Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[mkrnhr]

I don't think it's all that simple. Commerce and free-market are different things, the later being an ideological tool of capitalism. All these systems developed in different historical circumstances. We're not in the bronze age or any other time one would extrapolate today's practices to. Just a couple hundred years ago, most of the population lived outside of the cities, far from the centers of power. Today it's the reverse. Capitalism vs. Communism is a superficial dichotomy because both, without a real balancing force, end up with the same situation. It is no accident that today's SJWism and appeal to authoritarianism originate in the so-called capitalist west (saying it's not real capitalism in no different that saying the Soviet Union wasn't really communist), and especially among the rich kids who instinctively see themselves at the helm of the technocracy that will shortly control everything.
Free entreprise is possible in an expanding economy, expansion being helped by new territories, technology or ressources. In a stagating or contracting economy, it is only marginally possible, and the overall tendency is the crystalisation of ponerology. That's why the Zyzek-Peterson discussion was entretaining, but in the end sterile apart perhapse from colateral positive effects in the domain of free-speech.

 

[seek10]

I watched the video (zizek vs JBP) yesterday and felt why so much news of "clash of legends" of 2019. Zizek simply ignored JBP's criticism. I have to laugh when JBP called him Weird or Strange Marxist. When asked these leftis ideas are marxists, JBP has to refer to Haidt's work on surveying the educators. so, this is the battle about "label" these educators used as saviors of the "Victims"? I liked the concluding statement of Zizek asking Lefties challenging their version. It will be interesting how Lefties take this discussion and what rationalizations they will come with.

Having no western formal education I never understood either marxism vs capitalism or Science vs God fights. Science based Industrialism created factories for mass production, factories needed lot of money, capitalism gave it to the factory owners. some Factory owners abused workers, for workers rights, unions came under umbrella of "communism"( In Russia it is agricultural labor) . Suddenly ideology became every thing and other side is bad and 'Some' became 'everybody" and it became a norm over time. No amount of proof of evidence of otherwise is good enough. There can be greedy poor and generous wealthy. Add the cold war rhetoric of MIC vs Czar Stalin's brutal means, politicized the entire situation so much wars ( real or covert) has to be fought for 50 years under the ideology shields ( communism vs capitalist democracy) between the 2 empires. That spread to universities that created educators/educated became soldiers in the battle, while the elite did whatever they want to do, pitting each against other for their benefits.

Science started as an empirical means to understand the repeatable phenomenon conflicted with clergy for "Power" over common people. Over time , Darwin's observations of "random genetic mutations" became "all creation" and became anti- religious because religion abused its power.

Advances in Science gave women freedom , that became women's movement to empower women, that some how became Anti-male movement. As if that is not sufficient, gays came along, got mixed with feminists, that became LGBT. Then came along the gender conversion, gender rights and sudden one can demand what other 8 billion people should be calling them. Stupid politicians made it a LAW as if they have no brain. It is like giving gun to monkey in zoo.

That's why these ideological arguments will never solve any problem either in economy or religion or in any human endeavor. Play is basic component of any young specie( Human or animal) to try it out different things to see which fits its need. Some how, all is forgotten and one became good and other became bad( under the pressure from the survival? )

 

[whitecoast]

But that isn't what it turned out to be. Zizek is not "one of the most important Marxist intellectuals in the world", and he made that clear in his talk. There was, as Peterson said, barely anything about Marxism that Zizek actually agreed with! Also, the discussion wasn't about Marxism from 150 years ago but how it is understood and applied today in Western nations, mostly by left wing ideologues and SJWs. The way it is understood today is extremely oversimplified and childish, as Peterson has repeatedly said, it is basically about personal will to power 'revenge and identity politics'. It's complete nonsense, and I would respond to the person who wrote that article that readers of quillete deserve a better quality of thinker who can actually grasp the crux of the matter.

That's kind of an interesting idea. I really liked The Distributist's take on the debate here.

I'll try and summarize it below:

In the debate Zizek asks where the Marxists were, even he by his own qualifications wasn't really much of a Marxist. It seems like once Peterson and Zizek really started talking Marx seemed to be the one thing missing from the discussion. Looking at all the self-congratulatory Marxist leftists recounting what they perceive as some of Zizek's "gotcha" moments you'd think they'd have actually listened to what Zizek was actually saying. But it seems they just wanted to see JPB get put in his place. As TD points out though, the joke is largely on the leftists listening in, since Zizek isn't really in their corner.

TD's take on Zizek was that his affiliation could be more characterized as Reactionary rather than Marxist for the following reasons. He identifies a large number of problems with modernity, but also takes heavy issue with modern and postmodern ideas on how to confront those shortcomings, and has an understanding of human nature that does not at all lend itself to utopian visions. What was also revealing was Zizek's departure from Peterson's recommendation that the most competent people be in charge. In his opening lecture, Zizek remarks that historically it was seen as important to separate hierarchy from competency, so that the most competent person in charge would not always be the person on the top. Hereditary monarchies and extremely democratic collectives (eg, Athens) naturally allowed for this separation, but Republicanism and the later technocratic/meritocratic industrial state tended to give the most competent people all the power, which was seen as a bad thing. Gone from Zizek's opening lecture was the idea of freedom itself, which he characterized as the chief burden of modernity. Since all traditional institutions have had their teeth removed, people are forced to create/choose their own values and live up to them. Peterson is obviously a fan of this, in spite of the fact that a lot of people have trouble coming up with a way of life to suit them (in fact personally I find this charge kind of unfair). Traditionally such a pattern of living was handed down traditionally, and although JBP places value on tradition and not changing it for its own sake, the same can't really be said of the modern industrial state and its vassal market, which is by its nature disruptive and upends anything and everything if it means generating more profit or accruing more benefits to its oligarchs and stakeholders.

 

[JGeropoulas]

I haven't watched this but find it hard to imagine how his common sense, reality-based outlook could possibly work against the right wing in America which shares his views. Maybe those who are more familiar with his work might critique this critique.

 

[goyacobol]

I haven't watched this but find it hard to imagine how his common sense, reality-based outlook could possibly work against the right wing in America which shares his views. Maybe those who are more familiar with his work might critique this critique.

Maybe it would be good to watch this. It is very calculated to a point of having a feel of professional assistance (just speculation on my part).

I think what this video does in a very strong way is to question Jordan Peterson's intent and what they call having an "endgame".

It does make you think.

I did not know about Jordan Peterson's connection to the UN and Jim Balsillie who is connected to George Soros. Maybe some of you mentioned it before but I didn't notice.

The UN is mentioned at about 6:58 and some other spots in the video.

 

[Joe]

It does make you think.

I watched it and within the first minute or two what it made me think was that this is a silly video by a silly right wing website that engages in so much supposition and cherry picking and fails miserably to understand nuance, that it's literally laughable.

That said, the claim made by the video, that Peterson is attempting to neutralize the radical right, is pretty much true. Pretty much everything Peterson has ever said publicly makes it clear that he despises identity politics of any kind, and rightly so. His focus is on the individual and individual responsibility to the self, to family and society.

Modern identity politics and its desire to encourage and engage in social conflict cannot co-exist with that kind of individual responsibility. It's sad to see that so many people today are unable to see the bigger picture, and anyone with a public voice who doesn't clearly fit into their ridiculously limited boxes is some kind of shill for the 'other side' or 'George Soros' or something. God forbid that those same people might ever realize that SOMEONE needs to point out the ridiculousness of their extremism.

 

[goyacobol]

I watched half of it (I'll watch the rest) and within the first minute or two what it made me think was that this is a silly video by a silly right wing website that engages in so much supposition and cherry picking and fails miserably to understand nuance, that it's literally laughable.

Do you think the UN part is true?

 

[Joe]

Do you think the UN part is true?

He was one of dozens of 'advisors' on a sustainable development paper. Big deal.

 

[Cosmos]

I watched it and within the first minute or two what it made me think was that this is a silly video by a silly right wing website that engages in so much supposition and cherry picking and fails miserably to understand nuance, that it's literally laughable. That said, the claim made by the video, that Peterson is attempting to neutralize the radical right, is pretty much true. Pretty much everything Peterson has ever said publicly makes it clear that he despises identity politics of any kind, and rightly so. His focus is on the individual and individual responsibility to the self, to family and society. Modern identity politics and its desire to encourage and engage in social conflict cannot co-exist with that kind of individual responsibility. It's sad to see that so many people today are unable to see the bigger picture, and anyone with a public voice who doesn't clearly fit into their ridiculously limited boxes is some kind of shill for the 'other side' or 'George Soros' or something. God forbid that those same people might ever realize that SOMEONE needs to point out the ridiculousness of their extremism.

Exactly my take away of this Video as well, as mentioned partly here:

He seems to "know Peterson" based on a pretty bad documentary which is supposed to "expose Peterson Agenda" of "subverting and destroying the rising political right wing, and neutralize European nationalism". I skipped through this "expose" and couldn't find anything substantial besides a lot of assumptions, preconceived notions and conspiratorial thinking from the creator about Peterson and "his Agenda".

 

[Joe]

The important point to remember is that the guy who made the video represents a small minority of self-styled 'defenders of white culture'. I seriously doubt that they represent the large majority of ordinary white conservative types, who very likely agree with Peterson for the most part (at least those that know him). In that respect, the dufus who made that video and those like him can be accused of doing the very thing they accuse Peterson of doing: attempting to corral the majority of white conservatives into an extremist camp and thereby neutralize the potential those people have to respond to the current burgeoning chaos and conflict with reason and sanity. That idiot that made the video would have them all marching in the streets on some white pride banner.

 

[Joe]

And you know what else? 'White pride' exponents who live in N. America can go ahead and stop using any reference to 'Europe' in their web sites and propaganda pieces. They generally have no idea what they are talking about re: Europe and most of them have probably never set foot here. Put your own stupid house in order.

 

[Joe]

The guy who made the video is SUCH a dufus. At 20:28 he shows (like others have also) that he doesn't understand what Peterson means when he talks about the need for 'radical individualism', and thinks it's the same as the kind of extreme individualism/materialism that has been promoted in the USA and simply equates to narcissism. What Peterson means, clearly, is EXACTLY the opposite of narcissism.

 

[goyacobol]

And you know what else? 'White pride' exponents who live in N. America can go ahead and stop using any reference to 'Europe' in their web sites and propaganda pieces. They generally have no idea what they are talking about re: Europe and most of them have probably never set foot here. Put your own stupid house in order.

Thanks for the comments. I found a video where he mentions the UN (1:00) but if it is just an advisory panel then that is no direct connection to Soros.

You are right about the U.S. putting it's house in order for sure. It hurts a bit when you say "Murica" since I unfortunately was born here but I do have some Irish/English/German/etc. roots too. And I would love to visit Ireland. Maybe France someday too.

 

[Joe]

"whites are on the cusp on becoming a minority group in their own countries the world over".

 

[Joe]

You are right about the U.S. putting it's house in order for sure. It hurts a bit when you say "Murica" since I unfortunately was born here but I do have some Irish/English/German/etc. roots too. And I would love to visit Ireland. Maybe France someday too.

Well I wasn't talking about 'Muricans' of European extraction in general, but rather those that promote this kind of extremist racial ideology that leverages 'Europe' to supposedly give it some credibility. It's just silly. Remember in a recent session where, after talking about the 'leftist' agenda, the Cs said that that the 'right' have their own agenda too? This video is a good example of it.