Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[mabar]

López Obrador's government authorizes children to wear skirts in schools in Mexico City

With a cellphone ir turns out to be unable to translate much un deepl, but is not good at allí fomenting this gender ideology in schools, I am not surprised that much, the new political in power have it's hand this left agenda it was more about when, though ...

 

[Gwenllian]

I watched a JP video where he mentioned the fact that often the US war veterans who come home and develop PTSD are the people who participated in great evil abroad which then shatters their world-view and the view they have of themselves. Also, he said they can be naive, because they lack knowledge of "good and evil" or psychopathy. He spoke of war vets coming up to him after his talks, telling him that he cured their PTSD after watching his lectures dealing with this topic:

A friend wondered whether Russian soldiers who went back to Russia after serving in Syria also developed PTSD, which I thought was a good question.

 

[Windmill knight]

With a cellphone ir turns out to be unable to translate much un deepl, but is not good at allí fomenting this gender ideology in schools, I am not surprised that much, the new political in power have it's hand this left agenda it was more about when, though ...

I saw that. To clarify, the idea of the government of Mexico City (which is the same party as the new president AMLO) is to allow both boys and girls to wear either trousers or skirts as they choose to go to school in the name of 'equality'. It's very sad that the left in Mexico - and I suppose in other parts of Latin America - instead of staying as the 'old version of the left', which at least made some sense in their defense of the working class and their anti-imperialism, are now absorbing the identity politics BS from the north. And they probably think they are being "modern" and "progressive". Cause that's what they do in civilized countries, don't you know?

 

[Joe]

This interview is also excellent.

From that interview, at this point

Peterson says something that touches on an idea that we've come across before:

"We know now from a biological perspective, if you put yourself in new and challenging situations, new genes turn on in your nervous system and code for new proteins that produce new neurological structures, so you can't even be fully what you are biologically unless you expose yourself to everything that you can expose yourself to as you journey through life."

 

[987baz]

Not sure if this has been posted before, I just found out that JBP has is own podcast that runs on iTunes and Spotify. His daughter intros the talks and there are a few adds on there, but for those who have iTunes and/or spotify there's more JBP stuff to Listen to ;)
Links to the latest show which is with Joe Rogan
‎The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast: A Conversation with Joe Rogan / Part One on Apple Podcasts)
A Conversation with Joe Rogan / Part One

 

[3DStudent]

I had some notes on the Peterson / Zizek debate that I never posted. I cut the audio a bit to where the run time is 2 hrs 40 mins. So my times may be different than yours. To begin, I was totally lost on Zizek's response as to why he is a Marxist, around when he mentions Hegel. Couldn't really make sense of what he was saying.

Around 2hr 1min Peterson talks about happiness, and I think he said you can't always be happy. When I listened to this about 6 weeks ago, I was wondering, "Really?" I was having some insights connecting forum concepts and was generally in a good mood. And I recall the C's saying you can choose to only have positive emotions. Well, I guess I got my answer quickly, because the next day was pretty lousy and I couldn't shake out of the bad mood. Sometimes it's hard to see the other side of the coin, I suppose.

Regarding Jesus/God feeling like an athiest when on the cross, it reminds me that God is in this game too. He/she/it is an active participant, just spread about among all beings. So again, everything you do matters. And it reminded me of the idea mentioned in some Mind Matters shows, that God could be seen as having Dissociative Identity Disorder to split off into individual consciousness units in order to experience separate split off parts of reality.

I wrote down, "Not knowing yourself." at 2hr 33min and not sure what I meant. But the context was when Zizek talks about Zen Buddhism and a knife being influenced to simply make contact with someone else, as if to abdicate responsibility. And I suppose I meant something like if whatever you are following leads you to think of things in that way, with no sort of agency, then you don't know yourself. I think Zizek was saying something like even a lofty spiritual attitude can be reduced down and combined with nihilism, produce a distorted view of things. And if it's in you not to be drawn to things like that or add that flavor to them, then you won't. Kind of reminds me of ponerogenesis, when a pathological person hijacks this or that set of ideas.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Around 2hr 1min Peterson talks about happiness, and I think he said you can't always be happy. When I listened to this about 6 weeks ago, I was wondering, "Really?" I was having some insights connecting forum concepts and was generally in a good mood. And I recall the C's saying you can choose to only have positive emotions. Well, I guess I got my answer quickly, because the next day was pretty lousy and I couldn't shake out of the bad mood. Sometimes it's hard to see the other side of the coin, I suppose.

That's a good, fast learning experience to make the point hit home, IMO. And I think it's an example of what Peterson was talking about. Another example he gives is that tragedy of one sort or another will strike everyone at various points in their life. Can you imagine always being 'happy'? Even when a loved one dies? Or if you're in an accident, or something else happens to cause you intense pain, like a serious illness? Or if you see an example of extreme injustice? I don't think there's a person on the planet who can escape all the things that cause suffering in one way or another. And I can't imagine not being affected by those things, either. I for one wouldn't want to be 'happy' all the time. Suffering is part of being human, and by that I mean that suffering is the natural response to certain things that happen in life, like losing someone, or empathizing with another's suffering. I'd even call those positive emotions, because they serve an important purpose.

 

[bjorb]

This is loosely off topic, but I think nonethelss relates to JP (importance of marriage in this case) and other subjects we discuss here.

So if you want, bare with me for a little while well I tell my story.


One of my nieces who is a few years older then me after 4 years of marriage and 2 kids out of nowhere announced that she and her husband divorced.

Reason being it, she was no longer in love with him. (But he is)

Anyhow, I visited my grandmother yesterday and there were also a few other family members present. (The niece who got divorced wasn’t there)

My grandmother shared her frustration about this and said that she told my niece that whatever happened, ups and downs are part of marriage and that’s she should have stayed married for a while longer and should have tried to work things out. And that making such a decision (divorce) on your own or without advice from other family members is shameless.

One of other nieces disagreed and said that nowadays, ‘’Women have the right to quit the relationship when they want, unlike when it was in the past.’’ (She fell under the feminists spell I guess)

I responded that she missed the point and that grandmother told us that being married means that you try to make it work, but did our niece even tried?

My niece said in response, ‘’Since she is no longer in love with him there is no point in staying together.’’ My grandmother became visible angry and told her directly: ‘’Marriage doesn’t mean a thing anymore. If women nowadays think like that, it’s going to be the end of the world.’’

Some almost laughed but I think she is completely right. For all we know my niece just just got bored with him. Her ex-husband always came across as a hard working and cheerful guy. Perhaps if she tried to make it work, or stayed married a little while longer. Things could have turned out for the better.

Besides that, If I’m correct nowadays 80% who want the divorce are the women. How many just got bored with their husband. Or went looking for the ‘’next best thing.’’ And why worry about the kids, you can just take them and let the ex-husband pay for it all. I mean keeping feminism in mind. Female entitlement in 2019 is unreal.

My grandmother made me realize that without social pressure on family values and marriage. Which are not there to suppress people, but to keep morals intact. (Like it was during her time) We will indeed invite our own destruction.

A civilisation without family values and marriage is no civilisation at all. It’s just misery and pointless. It shows a complete lack of loyalty and responsibility towards each other.

So yes, like my grandmother said, the end of the world is near.

 

[Scottie]

Female entitlement in 2019 is unreal.

Can't remember if I mentioned this before, but it relates:

The fascinating thing about the C's recent comments about the planned destruction of traditional masculinity is that it has a flip side.

Since male + female is supposed to be the way things work, monkeying with one side will necessarily screw up the other.

Since the "masculine energy" is perhaps more of a direct threat, it makes sense to go after men and turn us all into wimps. At the same time, the way that's being done is simultaneously "empowering" women in all the wrong ways: entitlement, self-centeredness, my feelings are the most important thing, etc.

IOW, traditional femininity is also being assaulted. Both genders are being coerced into trying to be a warped version of the other gender, which can't help but epically screw up both sides. It's like trying to run linux software on Windows, and vice versa.

Older generations see this, but generally we ignore old people these days as old-fashioned or just plain crazy. Ya know, just toss 'em in the nursing home and forget about 'em...

Factor in global power, political, economic, and other social changes, and I'm not sure we'll even recognize the world in 5-10 years time - assuming something doesn't intervene in the meantime.

As for marriage, JP's comments on that were so dead on the money that it was almost painful. Marriage used to mean, "Whatever happens, I'm not gonna run away." That provided an impetus to learn to love and accept the worst parts of the other person, but more than that it forced one to learn to accept and deal with one's own crap. IOW, it used to be almost like Obligatory Work on the Self.

But today, that's gone bye-bye for most people.

Lately I've been learning that even most middle-aged couples I know who are still together are screwed up by this kind of thing to some extent, but neither of them even realize it. So, I can't even look at those statistics and say, "Well, but there ARE lots of people who are still married." Sure they are, but the details matter.

Sometimes I sit and think, "Ya know, everyone should just stay single. Let the human race die out, and then maybe the Intelligent Designers will get a bit more intelligent and make Humanity v523.0 better than the current version!"

 

[genero81]

As for marriage, JP's comments on that were so dead on the money that it was almost painful. Marriage used to mean, "Whatever happens, I'm not gonna run away." That provided an impetus to learn to love and accept the worst parts of the other person, but more than that it forced one to learn to accept and deal with one's own crap. IOW, it used to be almost like Obligatory Work on the Self.

But today, that's gone bye-bye for most people.

Great commentary! @bjorn as well. It's crazy to watch it and there's really nothing you can do because all this craziness has gone mainstream, and you'll just get labeled whatever; bigot, misogynist, white male privilege, etc. It's surreal. One really does start to feel in this world but not of it.

 

[luc]

My grandmother shared her frustration about this and said that she told my niece that whatever happened, ups and downs are part of marriage and that’s she should have stayed married for a while longer and should have tried to work things out. And that making such a decision (divorce) on your own or without advice from other family members is shameless.

Wise grandmother! I mean, crisis can happen in marriage, so instead of just leaving (and to hell with everyone else), why not as a woman talk it through with other, more experienced females in the family? Now that's some real female empowerment! But then again, talking to an experienced and wiser person often means being set straight. Which kinda doesn't feel nice. Better screw up your family, then

 

[Niall]

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.

Yes. I would just add that she 'missed the boat' when she 'spoke out' as an RT America presenter in 2014, criticizing Putin's counter-move in Crimea. She believed she was doing so because she was 'pro-peace, no matter what', but missed the nuances of why Putin did what he did.

 

[Voyageur]

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

There is a discussion by Steven M. Sanders (Bridgewater State College) 'Stephen R. C. Hicks’s Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault' here (key ideas):

Snip

Postmodernism is anti-realist in its metaphysics, for it denies that we can speak meaningfully of an independently existing reality. It is relativist if not skeptical in its epistemology, rejecting reason, or anything else, as a means of acquiring objective knowledge. It is collectivist and social-constructivist in its accounts of human nature, activist in its ethics and politics, and noisomely avant-gardist in its aesthetics.

 

[Ca.]

Over consumption and verses food restriction, promotes improved cognition.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1137497785035628550

Highlights
Neuronal networks in brain regions critical for spatial navigation and decision-making evolved to enable success in competition for limited food availability in hazardous environments.

A major ecological factor that drove the evolution of cognition, namely food scarcity, has been largely eliminated from the day-to-day experiences of modern-day humans and domesticated animals.

Continuous availability and consumption of energy-rich food in relatively sedentary modern-day humans negatively impacts the lifetime cognitive trajectories of parents and their children.

Epigenetic molecular DNA and chromatin protein modifications are impacted by energy intake and can propagate to future generations.

The cellular and molecular mechanisms by which intermittent food deprivation enhances cognition and overfeeding impairs cognition are being elucidated.

A better understanding of the food-centric evolutionary foundations of human brain neuroplasticity is leading to the development of novel bioenergetic challenge-based patterns of eating and exercise aimed at improving cognitive health and resilience.

Brain structures and neuronal networks that mediate spatial navigation, decision-making, sociality, and creativity evolved, in part, to enable success in food acquisition. Here, I discuss evidence suggesting that the reason that overconsumption of energy-rich foods negatively impacts cognition is that signaling pathways that evolved to respond adaptively to food scarcity are relatively disengaged in the setting of continuous food availability. Obesity impairs cognition and increases the risk for some psychiatric disorders and dementias. Moreover, maternal and paternal obesity predispose offspring to poor cognitive outcomes by epigenetic molecular mechanisms. Neural signaling pathways that evolved to bolster cognition in settings of food insecurity can be stimulated by intermittent fasting and exercise to support the cognitive health of current and future generations.

 

[Alejo]

Great points @Scottie, I feel that what you’re saying is tied to the wave of “love” that passes these days for conventional wisdom.

The older I get the more I realize that long term relationships are about work, a LOT of work, on the self on each other, on common goals, kids, the house, the future and the present. That requires trust and collinearity, attraction helps obviously and romance is definitely a plus. Things like temper and trauma and genetics, it’s all involved in the process and it’s a very “slow cooking” adventure that sometimes can produce what you see in the movies as a “loving couple”, but for the most part, the better ones are confidants who have a stable home and an open and respectful interaction.

I know I’m simplifying the above, as there’s so much more and you also have to factor in the individuality of the subject.

But the reason I mention it is because, there was for a while in popular culture this emphasis in “love”, you ought to love what you do, you have to spread love and whatnot, and in terms of marriage you have to find someone you love and who loves you AND makes you “happy”. And fair enough, if you know what love means and a hint is... it’s not pure bliss there’s a lot of blisters too.

Because if you understand being loved as being the center of the universe for someone else who will also sacrifice his/her life to make you “happy” forever... then you’re dead wrong from the start and you’re bound to failure.

Particularly because perpetual happiness is abnormal, perpetual happiness sounds a lot more like an addiction than a healthy human being. And if you do find someone who is determined to sacrifice their life to make you happy then.. you will not be dating anyone, you will be dating an echo chamber.

And if you think that your job is to make someone else happy then, you’re also an immediate failure because you’re not offering anything that truly belongs to you.

And then, nowadays the cultural message to women particularly seems to be to be “independent”, why? Because “you don’t need no man to make you happy!” And it’s like... of course, if you were looking “happiness” and your search failed because it was gonna fail from the start, the saying that “no man” can make you happy is basically a deceptive truth designed to bury you deeper in the confusion.

It’s like..”oh you’re not happy? You failed in finding perpetual happiness? Oh well... that’s because... you were looking in the wrong place girl! That’s it, it’s not because it’s a futile endeavor”.

So girls and boys these days grow up in that environment that seems quite frankly ( due to the confusion created) not particularly interesting or attractive.

Why not just stay single and get a sex robot and indulge in selfishness for as long as possible? It’s chraper and it’s the perfect way not to ever grow up and have to care about someone else more than the self. Something of this kind has become visible in Japan for instance.

Just my two cents