Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[luc]

I liked this one!
But damn, it's still really weird to see in action! It's one of those key areas which differentiates "player characters" from "non-player characters".

Oh yes, that was creepy, and poor JP did a great job. It's funny (or rather sad) that by today's standards, the interviewer almost seems "moderate", as when she doubts it's a good idea to do gender reassignments on children or says she's in favor of nuclear energy. But "moderate" here means moderate in comparison to the totally, freak-out level insane radical leftists. But by any normal standards, she's still a totally insane radical leftist!

Some very great moments for JP here as well. Great comment on how she just utters ideological nonsense and doesn't connect anything with her real life experience. That's super-important IMO, and not only in relation to leftist ideologies. Everyone can "shuffle around" concepts and ideas in one's head, and the smart people can do it very well, whether they are leftists, "patriots", conspiracy theorists or whatever. But if you connect concepts and ideas to your own objective, felt experiences, and allow those often complex and unpleasant feelings to unfold and listen to them as you simultaneously think about ideas and your own experience of the world, you begin to connect your intellect with your soul, I think. Otherwise, any conversation or monologue will be totally shallow, ugly, and deformed, as if an invisible demon is running the show from behind the scenes. Or as JP put it: "it's not pleasant".

 

[Hi_Henry]

She didn't seem to hesitate as much as other interviewers when her points are blown apart.

Very good observation. What I liked though is that she didn't seem to be overly defensive in an emotional way. She just plodded on like nothing happened leaving it to the viewer to catch what she was up to.

 

[Hi_Henry]

And well, it’s perhaps a language thing but the points being made by the lady sounded just so shallow, she barely made any sense beyond saying cute sounding words.

What Jordan was telling them was way way over their heads. When he spoke about those studies around 10 min mark they looked to me like deer blinded by car headlights. I could almost hear their gears in their heads overclocking to the extreme, "This can't be. Not here in Sweden ?"

 

[Hi_Henry]

Just watched this one:
"Jordan B. Peterson | Full interview | SVT/TV 2/Skavlan"

This doc just came to my mind. It would have been perfect to bring up to panelists attention as it happened in their own backyard (well almost),

Tyranny at its best, "Elsa wants to be a nurse and not an engineer."

 

[Ca.]

Jordan Peterson: Gloves are off when it comes to professors (University of Amsterdam)
Published on Oct 31, 2018

https://twitter.com/x/status/1057991651770155008

Wed., Oct. 24, 2018

CALGARY—After more than 20 years of filling the +15 Galleries spaces at Arts Commons, five artist-run galleries have announced they will no longer be working with the centre over what they call a lack of transparency and artistic integrity.

The galleries ending their partnerships with Arts Commons are Stride Gallery, Truck Contemporary Art, Marion Nicoll Gallery, Untitled Art Society, and The New Gallery.

“It’s been made quite clear to me through these entire past months ... there are serious concerns that many different community members of ours have that are not being heard,” said Natasha Chaykowski, director of the Untitled Art Society.

“There doesn’t seem to be a serious commitment to be beholden to these concerns and, for me, that’s the kind of baseline of where we have to start to rebuild.”

The decision follows recent disputes between the arts community and Arts Commons, including the removal of an installation by a trans artist in the +15 space last month, and concerns about a Jordan Peterson lecture hosted in one of Arts Commons venues in July.

Though these issues acted as catalysts, gallery directors say the deep-rooted issue has been a history of a lack of communication and transparency with Arts Commons.

“The most frustrating thing is the lack of communication. Before we all made these permanent decisions and had all these board decisions about it, we kind of tried to get in contact with them, even about the Jordan Peterson thing,” said Conrad Marion, artistic director of Stride Gallery.

 

[genero81]

This week had dinner with colleagues, and in particular one started asking me if I knew who Sam Harris was. Indeed, said that I had also watched him in debate with JP, not knowing where that would go. Quickly, his atheism was brought to the fore and I listened to him describe the debate and why Harris was right and JP wrong, which did not amount to anything beyond what most atheists will say. Thought about this and perhaps it comes down to their fear, and only something tangible that can be grasped can alleviate said fears. I don't know though. What also came out was that his arguments contained inconvenient paradoxes that he would skip over if it required him to think about them - and I did not probe deeply as it became obvious that he did not know he was making them and the conversation could only be one sided e.g. there was no room for anything else but a material construct to everything.

Having some form of skepticism has its merits, however, when it is worn as a Faraday cage to the exclusion of what thinking might try and penetrate it, there is pretty much nowhere to go.

Yeah, I don't know either and it perplexes me. This life is really so short and even if we had lifespans ten times as long, who would want to live in this crazy reality that long. It's alien to me that someone would want there not to be more to this than what is strictly materialistic. What's the payoff in that?

 

[luc]

What's the payoff in that?

Nothing really matters ultimately and you get to do whatever the hell you want. If there is no God, you can be god. I think this at least plays a big part in it, if only subconsciously for the most part - the convenience of denying any "higher order" because this means there are no higher values you need to strive towards, which means no effort required, more entitlement, more living according to one's whims. From personal experience, I think this is where materialism/atheism ultimately leads...

 

[Joe]

What Jordan was telling them was way way over their heads. When he spoke about those studies around 10 min mark they looked to me like deer blinded by car headlights. I could almost hear their gears in their heads overclocking to the extreme, "This can't be. Not here in Sweden ?"

What amazes me at this point, is the number of people who have 'taken on' JP and trotted out the (boring at this point) line that there should be more equality of opportunity for women because then women would chose less 'traditional' roles and be more like men. Peterson responds by pointing to the studies that have shown that, in Sweden, where equality of opportunity has been maximized, differences between men and women have INCREASED, i.e. when giving a clear and open choice, men and women choose 'traditional' roles for themselves.

Now Peterson has made this point at least 100 times in his videos, and one would presume that before interviewing him, the interviewers did their homework and could not have avoided that particular point. And yet, almost EVERY time (in particular the more SJW types) bring up the same point and receive exactly the same answer, and, the most amazing part, is they just sit there dumbstruck as if its the first time they hear it and it doesn't make any sense! It's like when they are confronted with facts that contradict what they want to believe they simply IGNORE it and move on!

 

[Hi_Henry]

Now Peterson has made this point at least 100 times in his videos,

Exactly. Thanks to him I found all this amazing factual information. His opponents take on the strategy of simply ignoring contradictions. As the Swedish scientists said "We don't believe this data.".

It's worth pointing out that his opponents don't say "We have this data and these studies which contradict what you say Dr. Peterson.", NOPE !!!!

 

[Woodsman]

This is my attempt to define Identity Politics v Tribalism:

Tribalism: In a Tribe, you can have many identities. Man. Woman. Boy. Girl. Mother. Father. -Hunter. Gatherer. Healer. Builder. Teacher. Story teller! -Guy who knows how to do that spinning trick with the rope. The one-eyed grandma who needs help eating. The tribe is everybody. It is the collective whole.

The language, beliefs, behaviors and values observed within the tribal life might be termed, “Culture.”

A Tribe allows for variables.

Identity Politics, by contrast, describes the subdividing and rank-ordering within the existing tribe. Women first. Gays first. Black people first. -With all other elements of the tribe considered Other, to be viewed with suspicion and dehumanized. Individuality is no longer respected; you must pick which gang you are going to be part of and channel all energies and loyalties accordingly. The good of the larger tribe, be damned!

~~~

I wanted to work out the definition for myself because I'd not done so yet in a way which stuck in mind, and had been stymied by the following criticism of JP, "He complains about Identity Politics, but that's silly! The civil rights movement was about identity politics, and was THAT a bad thing? Groups come together to act in their own best interests all the time! It's how wars are won! Surely winning WWII was a good thing? So there's nothing wrong with Queer Rights Activists (for instance) fighting for their own interests. Nobody else is going to! JP is just using intellectually elitist language to complain when really he is suffering from his Cis White Fear, his homophobia/misogyny/racism!"

How does one answer that? It shut me right up when I first encountered it and I had to go away and think about it.

Here's what I came up with:

"The Civil Rights movement was about UN-DOING the harm caused by Identity Politics; Blacks wanted the same rights as everybody else, (equality of opportunity), not different levels of opportunity and special rules just for them." The Civil Rights movement was about integrating with the tribe, not fragmenting it.

"Winning WWII was about all individuals within a tribe working to prevent destruction at the hands of another tribe. It was tribal warfare against an actual Other, an alien culture not bound by the common borders and laws and support systems of the home tribe. Identity Politicking by contrast subdivides the existing tribe at home, demanding different rights for different people, seeking to create a class system and fracturing the whole tribe into many parts each with their own special rules and considerations, creating Others within what was once traditionally home soil for every member."

Identity Politics is the thought pattern attempting to make Opportunity Unequal in an effort for a subset of people to get ahead and hold advantages over others within a single tribe.

 

[T.C.]

Now Peterson has made this point at least 100 times in his videos, and one would presume that before interviewing him, the interviewers did their homework and could not have avoided that particular point. And yet, almost EVERY time (in particular the more SJW types) bring up the same point and receive exactly the same answer, and, the most amazing part, is they just sit there dumbstruck as if its the first time they hear it and it doesn't make any sense! It's like when they are confronted with facts that contradict what they want to believe they simply IGNORE it and move on!

The thing is, the underlying philosophy of their ideology doesn't allow for facts. They substitute facts for 'interpretations'.

What their doctrine teaches them is that there is ALWAYS an agenda with everything. If I, as a privileged white male, conduct a study, there will be zero objectivity to that study, because for them there is no objective reality. My position, my own cultural indoctrination, my inherent biases, will necessarily mean that I'm conducting the study in order to maintain my position in the power structure and it will necessarily colour my results in favour of bolstering that power structure and bolstering my position in it.

It's evil. It's unfair. It's oppressive. It's all me benefiting at the expense of others born a different colour, or gender, or class, or sexual orientation.

This is a foundational aspect of their 'selection and substitution of data' issues, because once this programme is installed, words like 'studies', 'data', 'science' etc., actually become 'trigger-words'. These words are symbols, and those symbols represent evil, and when an SJW hears them, it goes straight to their amygdala where all the associations of thousands of years of patriarchal dominance and torture are attached.

It's a bloody ingenious system! It prevents any rational discourse, cutting it off at the knees before it has any chance of getting going.

I think that often, it's not that these people are showing surprise at the 'new data' that Peterson is presenting to them. It's shock that Peterson DARE say such obviously oppressive things. How can he possibly dare say them when due to their programming, they dare not even think them?

 

[Beau]

Jordan Peterson has written the foreword to the new, 2018 edition of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. The foreword was published on Quillette and is now being carried on SOTT:

The Gulag Archipelago: A new foreword by Jordan B. Peterson

It's a really good distillation of what the book meant, and still means, to humankind

 

[Alejo]

One can only admire the sheer amount of patience and understanding Peterson can bring to a "discussion" like this! A perfect example of external consideration at play on a very high level. Fascinating to watch how one can stay as cool as he is while confronted by one absolutely deranged line of thinking after the other, while still being able to presume that one might might be able to learn something from the other and maybe help them to understand something or not. At best, a perfect example of "ideological possession" on the part of the interviewer, as Peterson rightly called it.

My thoughts exactly, I’m about halfway through this one and this lady is frustrating. So far she has spent 1 hour launching a baseless accusation in a somewhat articulate manner with a smug arrogant superiority an contempt and as Jordan Peterson is about to address and discuss the issue and go in-depth..... she freaking switches topics!!! Ugh!

Did anyone else notice the jump as they were discussing make up? It’s like a big chunk of the conversation was cut off at the right moment in order to make him look crazy.

 

[Alejo]

Jordan Peterson has written the foreword to the new, 2018 edition of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. The foreword was published on Quillette and is now being carried on SOTT:

The Gulag Archipelago: A new foreword by Jordan B. Peterson

It's a really good distillation of what the book meant, and still means, to humankind

Found it here as well

 

[RedFox]

It's now live! Link

The live stream was recorded by someone and put on YouTube if you didn't get a chance to see it (I've skipped it ahead to where it starts):

Additionally, the following BBC Radio 5 interview was really good.
Lots of food for thought on struggling forward and doing your best.

Professor Jordan B Peterson speaks to BBC Radio 5 Live's Nihal Arthanayake and an audience of young men, at the Moss Side Fire Station Boxing Club in Manchester, to discuss the issues that affect them in today’s society.