Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Joe said:
When you watch Crowder, you have to bear in mind that he is primarily a comedian and stand-up comedian, whose popularity within the intellectual dark-web circles has risen because he was sidelined by the stand-up community because he's a conservative. The same thing has happened with the stand-up comedian Owen Benjamin.
Joe said:
I agree. I think a big part of it comes down to the victim mentality on the one hand (programmed into people), and psychos exploiting that under a "humanitarian" disguise. The same happens with Israel, for example. The people who shout the loudest "I'm a victim! (of patriarchy, of anti-semitism, etc. etc.) are the most likely to turn into perpetrators (and not just any kind, but the most violent and cruel ones). And they have more leeway than those who would just come out and say they want to have control, because they can play the pity card and program people with fear through paramoralisms, while devouring society. They don't just like to be "equal", or even have power. They want to humiliate and torture whoever dares to question them. And just because they are a "minority" or women (with less physical strength or whatever), that doesn't make them less dangerous. In fact, IMO they are stronger and far more dangerous, because behind their alleged weakness, their force comes from a pure sadistic want to crush others. It is REALLY messed up, and the perfect diabolical recipe for ultimate chaos.
Had a listen to this show on Identity Politics. In this case, although JP is discussed, it's an interview just released between Stefan Molyneux and Cassie Jaye (of the Red Pill documentary). What became immediately apparent was that Cassie was grappling with some issues (she is getting married) and so much of the interview was Cassie asking Stefan questions. These questions, or the responses, ran the gambit of 'what does it mean' - from marriage to feminism and where does one thing become a problem and not the other thing (examples used were left/right stuff). It was interesting to note that Stefan was candid with his own childhood of being caught up in parental divorce; how he sided with his mother only to learn the other side. Yet meanwhile, for him, the courts became a living hell and the mother vindictive; at least that's what I got out of it.
Cassie on the other hand describes not having either good or no father advice, and that she says appears to have put her at a disadvantage. They both discuss these aspects and that of single parenthood and the overall state of identity; Cassie was, again, grappling with this term as it is used - while Molyneux adds a discourse on the second word tied to it 'politics' - going back into the religious wars and those seeking the state, thus politics, to help weld their sword.
I was not planning on watching it all and ended up doing so - 1:33 time.
Cassie on the other hand describes not having either good or no father advice, and that she says appears to have put her at a disadvantage. They both discuss these aspects and that of single parenthood and the overall state of identity; Cassie was, again, grappling with this term as it is used - while Molyneux adds a discourse on the second word tied to it 'politics' - going back into the religious wars and those seeking the state, thus politics, to help weld their sword.
I was not planning on watching it all and ended up doing so - 1:33 time.
Altair said:
Well, a question lasting 2 full minutes needs to be stopped, especially when it's about a sensitive topic. (You can hear that at the moans and groans of the audience too.) Despite that, in my view, Peterson was very considerate. He even let the questioner finish his question after he had stopped him. He also made a real effort to come up with an answer.
Mikey said:
Personally, I think that the question that was presented to JP was very provocative and a loaded one. And probably not in the scope of the talk he gave. Basically, I don't see how he could have answered this question to the satisfaction of the person that asked it. In his interviews he said numerous times how careful he is with what he says and how he says it, because his words are being highly scrutinized for ANYTHING to blame him for. Therefore it isn't surprising that he took his time to think about it, and then decided that there was no way he could answer it without it being twisted somehow afterwards. At least he was honest and answered straightforwardly that he couldn't do it.
Having said that, there is no doubt that JP has his own blind spots and misconceptions. We all have them. If we think we don't, that's probably a number one thinking error right there. The question is, what will be served by asking him these questions? What does it have to do with his current work?
Keit said:
Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago is one of the core works he uses in his lecturers so asking a question about other Solzhenitsyn's book is not inappropriate, IMO. I don't think that the question was provocative. Maybe the questioner was just trying to address one of the Peterson's blind spots?
Altair said:
Well, in my opinion there is little doubt that the questioner was trying to be provocative. I mean, what kind of answer did he expect to such a loaded question, especially when knowing how careful Peterson is?
Having said that, I agree that "Jewish", or "Israeli" issue to be exact appears to be JP's blind spot. Here, take a look at the following talk. To be honest, in comparison to his other insightful talks, what he says in the video is like he is talking from his behind. Excuse the crude comparison. But it is that disappointing, unfortunately. Have no idea why is that, but maybe it has to do with his admiration for the Jewish IQ level (in the second video).
Keit said:
I think it was a difficult situation for Peterson and from the level of knowledge he seems to have about this specific topic (aka. pretty much the mainstream view) he tried to make the best out of it, although it certainly wasn't easy, especially considering that the crowd was irritated by the question as well. From that perspective, he did the best he could considering this emotionally loaded question. I'm sure a lot of things went through his head, and probably also, that what he answers there could be fatal for his further work. So he was especially cautious on what to say in return at all.
After the guy spoke, he also said:
So I don't think we can say that he was totally dismissive, since otherwise he probably wouldn't have stated that he will look into the book to form his own opinion and thanked the guy. It was a loaded question and I think nobody who appreciates what Jordan does, would ask such a question in this way and in this setting, assuming one knows that he has his blind spots but nonetheless does a very good job from the limited knowledge base he has and gets attacked by exactly such loaded questions.
Not anyone can and will have the whole banana ever, so I think we should keep that in mind and not push too hard on "the stuff he doesn't know". Peterson is a warrior for thruth although in a limited way in certain fields. Nonetheless he presents a lot of basic good stuff that needs to be done on a personal basis.
There is the saying "In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act" and I think that is basically what Peterson is doing. He speaks about simple truths that in this time of deciet are very valuable. The times we are in right now make his simple truth incredibly valuable especially for people that live in the mainstream (and there are a lot).
