them. The contents themselves are not that relevant - what is relevant are the psychological mechanisms behind it. Otherwise, we can get stuck debating the pros and cons of this or that ideology.

For example: consider a bunch of thugs on the street (no matter their race) beating up a trans woman. Are they 'racist'? Are they 'conservative'? Communists? It doesn't matter. What matters is that they are a ponerized gang that will use every justification they can get to justify their inhuman behavior.

Or consider the 'LGBTQ' girl who demands to be addressed as 'ze' and calls everyone a Nazi who refuses. Is she a 'progressive liberal'? A 'human right's activist'? No, she is just a ponerized, narcissistic brat who tries to impose her grandiose self-image on the rest of the world, using some ideology to justify it.

So I think it's not so much about finding out what's good or bad about this or that ideology, but rather take a bird eye's view and see the underlying processes. Whether something is morally right or wrong is a totally different question and can only be answered for a specific case.

I think our community here is a good example of having traditions that are open to adapting and updating based on new information while maintaining a structure of guidelines, a common aim. We are here to develop as individuals but we understand that in order to do that we also need a community, a network.

Yes, we adapt and update here, but this has nothing at all to do with tradition. Actually, we here are very far from anything which could be called 'traditional'.

I agree with Richard here. What we are doing here is, in a sense, against tradition, if we understand tradition as acting out our mechanical programming and providing 'food for the moon'. Notice that many views here are not 'conservative' at all, such as the decision of many members not to have children. Or embracing socialism and communism on certain levels of society.

When we do adopt some habits and make life style choices that are considered 'conservative' or 'traditional', it is not because we 'fall into that category', but for esoteric reasons - the understanding of what the world needs right now, our place in it and what life style is more aligned with an objective understanding of our reality/the universe. In other words, the esoteric standpoint doesn't need ideologies and 'think templates' at all and is always ready to ruthlessly cross all the lines of 'thought schools', theories, cultures, races, life styles and so on in order to obtain an accurate understanding of the bigger picture/the principles underlying our reality. OSIT

 

[sedenion]

I've been reading a blog by someone by the name Mencius Moldbug, and he presents numerous though-provoking ideas. One of the most intriguing I've encountered is that Progressivism as the political ideology is actually a religion - a simple evolution from the mainline protestant Christians in the early 20th century.

The root is way more older than 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
Dig around the 17th-18th century in France, Scotland, United Kingdom about: judicature <-> french bourgeoisie <-> UK bourgeoisie & noblesse <-> protestantism <-> notion of "salvation" <-> freemasonry.

Notice: since i read some posts in this topic, it seem that american people have dificulty to go further in the past than the 19th-20th century, like if all that only begun in our close past. But if you want to understand the root and origins about all that things, you have to move your eyes to the european 17th-18th century.

 

[sedenion]

As was stated above: how far do liberals want to liberate? Destroying traditions completely leaves us with no guidelines for personal development within a community.

One of the purposes of the attempt by liberals to destroy our perceptions and replace them with an entirely new set is to force their false world-view upon everyone else. Have you read Political Ponerology?

Likewise, holding onto traditions too rigidly leaves no room to grow and adapt to new knowledge, also stifling personal development. It seems the extreme liberals want to destroy all former traditions and the extreme conservatives don't want to adapt at all. It seems to always come back to balance as the best way forward - balancing individualism with collectivism.

You refer to "traditions" in your statements, but what is going on here (and all over the place) is absolutely not about traditions! From a narrower viewpoint it is about truth versus lies.

I would introduce a concept that is a key one currently in the french "anti system" sphere which can be used in a parallel way of progressivism vs traditional / conservatism: rooted versus uprooted... to be synthetic, the "liberal-progressivism" goal is to produce uprooted individualistic people... uprooted mean: without history, without attachment to the "ground" (country, homeland, etc.), so to say, producing uprooted people is like producing soilless agriculture. Gender hysteria is part of this process and can be considered as "how to produce GMO minds". This is the part of the liberal-progressivism social engeneering to enforce people to be "full-market compliant", and a way to create people that are nothing more than "merchandise". You have to connect all that with what we call "multiculturalism", which is another part of the destruction program. Also connect with Surrogacy and ART (look at LGBT role in this development) leading to "baby market" so : "baby = merchandise"... once you created the idead that "human" is a "merchandise" like another, you can go ahead to the agenda..

This debate on progressivism and traditionnalism / conservatism aslo remind me the success of serie like Game of Thrones... some years early, some observers in france (which i was part of) remarked how the american people being attracted by some cultural root that they never known as a nation... sightly replacing their "cowboy" mythology, by the european medieval root. The fact is, that from the european point of view, the U.S culture was far more uprooted than the european one, by the fact this is becomed the ultra-liberal market progressivist headquarter of the world, with a very short history, precisely founded on this "uprooted" concepts (U.S.A is a nation made of immigrants). This success of Game Of Thron was a little surprise for us, letting us thinking U.S.A was near a "turn" in their culture, due to the crisis (let just appreaciate the cultural gap between Dallas and GOT... ). Just an observation on passing.

 

[Timótheos]

Frankly I don't have a problem referring to folks as he/she if they prefer a different pronoun than what I would expect. I've never had someone ask me to use they/them and would likely accommodate them in that case. The big line I refuse to cross are made-up pronouns and the otherkin folks. Sorry snowflakes, you just aren't that darn special. I even have trouble with they/them as you aren't a they and presuming your biological sex is male or female it comes back to the 'you're just not that darn special' argument.

My 2 cents.

I agree. Personally, I would probably choose not to accommodate someone who insisted on using a non-standard pronoun. If they presented themselves as a man (regardless of biological gender), I would refer to that person as he or him. If they presented themselves as a woman (regardless of biological gender), I would use she or her to describe them. If it was unclear at the moment, I would use one or the other depending upon which gender seems most dominant in regards to physicality or appearance. And if they happened to take umbrage at my particular choice of pronoun at the time, that would be their problem.

My reasons for not acquiescing to these type of requests are in line with Jordan's Peterson's reasoning...

words like zhir, xe, thon, and others in this category are made up words that don't exist in the English language. Sometimes certain new words are introduced into the dictionary after their usage becomes commonplace and accepted. This process tends to happen organically and cannot and should not be mandated by law.

a pronoun like "they", even though is an accepted english word, is mostly used to refer to the plural, and only in rare and specific cases can it refer to the singular. This is a twisting and misuse of language, and I would choose not to participate in it.

at some point a person has to draw a line and stand up to the imposition of the PC authoritarian agenda. It's a slippery slope, and once a person capitulates in one regard, it opens a door to whatever leftist PC nonsense that comes down the line.

I don't think it's a question of being nice or respectful either. Sometimes you have to say NO, if only as a declared intention to the universe that you are choosing truth over lies. One of the things I admire about the position that Dr. Peterson has taken, is that he has studied history and can see where this kind of mandated ideological group-think ends up. And he is willing to put his academic and professional career on the line in order to stand up for the freedom to speak the truth.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Been watching some of the stuff in this case.

And it's truly shocking how disconnected from reality some of these kids arguing against him are. Most questions asked to him are somewhere along the lines of "Why are you a nazi-racist-hateful being?" None of them were even slightly interested in having a conversation about what they were all trying to "discuss".
<snip>

I saw Jonathan Pie's rant posted in the "Lighten Up" section of SOTT, but it seems perfect for this discussion. Though he's passionately anti-Trump, and even more passionately anti-Hillary--at 4:07 he begins excoriating liberals for giving Trump the presidency by stifling real discussion with political correctness enforced by name-calling. It's kind of cathartic listening to his genuine disgust with it all.

https://www.sott.net/article/333665-Jonathan-Pie-Analysis-of-the-US-Presidential-Election

 

[Keit]

Interestingly russia seems to have decided a while ago, to not go follow that stick, by passing the infamous "homosexual propaganda laws". If you look closely what the laws actually say and what Putin and Co. have said about it, it is quite obvious that they want to protect especially their youth and children from "non traditional propaganda" in places like schools and so forth.

Indeed. Putin makes sure to prevent this corruption from happening in the first place. And it's true that the whole "gender" issue is a total non-issue in Russia (or other countries like Belarus), and people have zero tolerance for such BS. It also says a lot that in recent elections to Duma left liberals got less than 2% and didn't even get one seat.

As for additional protective measures, here's what I wrote in another thread:

But speaking of Pravoslavic orthodox influences, recently Putin appointed new children's rights ombudsman. Her name is Anna Kuznetsova, she has six children, and is married to a Pravoslavic priest.

But what's funny about it, that apparently her predecessor, Pavel Astakhov, was really hated by Russian liberals. They demanded his replacement. And with his typical sense of humor Putin did exactly what they asked for. Well, not exactly. ;) Now they are shocked and furious at being so outmaneuvered.

Anyways, Russian alternative sources see it as a smart move toward greater protection of younger generations from "corrupting Western influences". Sure, for Westerners it looks like the Christian church is getting a serious foot in, but just remember that Pravoslavic Christianity is much closer to the original Christianity than its Western version, so you could say that Putin makes sure that those values are being respected.

 

[Cosmos]

It just strikes me how effective, this whole "liberal" and "progressive" thinking apparently has been. It was such a smooth and sneaky way that it crawled into almost every part of our western society, while only very few even noticed it.

Maybe it could even be said that this "liberal" thinking, is one of the primary reasons why we are globally in the state we are in right now. There might have been real values to that "ideology" in the past (or maybe it was corrupted by pathology right from the beginning), but since then, it seems to have become a very effective tool for the creation of double speak, "humanitarian" interventions, sneakiness, dishonesty and abnormal behaviour all around, both in the personal sphere, as well in the bigger picture like global politics and geopolitics. The more I think about it, the more it seems to become obvious that this "plan" was not only very effective, but also very damaging for society at large.

I mean every kind of degeneration of human thinking, values and actions, seems to be directly connected to that thinking and behaviour. From art to science, to politics and social structures. Everything seems to be affected by it.

It also strikes me how that thinking probably was even one of the prime reason why the US power structure has moved from open conflicts and engagements, into covered actions alla "the secret team". It very much looks like a much more evil, sneaky and effective way of evilness in the world.

I think it could be said that L. Fletcher Prouty in his book "The Secret Team", made it quite clear that all this new "liberal" and "progressive" thinking made things actually far worse. He doesn't talk about "liberal" and "progressive" thinking and actions per se though, just when you look at it from the broader perspective, it looks like he also distasted that thinking. And that for very good reasons.

For me it looks like the perfect way to promote dishonesty, sneakiness, deranged thinking and beating around the bush, on a large scale in society.

Unfortunately it has been very effective, almost everywhere on the globe thus far.

I'm just amazed how effectively this developed, right infront of our eyes.

 

[JGeropoulas]

<snip>
[quote author= Alana]And I thought I was giving a far out example. Goes to show what happens when one decides to make away with all these natural categorizations with which we define ourselves. It's literally inhumane.

I don't keep count of the half-man half beast people. But some of them had backstories of past-life memories or feeling more in touch with the animal kingdom. Hence them transforming themselves into animals.

Maybe when organic portals don't get in a environment where enough 'creativity' is practiced but instead 'Entropy'

They devolve and fall back to their animal habitat of comfort.
<snip>
So the rise of this behavior may just be the result of Western society not being stimulating enough for soul-growth. That's why people literally devolve back and transform themselves into animals?

Kind of also reminds me of the beasts of Atlantis mentioned by the C's. I believe they never told the total picture about that. But maybe, it happened because people where literally devolving in soul essence.

[quote author= October 20, 1994 ]Q: There are legends of half human creatures, minotaurs, centaurs, etc. Were any of these creatures real?

A: Experiments known as beasts in Atlantis.[/quote]
[/quote]
While watching the pedophile video mentioned elsewhere (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,43069.msg686269.html#msg686269), I couldn’t resist checking out another video's outrageous tabloid claims about Michelle Obama, Jennifer Anniston and Sarena Williams. The narrator admits he used to scoff at such headlines himself, and has been enjoying having rare exposure to US media while living in India (where he moved to work on spiritual disciplines and research New World Order activities there}.

But, in the course of researching other things for a book, he came to believe that behind such tabloid claims, there’s an agenda to corrupt the bodies and minds of humanity via advances in bio-medical gender manipulation and cultural confusion. From there he lays out a credible case using medical research and cultural observations to support his premise. One of the first “red flags” for him was that, while only .3 % of the population identifies as transgender, there is a growing, determined, persistent effort by government agencies, medical research, pharmaceutical companies, the media, Hollywood, etc. to recognize and support variations of transgender-ism.

Given the entropic and corrupting nature of psychopaths, as well as the genetic experimentation that went on in Atlantis, he may be closer to the truth than even he realizes.

Here are a few of his comments:

Within the animal kingdom, all animals know what members of their species are either male or female and they have instinctual skills…but there’s a little bit of confusion in the human species, we’ve sort of gone adrift we’ve gotten a little bit crazy…distorted. As a species, we’re very lost and a lot of that comes from…we have the ability to lie and we exercise that ability pretty much all the time so we’re always saturated by lies and we often don’t know what to believe…we have been bombarded by disinformation, and faulty ways of viewing the world and we have been indoctrinated and we have been given faulty skill sets on how to evaluate what’s around us.

We have been taught to believe lies…but we often know. Something tells us something’s off, just isn’t right. I think there’s so much of that going on in society I think we go to sleep a lot of times because...all the different anomalies, all the things that just don’t make sense around us, our mind has actually created ways to fill in the holes and gaps, to believe the illusion that’s around us.

Here’s the video link: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UInPN8zuqQ

 

[Timótheos]

I just finished watching Jordan Peterson's latest interview uploaded yesterday. He reiterates many of the points made in prior videos but it's still very good, one of my favourites so far.

University of Toronto psychology professor, Dr. Jordan Peterson, talks to NoneOfTheAbove's Sam Sholli about his opposition to Bill C-16, free speech and authoritarianism.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...LQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Josi]

I just finished watching Jordan Peterson's latest interview uploaded yesterday. He reiterates many of the points made in prior videos but it's still very good, one of my favourites so far.

University of Toronto psychology professor, Dr. Jordan Peterson, talks to NoneOfTheAbove's Sam Sholli about his opposition to Bill C-16, free speech and authoritarianism.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...LQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thank you,Timótheos! Really worth a watch.

 

[meta-agnostic]

I just finished watching Jordan Peterson's latest interview uploaded yesterday. He reiterates many of the points made in prior videos but it's still very good, one of my favourites so far.

University of Toronto psychology professor, Dr. Jordan Peterson, talks to NoneOfTheAbove's Sam Sholli about his opposition to Bill C-16, free speech and authoritarianism.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...LQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thank you,Timótheos! Really worth a watch.

I just finished it as well. Many thanks, and highly recommended. This guy is on fire right now and he really knows his stuff. Sometimes his ideological absolutism is a bit much but as long as he's staying focused on the authoritarian issues his arguments are pretty undeniable. I really hope he reads Political Ponerology. He obviously already has a grasp of many of the concepts and if he started integrating more of them and discussing them with the platform he currently has it could be non-linear consequences galore.

 

[Beorn]

I just finished watching Jordan Peterson's latest interview uploaded yesterday. He reiterates many of the points made in prior videos but it's still very good, one of my favourites so far.

Thanks Timótheos, I much prefer watching his interviews to the debate which was a bit of a farce. At times he seems a little exasperated about having to repeat himself over and over again and I'm silently willing him on to stand firm in the face of enormous lies and the pressure of losing his job and profession.

He didn't want to take part in the debate because the university had already demanded that he not repeat some of the thing's he'd said about not wanting to address someone by their preferred pronouns. He went ahead with it to not look like he was backing down but it was a bit pointless IMO when two of the participants were unwilling to address the real issue.

We're probably all familiar with this but I thought it worth repeating because G. in ISOTM really nails this issue on the head from both angles. It's interesting to see how consideration grows in society, from seemingly harmless roots, until people are at each others throats.
[quote author=G.]
On the most prevalent occasions a man is identified with what others think about him, how they treat him, what attitude they show towards him. He always thinks that people do not value him enough, are not sufficiently polite and courteous. All this torments him, makes him think and suspect and lose an immense amount of energy on guesswork, on suppositions, develops in him a distrustful and hostile attitude towards people. How somebody looked at him, what somebody thought of him, what somebody said of him--all this acquires for him an immense significance.

And he ‘considers’ not only separate persons but society and historically constituted conditions. Everything that displeases such a man seems to him to be unjust, illegal, wrong, and illogical. And the point of departure for his judgement is always that these things can and should be changed. ‘Injustice’ is one of the words in which very often considering hides itself. When a man has convinced himself that he is indignant with some injustice, then for him to stop considering would mean ‘reconciling himself to injustice.’

There are people who are able to consider not only injustice or the failure of others to value them enough but who are able to consider for example the weather. This seems ridiculous but it is a fact. People are able to consider climate, heat, cold, snow, rain; they can be irritated by the weather, be indignant and angry with it. A man can take everything in such a personal way as though everything in the world had been specially arranged in order to give him pleasure or on the contrary to cause him inconvenience or unpleasantness.

All this and much else besides is merely a form of identification. Such considering is wholly based upon ‘requirements.’ A man inwardly ‘requires’ that everyone should see what a remarkable man he is and that they should constantly give expression to their respect, esteem, and admiration for him, for his intellect, his beauty, his cleverness, his wit, his presence of mind, his originality, and all his other qualities. Requirements in their turn are based on a completely fantastic notion about themselves such as very often occurs with people of very modest appearance. Various writers, actors, musicians, artists, and politicians, for instance, are almost without exception sick people. And what are they suffering from? First of all from an extraordinary opinion of themselves, then from requirements, and then from considering, that is, being ready and prepared beforehand to take offense at lack of understanding and lack of appreciation.

There is still another form of considering which can take a great deal of energy from a man. This form starts with a man beginning to think that he is not considering another person enough, that this other person is offended with him for not considering him sufficiently. And he begins to think himself that perhaps he does not think enough about this other, does not pay him enough attention, does not give way to him enough. All this is simply weakness. People are afraid of one another. But this can lead very far. I have seen many such cases. In this way a man can finally lose his balance, if at any time he had any, and begin to perform entirely senseless actions. He gets angry with himself and feels that it is stupid, and he cannot stop, whereas in such cases the whole point is precisely ‘not to consider.’
[/quote]

 

[Atreides]

Some things worth watching:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...hs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://<iframe width="560" height="...Lo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://<iframe width="560" height="...tu" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A more in depth discussion on the book by Walsh:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...98" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[SeekinTruth]

I think an important thing to keep in mind in this overall great discussion is that what's important about authoritarians is HOW they believe rather than WHAT they believe. I think that's part of what's going on. When people lose the ability to think critically and get more and more detached from reality, it almost doesn't matter what ideology they follow, what they believe, etc. Whatever it is, it will be orthogonal to truth, it will have no relation to reality.

 

[BHelmet]

Some things worth watching: etc

Thanks for the vids that tie it all together from an historical perspective. A supreme irony in all this is that a large segment of the population who are resisting the marxist spawn of PC authoritarianism are the working class/proletariat!

(but, of course, they have now been labelled fascist, racist, sexists)

BTW, I was a student at UCSD when Marcuse was hired (along with Angela Davis). Luckily (?) I was too strung out on CIA drug imports to pay it any mind or be influenced by their ideology. The marxist contingent at UCSD seemed like they were just very angry people and something in me rejected that.