Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Milo weighs in on JBP, disingenuously I must add, and it sounds like the trickster's ego has been hurt:
Jordan Peterson Is The Wrong Kind Of Chameleon
Jordan Peterson Is The Wrong Kind Of Chameleon
Wow, that was...I don't know how to describe it...wiseacreing jealous nonsense!
Milo writes:
Oh, well, that's easy...
Milo's simply not as intelligent as he believes he is - expensive education or not. He also looks at Peterson's fame, and that really irritates him because his only desire is fame and notoriety.
He doesn't actually say many things that are truly intelligent. He is probably smarter than average, but also not quite as sharp as he thinks he is, and so he does what such people normally do: he "debates". He tries to run everyone around in intelligent-sounding circles, and as long as he continues to hear the sound of his own voice echoed by applause, he's happy.
The article isn't terribly well written, and it doesn't even make that much sense. He sort of meanders around, selectively interprets a lot, whines a lot, and then ends with:
At this point, even HE doesn't know what he's talking about.
And then, when his supporters post comments like, "And no, Jordan Peterson hasn't stood up for free speech. Just watch that interview where he was REKT by the British feminist."
Well, what can you say to that? I guess Milo knows his audience...
It's pretty clear that that is all it is. So many words to say "my feelings are hurt", but he can't just say that and 'own' it and let it go. He has to 'destroy' Peterson, because he dared to tarnish Milo's self-image. Talk about a raging narcissist.
I would suggest that Milo might not be able to understand what Peterson says simply because he can't really go into deeper stuff like Peterson and a lot of people who listen to him can. Milo might just be a skin deep person while Peterson and many of his friends are not.
The scary thing is that Milo might even believe what he writes there as many others do who judge people like Peterson on a very shallow and superficial basis.
Seems to me that Milos reasoning for viewing Peterson like this might be summarized as easily as Gabor Mates recent statement on how he comes up with those ideas about Peterson:
I think Joe summarized this point good here:
And when in comes down to Milos alleged smartness, I would suggest that there are quite a number of people out there who were gifted by nature with similar fast cognitive abilities that translate very quickly into a fairly articulate and fast speaking mouth. People who are gifted with such fast articulate mouthy abilities often think they are superior and smarter than others simply because they can engage verbally with others so fast and have a smart answer right away for everything in a matter of split seconds. I think viewing such people as "outstanding", "smart" and "leader like" is a trend that is very common in our society and is a big part of the reason why Milo is so successful and famous. And the funny thing is that Milo likely just never had to do any serious work to get to this articulate fast mouth stage in the first place. I would suggest that this was always a very easy thing for him that came form nature. Maybe part of the reason why many view him as smart, is because the majority can't do this and have to think rather deeply and long before they can say something useful. So viewing this as smart and something to look up to just in itself, is somewhat beyond me.
Last edited:
Milo writes:
"I do not find this way of speaking fascinating, though clearly I’m in the minority. I prefer plain talk. I like simple, clear, unambiguous statements of opinion. I believe in objective truth and such a thing as right and wrong. I’m never going to be satisfied by a writer who is constantly pointing to deeper solutions that are endlessly deferred. I want to know what a person really thinks. I have no idea what Jordan Peterson really thinks."
"I do not find this way of speaking fascinating, though clearly I’m in the minority. I prefer plain talk. I like simple, clear, unambiguous statements of opinion. I believe in objective truth and such a thing as right and wrong. I’m never going to be satisfied by a writer who is constantly pointing to deeper solutions that are endlessly deferred. I want to know what a person really thinks. I have no idea what Jordan Peterson really thinks."
- Sartre writes:
"Ultimately, opinion is a pure character trait. In conclusion, to want a world of opinions, is to want a lesser truth, that is both a lesser Being, a lesser freedom and a looser relationship between unveiling freedom and the In- itself."
J.K. Baltzersen is the author, social debate and editor of the anthology / debate book "Basic Law and Freedom: Turtles or Archives?"
Jordan Peterson gets a hard contest. Feminists are among those who go hard against the Canadian professor. Just before Dr. Peterson's rejoinder in Oslo and the Concert Hall, the Swedish Foreign Minister asked the psychology professor to recall where he came from. Possibly she thinks he's really a lobster.
Friday 9th November there was once another crowded hall in Oslo Concert Hall for celebrity professor Peterson from Toronto on tour in Europe. Dave Rubin began, inter alia, a joke about the New York Times's claim that Jordan Peterson is a supporter of enforced monogamy.
Peterson likes storytelling, and this is where his criticism of feminism comes in. In many stories, the concepts "evil king", "evil queen", "good king" and "good queen" are again. The reality is far better described using all these four "personality", as Peterson explains. If you have an unbalanced representation, some of these "personality" will be omitted. For example, feminists can make the world with only the "evil king" and the "good queen".
And from the scene this friday night we learned that it is just the way modern feminism produces the world. According to Peterson, older feminism was concerned with women's rights, while now and then it appears that it is the narrative of the "evil king" and "good queen" that applies. The problem in the eyes of the newer feminists is, according to Peterson, the men in the structure. Peterson wanted sarcastic happiness in creating the good community by exchanging men with women in exactly the same structure.
Let's look at what this unilateral production can mean more concrete by bringing in its own interpretation: the old patriarchate is produced as an institution for oppression of women. We all too often experience that the story of history is made as stages of history where women were oppressed. I do not claim that history does not have elements of such. But to show that this was highly dominant when women eg. was not sent to the front during World War I, is grossly misleading. It will be a story - - if you are going to use Peter Peter's metaphors - one only has the "evil king" and the "good queen".
Such is not tolerated by the feminists. If you mix the "good king" and the "evil queen" in history, you are almost stamped as apologized for repression of former times.
Grace Professor Peterson - or anyone else for that matter - if he points out that Norway has a very gender-segregated job market. This should not be discussed, because it undermines when women were not allowed to participate in the labor market or had no voting rights.
Do we mention that before 1898 there were also many men who did not have the right to vote? Do we mention that family dependence on two incomes may not be unambiguous toward more freedom?
Jordan Peterson's metaphors provide a good picture. It is not a question of replacing the one-sided tale of the "good queen" and the "evil king" with a story about the "evil queen" and the "good king" but to involve all four characters in the story.
In addition to the main message to take personal responsibility, perhaps this is the most important lesson to bring along from this evening.
This lesson, everyone who stamps Jordan Peterson as female hatred should note. Or they can choose to keep trying to invoke the world that all they do is to raise counter-arguments against politically incorrect views. The problem is that the world will often understand the difference between what is purely counter-argumentation and an attempt to consolidate its own approach as the only legitimate.
Mediehuset Nettavisen AS
Mediehuset Nettavisen – Wikipedia
Amedia - Wikipedia
Jordan Peterson gets a hard contest. Feminists are among those who go hard against the Canadian professor. Just before Dr. Peterson's rejoinder in Oslo and the Concert Hall, the Swedish Foreign Minister asked the psychology professor to recall where he came from. Possibly she thinks he's really a lobster.
Friday 9th November there was once another crowded hall in Oslo Concert Hall for celebrity professor Peterson from Toronto on tour in Europe. Dave Rubin began, inter alia, a joke about the New York Times's claim that Jordan Peterson is a supporter of enforced monogamy.
Peterson likes storytelling, and this is where his criticism of feminism comes in. In many stories, the concepts "evil king", "evil queen", "good king" and "good queen" are again. The reality is far better described using all these four "personality", as Peterson explains. If you have an unbalanced representation, some of these "personality" will be omitted. For example, feminists can make the world with only the "evil king" and the "good queen".
And from the scene this friday night we learned that it is just the way modern feminism produces the world. According to Peterson, older feminism was concerned with women's rights, while now and then it appears that it is the narrative of the "evil king" and "good queen" that applies. The problem in the eyes of the newer feminists is, according to Peterson, the men in the structure. Peterson wanted sarcastic happiness in creating the good community by exchanging men with women in exactly the same structure.
Let's look at what this unilateral production can mean more concrete by bringing in its own interpretation: the old patriarchate is produced as an institution for oppression of women. We all too often experience that the story of history is made as stages of history where women were oppressed. I do not claim that history does not have elements of such. But to show that this was highly dominant when women eg. was not sent to the front during World War I, is grossly misleading. It will be a story - - if you are going to use Peter Peter's metaphors - one only has the "evil king" and the "good queen".
Such is not tolerated by the feminists. If you mix the "good king" and the "evil queen" in history, you are almost stamped as apologized for repression of former times.
Grace Professor Peterson - or anyone else for that matter - if he points out that Norway has a very gender-segregated job market. This should not be discussed, because it undermines when women were not allowed to participate in the labor market or had no voting rights.
Do we mention that before 1898 there were also many men who did not have the right to vote? Do we mention that family dependence on two incomes may not be unambiguous toward more freedom?
Jordan Peterson's metaphors provide a good picture. It is not a question of replacing the one-sided tale of the "good queen" and the "evil king" with a story about the "evil queen" and the "good king" but to involve all four characters in the story.
In addition to the main message to take personal responsibility, perhaps this is the most important lesson to bring along from this evening.
This lesson, everyone who stamps Jordan Peterson as female hatred should note. Or they can choose to keep trying to invoke the world that all they do is to raise counter-arguments against politically incorrect views. The problem is that the world will often understand the difference between what is purely counter-argumentation and an attempt to consolidate its own approach as the only legitimate.
Mediehuset Nettavisen AS
Mediehuset Nettavisen – Wikipedia
Amedia - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Just up with Subs.
Wow, right of the bat this was interesting and non adversarial - addressing the issues that are more than apparent that have obviously been brought up before. The interviewer at UFV Madrid laid out the issues that even in Spain are growing as identity politics.
In whole (without many actual questions from the interviewer) JP really had the floor to get his points out; and he sure did with some vigor...
The interview leads to a robust end, including comment on colleagues who are forced to giveaway part of their soul, in essence, by acquiescing to the universities when they sign their statement/pledge to inclusivity. JP - “You pathologize your speech at your immortal peril…don’t give up your sovereign speech.”
Good interview/talk!
This is a very lucid observation, I think.
-I spent several of my high school years in a school which sponsored a special accademic track specifically tailored for so-called, "Gifted Kids". Imagine entire class rooms full of Milos. In fact, in retrospect.., I recall several of the kids being carbon copies of Milo in terms of verbal style, dress style and even the style of physical expression; bird-quick, high strung movements, like not just their brains but their entire metabolic superstructures were jacked up somehow.
I was tested for this same program, but alas, I was simply too slow and average to be allowed a desk in those classrooms. This bummed me out a bit because the Gifted Kids got to go on the most interesting field trips unavailable to kids in the regular program, and they participated in cool extra-curricular activities, like building robots or taking advanced classes in advertising theory. They studied techniques in propaganda and could point out the naked ladies hidden in beer advertisements. How cool was that? But I was a dunce when it came to mathematics and my general fact recall wasn't rocket fast, so I toiled along with the other students in the regular program.
Nonetheless, I found myself hanging around these kids outside of class, in the hallways and lunch rooms, and made a couple of good friends among them. And I was exempt from their intense penis measuring contests. I was too dumb and slow and admiring to be considered a threat, and so my company was accepted with amused tolerance and little antagonism.
As such, I was able to observe a couple of interesting features among this personality type...
The first was the absolute raw intensity of ego and competition. I'd watch, for hours at a time, endless fact-checking back and forth bickering. -It drove me nuts, because I made the mistake of thinking that I was listening to debates which had objective points related to the things being discussed; I'd be trying to work out what exactly they were trying to prove or disprove, trying to follow the arguments as they strayed twenty points sideways, and be totally exhausted and losing my shit until I'd want to knock heads together to make them shut up. -When it finally dawned on me during one such argument, (this was a pivotal moment in my teenager life), that these guys weren't trying to establish the truth or falsity of any original point; they were just trying to one-up each other, like dogs seeking alpha by attempting to mount each other.
After I worked that out, I was finally able to relax and ignore these scuffles. I realized I was a truth and falsity kinda guy, having already lost the ego war by default.
Anyway...
The other thing I noticed, is that most of these kids were really quite unwise. That took a few years to dawn on me as well, and when I got a grip on the pattern, to really notice it, I found it both illuminating and baffling.
How could people with such marvelous brain speeds and such astonishing recall make such dissonant appraisals of life? They knew specifics by the bucket load, could list them and fight over them with tenacity, but the general patterns those specifics created, even very profound ones, seemed somehow beyond their grasp. How could they be so socially out of sync with that much raw processing power at their disposal? Didn't they just read and presumably learn that, ______?
We've all met that person; the one who has read the same books we have (and often more), but still manages to come away believing the same nonsense which those books carefully and with great articulation worked to dispel? (And did so for anybody who actually understood them.) It's like that person is able to visually recall the letters and words in the text, to understand them at a card catalogue level, but is unable to metabolize the information any further than surface recognition.
Milo, to his credit, seems less afflicted in this way than others I have met, but he still carries other deficits common in those who carry the speed-gene, or whatever it is that red-lines cognitive cross referencing speeds and verbal response times.
In an effort to work out a reason for the hyper-sensitivity and ego fighting among the "Gifted Kids", I came up with this...
When at a young age, the Gifted Child is first attending school and put among a class of same-age peers, they quickly rise to the top of all academic measures, and receive praise from the teachers and authority bodies. This praise is recieved as a form of Love, and they gather it all to themselves, wining hands down! All the other kids have to find love and acceptance in different ways, and so develop along those more mundane lines, among each other, out on the playground in games and social challenges. The Gifted Child, however, gets what s/he can take in the easiest form available and thus doesn't engage in the difficult development offered by those more mundane contests (where instant victory isn't assured). -The way flowing water seeks the path of least resistance.
Unfortunately, some of those other mundane contests result in healthy social development earned by engaging in the trials of making and competing with friends. The Gifted Child misses out on these skills, which becomes evident later in life when we witness their over-response to minimal stimulus. (An example being, Jordan admitting that he didn't know Milo well enough to support one way or another the idea that he might have racist tendencies. -Which would seem a perfectly reasonable and responsible statement to anybody who is equipped with an adult-level ego management toolkit; he's neither condemning nor condoning; he's abstaining because he doesn't have enough information. But for the adult with an underdeveloped ego management toolkit, such a lack to provide approval, the gold star, (Jordan is not only the spiritual authority figure in all of this, he is actually a teacher!) results in a several thousand word hysterical "taking all my toys and going home!" essay, where they don't get to be friends after.)
Anyway.., when you take a bunch of these super-fast brained young people and put them all together.., holy crap! Suddenly their easy access source of Love, (authoritarian approval and check marks and shiny star stickers on their tests), must be competed for among 50 other kids who all have around the same level of brain speed... -And they do it at an age where play ground social development time is over, where a fight in the sandbox isn't forgotten the next day and people are expected to start acting like adults...
When that happens at the high school level, why, you get blood and fur sticking to the walls! And in a barely metaphoric sense.
All of which leads me to remembering...
The few times when he has talked about his own childhood, Jordan sounds like he grew up a scrappy, small and fast-witted kid among bigger boys where his fast wit was not valued as much or in the same way as it might have been among the classrooms full of Gifted Kids I knew. Being forced to learn different ways to find love and acceptance probably had a formative impact upon him which I think we witness today in his more measured, less volatile personality and interactions with media and other participants in the philosophical landscape.
Last edited:
I just read his article and I must say that a few more mundane concepts come to mind, but I’ll try to be respectful. I feel it all comes to timing, so Jordan Peterson defends him and he’s an ally.. the minute Peterson says...”maybe I haven’t followed him closely...” which most people could say about Milo frankly, then: “he’s a nonsensical liar who makes no sense and is bad as his job and a charlatan and you’re ugly and I hate you!”.
If he had that opinion why not bring it up before? Why wait? The whole article felt like a whole lot of what is known as “throwing shade” which is, as I understand, discrediting an argument with ad hominem attacks that are purely emotional while articulate enough to sound funny-ish and shame your opponent while not adding anything to the conversation. Which has always been my impression of Milo, a kind of sassy right winger, and his article follows that.
