Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[Courageous Inmate Sort]

What an amazing interview. I've heard his name but know nothing about Milo. He is a powerhouse and so articulate. I like him. Jordan took a fair bit of lip from him ( in a nice way). I'd very much like to see their next exchange. Anyone have any opinions on whether I should buy his book-. The lavender mafia?

I know very little about Milo and really can't tell you anything about his book.

Just finished the Milo interview and oh man... maybe it’s me but I couldn’t escape noticing how much of an egocentric man he is.

He obviously feels betrayed and so condemned everyone to the same fate he had in the conservative circles. Claims that no one in the world is as good as he was for the movement, nor ever will be. He seems to have this special, grand and unique vision of himself. “I got Donald Trump elected..”

And not sure, but doesn’t seem very self aware, despite having such an apparently precise description of himself at the beginning. When pressed for answers he avoided questions or gave somewhat conflicting responses.

Maybe I have to watch more of his stuff, but it didn’t make me curious or interested in what he had to say.

My two cents

For what it's worth, my main interest in the interview was just to see what Peterson would get out of such a peculiar personage. I knew Milo was involved in Breitbart, had some disagreement with Peterson in the past and has the whole gay/conservative/christian/quasi-crazy person thing. He seems a weird and rare event in himself. Also that he was heavily targeted by the liberal media.

I thought it was an interesting interview. He has a very inflated ego but is also intelligent. Some of his remarks were very curious. For instance, that he sees a predatory element in any and all male homosexual relations. His refusal to let himself be victimized regarding his sexual abuse was also quite striking.

Nonetheless, at the moment I have no interest in "following his work". As he said himself, he wants to be an entertainer. Perhaps he will produce something good that might be worth watching someday, like a gay christian conservative John Oliver. That might be fun.

 

[Ursus Minor]

Free Speech War

I just wanted to add this poster. Just in case anyone here is still planning to join the British Army.

I have always felt that armies around the world would mainly enlist down-home patriotic characters instead of left-leaning internationalists who would rather not be inclined to fight against their foreign comrades.

Or is it that the British Army does indeed consist of patriots (who care about "vulnerable people like old age pensioners") and have to be put under finer control...

Report to WARP and help them warping reality and society!

 

[Voyageur]

But for me, the most interesting point was at the very beginning: about postmodern, antiauthoritarian education. When your dad is old-school and expects you to do certain things, period, he might tell you "Go and mow the lawn!". If you you protest, he just says "Go do it, period" and you grudgingly comply (and might learn something).

If you have an anti-authoritarian dad (like many of us did I suppose), he might ask instead "do you want to mow the lawn?" - or "would you like mowing the lawn?" Žižek makes the great point that this way, daddy forces you not only to mow the lawn, but he forces you to LIKE it, to WANT it! It's so cruel when you think about it. Of course you don't like doing chores as a child! But you also want to please daddy - so you are forced to like something you don't like, instead of just doing something you don't like. It's a dirty violation of free will, an invasion into your private thoughts. Now imagine being in that situation again and again for your whole childhood - talk about trauma!

Yes, this was the launch part of his discussion and it was spot on. Žižek also pointed out that (if the former case) you might 'struggle' inside, but you did it - see grandma or clean up your room, whereas it is what you said.

 

[aragorn]

I don't know if there's reason for concern, probably not, but in this recent speech Peterson is visibly (and audibly) in a very emotional state, and on several occasions he's on the verge of crying. I've (and you) of course seen him in similar states previously, but those have usually been shorter moments. I've always thought that these moments of Peterson 'almost crying' have been very touching and important – they show that he is really emotionally in contact with what he is saying, and that he shares and senses the 'horror of the situation'. However, watching this, I got a bit worried...maybe he'd need a brake?

Here's the speech, which was excellent:

 

[Matthew]

I believe one of his close family members has been having some difficult health issues recently so it may just be that his emotional state is at a higher level than normal.

 

[Turgon]

I believe one of his close family members has been having some difficult health issues recently so it may just be that his emotional state is at a higher level than normal.

Yes, his wife Tammy went in for emergency surgery a few weeks ago. Her second in a few months. JBP posted a video explaining it briefly, and also said that "My wife Tammy's surgery yesterday, May 9, went as well as could be expected. Now we wait. Thank you for the tremendous outpouring of support. It has been genuinely encouraging."

Maybe we should send some prayers her way.

 

[Keit]

Here's the speech, which was excellent:

This interview is also excellent.

 

[Cosmos]

I believe one of his close family members has been having some difficult health issues recently so it may just be that his emotional state is at a higher level than normal.

Yes, his wife Tammy went in for emergency surgery a few weeks ago. Her second in a few months. JBP posted a video explaining it briefly, and also said that "My wife Tammy's surgery yesterday, May 9, went as well as could be expected. Now we wait. Thank you for the tremendous outpouring of support. It has been genuinely encouraging."

Maybe we should send some prayers her way.

I also think Tammy's situation was most likely the reasons for his emotional state at PragerU. The PragerU summit was scheduled on May
3rd & 4th. And he uploaded the above video on May 4th. I'll hope Tammy will get better soon.

 

[Ursus Minor]

Fun times, eh? After all, who doesn't enjoy a little race-inspired civil war? Thanks 'Resurrection Europa'! Make sure you cheer us on from 5000kms away!

Are these 5,000 kms some sort of giveaway where the Chateau-crew will be moving in the near future?

Without getting yourselves into either potential ice age territory (Russia) or hot water (in more ways than one), I think Ethiopia might be a good choice ( a little more than 5,000 as the crow flies ).

It has a large area of highlands hardly below 1,500 m (5,000 ft) which makes for a mild climate.
People I know have been working there for some years (in Addis) and liked the place and people very much.

But even in Addis electrical power would stop for some hours almost daily.

 

[anka]

I think Caleb Maupin's talk here fills in some of the 'gap' between Peterson and Zizek.

He claims that the 'Cultural Marxism' JP and others hold up as 'the Left' is just one aspect of Marxism, an aspect the CIA and friends latched onto and inflated into the grotesque spectacle we see today:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=355681271742096

Thank you for the video - it was very helpful to me to hear that bit of history from the guy because it shed a lot of new light on the topic for me, and also because today I came across this 10min talk of Abby Martin with Richard Wolff who I don't know at all but he claims to be a marxist in the original sense of the word.

It really surprised me that Martin, who I think is a very good journalist, shows some distaste for Peterson, although not necessarily fully agreeing with Wolff. She is being a bit awkwardly polite (my impression). But Wolff claims that there is no such thing as cultural marxism and that Peterson just does not know anything about marxism as such so he should not be talking about it.

Debunking Jordan Peterson’s “Cultural Marxism” with Richard Wolff

I don't know what to make of the talk. When I went through the comment section, people were for the most part overjoyed from the fact that Martin & Wolff had this chat and 'debunked' Peterson's views on cultural marxism as nonsense but the following one was, I think, quiet a nice rant and even more so because as he says he disagrees with Peterson on many points:

I thought the debate with Zizek was great. Wow, you're also just going to straight up accuse people like Peterson of being racist and afraid of integration. I've listened to a lot of Peterson. I disagree with him on almost every point he holds dear but I never got that impression. Not even close. This is pretty disingenuous. Makes me wonder about the other Abby Martin stuff I used to put some value in. Obviously capitalism involves exploitation. Name one system of social organization that didn't involve exploitation? Now name one socialist or government run on Marxist principles that didn't involve exploitation and , you know, murder.

He says hierarchies are inevitable and that inequality is inevitable but that it's a real problem that has to be continually addressed. Seriously I'm not even a Petersonian but this is fucking weak. Even contrapoints did a better job (and that involved dolls). While we're at it - name one socialist government without a hierarchy? So what nobody's going to be in charge? No wonder one of the first classes the communists kill are usually the intellectuals.

I guess all those socialist governments weren't based on real marxist principles. Even though it's been tried in many different countries and many different cultures. If only we'd give you nutters the power you would usher in a bloodless utopia. I mean you'd never vilify those who oppose or disagree with you. No I can totally see that. It would be a completely different picture with you. Only the people who really deserve it would be sent to the gulags.

 

[Ennio]

It really surprised me that Martin, who I think is a very good journalist, shows some distaste for Peterson, although not necessarily fully agreeing with Wolff. She is being a bit awkwardly polite (my impression). But Wolff claims that there is no such thing as cultural marxism and that Peterson just does not know anything about marxism as such so he should not be talking about it.

Right off the bat Wolff shows his own ignorance of Peterson's position by comparing JP's critique of cultural marxism to the Nazi's oppression of marxists during that era. Just wow. Wolff seems abysmally ignorant or blind to the detrimental effects of the hard left's rancor and identity politics-motivated totalitarian push against free speech - and towards wrong-headed legislation on a number of fronts. And that's just to start with. He'd rather nitpick about Peterson's "misuse" of marxist ideology than consider the thrust and truth of the phenomenon that JP is outlining for all to see.

I don't know what to make of the talk. When I went through the comment section, people were for the most part overjoyed from the fact that Martin & Wolff had this chat and 'debunked' Peterson's views on cultural marxism

As much as I admire Abby Martin for all the good work she's done, this interview quite reveals a blind spot she has I think. Peterson would be the first to say that vast income inequality is a problem and does need to be addressed! But by discussing competence hierarchies he is also trying to get people to understand that social and economic inequality is a more complicated problem than the radicalized left would have you beleive. And that the "solutions" suggested by the left are quite likely to make things worse, not better. Martin and Wolff have either not listened enough to what JP is actually saying, or are so triggered by their own view of things that they cannot accept a more complex view of reality that would challenge some of their ingrained thinking. Or both.

 

[Niall]

He may not have made it to Poland earlier this month, but JP just met Viktor Orban in a monastery in Hungary...

Hungary Journal, May 30, 2019

On Thursday morning, in the Carmelite Monastery Prime Minister Viktor Orban received Canadian political scientist, Professor of Psychology Jordan Peterson who arrived in Budapest as a guest of the Brain Bar Festival to be held on 30-31 May.

At the informal meeting of the renowned Canadian scholar and the Hungarian prime minister, the parties discussed current political issues such as illegal immigration which they both described as unnecessary and dangerous, and political correctness which, in their view, thwarts meaningful debates in public life, and is additionally “an invention of a small group of ideologically motivated people”.

At the meeting, Orban and Peterson spoke about the recent phenomenon that the horrors of communism appear to be losing in significance. In this context, they recalled President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker’s speech seeking to find excuses for Karl Marx which they described as shameful and shocking.

The Brain Bar Festival was established in 2015 as a platform where attendees discuss issues related to the future of individuals, communities and the whole of humanity. In 2018 the event was attended by more than ten thousand people; the live broadcast was followed by over 38,000 viewers world-wide.

He's moving up (and east) in the world!

 

[Cosmos]

He's moving up (and east) in the world!

Let‘s see when he is in russia. At least that was on the plan a while ago for his tour.

In regards to Abby Martin I‘m not surprised. It seems like she has missed the plot a bit ever since Trump got into power (something like the "Trump derangement syndrome" might be at play here) and the lefty paradigm crumpled. She hasn‘t been able to make the transition from a purely lefty perspective to a more nuanced one towards the right and center, locking at everything critically.

PS: Spelling

 

[Cosmos]

He may not have made it to Poland earlier this month, but JP just met Viktor Orban in a monastery in Hungary...

Well, speaking of that, we should also mention that Peterson spoke about tyrannical dictator types in Europe last year and probably also referred to Orban in what he said there:

Obviously, as we all know, when it comes down to politics and geopolitics, Peterson isn't very educated and blindly believes in the western BS line. The above is pretty similar to another interview he gave a while ago:

While we are on it, I think we can just as well bring the following up too. In regards to the idea that Petersons thinking, speeches and utterances about the west today and its role in the world, his political and geopolitical knowledge outside of the western mainstream narrative and so on, are because he "plays strategically", I haven't seen much indication of that notion at all. In fact, I think he is pretty much completely sold out on the western narrative and actually believes most of that nonsense. So, I don't think it is likely at all that he does it "strategically", but that he is believing it. As simple as that. I have followed him quite closely and that is the definite impression I get here.

I know that here and there on this forum, there was speculation going on, on what he might be thinking of Putin and Russia, since he didn't say a whole lot about it, just some offhand and unspecific remarks.

Recently though, he made it rather clear what he thinks about Putin by comparing him to Kim Jong-un and inferring that he is not a strong person but a brutal one. Further more, it strikes me as pretty revealing and shocking that Peterson interrupts the moderator at the point he is saying "at a point [in this time]... where strong man [in this context, in the political sense] are emerging elsewhere" by correcting the moderator saying "brutal man, not strong man! [and more correcting words follow]".

So basically what he revealed there, is, that in his mind every "strong man" that emerges outside of western countries/narrative must be first considered a brutal one, unless proven otherwise.


I couldn't find the full interview anywhere. Here is the part I'm talking about:

Having said that, I think that it is good that Peterson leads by example here and actually talks to the "Tyrant/Dictator" himself (even though this is clearly based on a misguided perspective of political reality), instead of refusing talks. I'm not holding my hopes up high though (since I think it is unlikely), but maybe Peterson will learn a thing or two when he is talking to "Tyrants" like Orban, in the sense that he might realize that reality might not be as black and white as the western media/politics have painted it. If he really wants to talk to tyrant/dictator types he doesn't have to travel far; he could talk to Trudeau, Obama, Hillary, Bolton, Netanyahu, Bush, Cheney or Biden for example. Plenty of subject matter right at his doorstep to choose from!

 

[Alejo]

I just started this one out today, and it made me realize a few things.

First, the critics of Peterson don’t realize how researched his statements are. Second, I didn’t know how researched his statements are.

This is an interview with the author of Explaining Postmodernism, Stephen Hicks. It’s a very academic conversation, quite enjoyable: