Truth Perspective is back on Saturdays

[luc]

You know, I think that’s probably what gets me the most – with so many really looking up to him and idolizing him, his going along with the narrative or at the very least not confronting or criticizing it tells people that it's ok. Even though he’s been called out on it (if you have a look at some of the comments in the FB post @Keit shared) people can still take that at face value. Even if he’s not consciously doing it, he’d be (or quite possibly even is) one helluva a gatekeeper in curbing the narrative against the official government or media line. Not cool!

Yep, this freaks me out as well. One interesting thing is that he got brutally called out on the Syria issue by Nassim Taleb on twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/989984106325954561

...which I think he took quite seriously. I hope that he will stick to his area of expertise more, or review some of his opinions. Might be good to call him out in an intelligent manner on twitter if he misses the mark (I think he doesn't read his facebook comments, but he reads his twitter comments, especially if they get upvoted a lot I guess).

As for the Israel video linked above, I guess I expected the worst, knowing that JP generally screws up on these issues, and was positively surprised that he at least implied that there is a "Zionist identiy politics" side to all this and had a much more nuanced view than some of his associates like Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro, who are just lunatic fanatics when it comes to Israel. But I agree, that's not much, and JP should know better.

 

[Cosmos]

I agree with fabric and others here, that it is quite strange to still watch Peterson talk so eloquently about such serious problems as group think, identity politics in western society, especially on campuses, totalitarian regimes in the past, and so on, all the while he seems to completely and totally miss the mark on politics and the role of western (US/Israel/Nato) governments in the world, who do exactly that which he is rattling against, for decades now, with enormous numbers of people dying and suffering for it. It is even more surprising because he is a clinical psychologist and should be able to detect pathology and pathological thinking far better than the average joe. When it comes to his narrow field, he seems to be able to do so pretty good, but as soon as he goes out of that field and tries to think about the bigger picture in political and geopolitical terms, he sort of puts shutters on his eyes.

I mean, if he is really not aware of all of that (which I think is the case) he has to constantly manage a big contraction here. I really do think that when it comes to the western narrative about the world and what really happened for the last 100 years at least in the world, his views are as mainstream as they can get.

Some of the many examples of that follow below:

Not so long ago he talked about the miserable situation Venezuela is experiencing right now and how that proves how bad socialism/communism is, essentially blaming Maduro and his government for what is going on in the country (essentially parroting the establishment opinion of "Maduro is a bad person, who kills his own people"). He successfully ignored the long-standing interference of the US in that country and how those deep staters systematically and continuously (via means of the economic shock doctrine and regime changes) destabilized that country. The last big example of this, before Maduro got to power, was the fight of the US establishment against Chavez and his ideas. So Peterson ignored the context of how the country got to that place and what role America played in it.

Recently he talked about, how pretty certain it was for him, from the get go, that he would have voted for Hillary Clinton in the US-Election, if he would have been able to do so, because she was the one with the most experience! Yes right! Where should we start there?

If you can so easily vote for Hillary, with no bad conscience whatsoever, you have clearly missed a lot!

Having said that, I do think that it is pretty unlikely that he will "see the light there" anytime soon, since it seems to me that this would be way too much to handle for him at this point. He is already shocked to the bone by what is going on in campuses and western societies in general, through Neo Marxist/Post Modernist infiltration, that I think he simply can't handle much more than that. And there is much more!

I still think though, in his narrow field (which isn't that narrow after all) and as long as he is not talking about politics, he is a great and much-needed source of sanity in this world even though he doesn't get the whole banana. Who does anyway?

I do think that one doesn't have to have the whole banana in order to do something that is truly in the service of others and good. If you can manage to do as good as a job as you can, in your specific field, that is already much in my opinion.

Thinking of Caesar or Putin for that matter, they surely don't/didn't have the whole banana either (although Putin probably has much more of the banana then Peterson, Caesar or anyone else out there I think) and still manage/-d to be, a big source of good and STO qualities in this world.

We also shouldn't forget that we all had a point in life where we believed in this or that sort of nonsense. It was only through time and serious reconsidering of our positions, thinking patterns and a network, that we were able to look beyond that nonsense and see it for what it is. Therefore I think we should cut Peterson some slack here!

 

[munaychasumaq]

Thanks for the information.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I still think though, in his narrow field (which isn't that narrow after all) and as long as he is not talking about politics, he is a great and much-needed source of sanity in this world even though he doesn't get the whole banana. Who does anyway?

I do think that one doesn't have to have the whole banana in order to do something that is truly in the service of others and good. If you can manage to do as good as a job as you can, in your specific field, that is already much in my opinion.

Thinking of Caesar or Putin for that matter, they surely don't/didn't have the whole banana either (although Putin probably has much more of the banana then Peterson, Caesar or anyone else out there I think) and still manage/-d to be, a big source of good and STO qualities in this world.

We also shouldn't forget that we all had a point in life where we believed in this or that sort of nonsense. It was only through time and serious reconsidering of our positions, thinking patterns and a network, that we were able to look beyond that nonsense and see it for what it is. Therefore I think we should cut Peterson some slack here!

Agree with what most people have said above. It is really frustrating whenever Peterson talks about geopolitics. But I'm usually vastly annoyed when anyone talks about a field outside their expertise. So I'm actually happy that Peterson doesn't talk more about geopolitics than he already does. It was good to see Taleb's tweet. If Peterson wants to understand what's going on in the ME, he should have a conversation with Taleb.

If I were to guess, I'd say that most of Peterson's Jewish friends are probably Zionists, or at least NOT anti-Zionist. Knowing the resistance even Jewish individuals get from their family and peers when they question Israel, I can only imagine the subtle and not-so-subtle 'hints' he's gotten over the years. No doubt that would influence him to some degree. I doubt he's even heard of guys like Ilan Pappe or put the effort into really looking into the issue. He's very mainstream in his news sources, from what I've been able to glean.

The irony is that if you actually put his philosophy into practice, you couldn't be a Zionist. I think that's why that Forward guy went after him.

 

[fabric]

We also shouldn't forget that we all had a point in life where we believed in this or that sort of nonsense. It was only through time and serious reconsidering of our positions, thinking patterns and a network, that we were able to look beyond that nonsense and see it for what it is. Therefore I think we should cut Peterson some slack here!

Not really. I used to think that but it doesn't apply anymore. At this point there's no 'cutting him some slack' or simply brushing it away for me. The main difference is him now being in a position of incredible influence and the ability to affect so many through his large audience. At the beginning it wasn't so much the case but now, along with his growth in audience, also comes much greater responsibility. If he's being ignorant about things or promoting shady viewpoints or associations he needs to be called out on it - intelligently as luc said. Just like you would do with any other person in a position of power or influence. Yes, he does good work - amazing work but that doesn't mean people should let that slide. And from the looks of it - they don't - which is a good thing.

I'm not saying that I expect him to 'see the light' - people all have their own ways at arriving towards a more comprehensive understanding of the world. But I do think that's something he needs to be aware of and be more cautious with than for example, posting that National Post smear piece and not clarifying his intentions (which he did once he was called out on it).

 

[Yas]

I watched the video yesterday and wanted to comment pretty much on what others have been saying here. I think JBP made interesting points, sure, but when it comes to the Israel-Palestine issue, I think that the this kind of talk actually digresses from a simpler perspective that is (at least for me) a crude example of pathological people in power in a country who aren't satiated with all they already have and want more and more. And these pathological people are also supported by other pathological people who want to capitalise on their pathological "wants" because it serves their own interests.

I know, that's probably a naive view and I'm surely doing a lot of reductionism here. There are many complexities around it which can be discussed and also a lot of interesting history that I'm just starting to learn about. But, IMHO, religion isn't really an issue here, they use it to manipulate our thinking but I don't think that they truly care about it, it's just a convenient selling point that adds confusion to the issue because when it comes to religion, people generally think it's not appropriate to criticise or get caught up in dogmatic thinking. Also, you can't argue with "the word of god"... That's the basic principle of pseudo-science, dogmatism and, ironically, post-modernism - something which you can't refute because it's basically a self-referencing affirmation that goes in full circle to itself: "God said it, so it must be true". No place for discussion. It's also ideology... And again, as it is with religion, and as we've talked about in other places about ideologies, these seem to be used to move people around according to their agenda, but I still don't think that they are truly important to their ends.

In this sense, I also find it quite amazing that Peterson can speak so much about ideologies (Nazism, Communism, etc.) but seems to not see the ideology-based thinking behind Israeli colonialism. I tend to think that it is some sort of strategic thing on his part, but I don't know.

Now, I do agree that this doesn't mean we have to throw away other Peterson ideas. He's brilliant and he brings up many insightful perspectives (which were also brought by others in the past, as Jordan Peterson himself always says) that are very much needed and helpful.

So, sometimes, I see Peterson as a typical academic who can be very insightful in his field but is generally guided by the mainstream ideas in almost all other subjects. I think that's pretty normal, we actually see it everywhere. It was already impressive to learn that he doesn't follow the general conventions on diet. That's great indeed! If we think about it, I guess we would assume that most of our favourite political commentators don't have much of a clue about psychology or health, etc., and we don't expect them to know about it either. The problem will become apparent only if they start talking about those subjects as authorities and as "celebrities", which is the JP's status nowadays. So yes, I also think it's good to call it out, intelligently and respectfully, of course, and as invitations to discuss about it.

Now, regarding the initial questions in this thread, I think there are many reasons why people would care about a conflict that is happening so far away from them... religion and the idea of a sacred holy city being one of them, as JP puts it. But for me, it's a bit more about what Approaching Infinity said regarding the fact that most people have "moral taste buds" for care and fairness, and what we see happening in Palestine is so blatant that it can easily "trigger" those taste buds...

Because, contrary to many other situations in which the divide between what's right and what's wrong is nuanced, it seems to me that in this case, for many people, that divide is a tiny bit clearer... even for very religious people who seem to be also concerned about HR violations by Israel. Most people might not see the many details in this conflict, I'm far form seeing all the details myself, but it seems to be the case that many see almost in a "shy" way that Palestinians are indeed in a bad situation and that Israel isn't acting in the best possible way to come to a solution. They might not think that Palestinians are "good", or that Israel is "evil" either... I don't think so... maybe they just think that Israel could do a bit better, so to say. I don't know...

As to why there is so much publicity around it, I guess it has to do, at least in part, to the fact that Israelis themselves bring a lot of bad publicity to themselves by trying to turn the subject into taboo and using the "victim" card all the time. I think that people tend to get tired of that kind of thing.

 

[Cosmos]

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:

 

[taratai]

Jordan Peterson is not God, why expect him to be perfect? Why expect him to know and understand everything?

He was born in the West, was taught that West Is Best, and his network is people that also believe it. He simply cannot think otherwise. Why would he? There was never anything in his life that made him challenge that, and the only alternative to capitalism he knows of are the totalitarianisms of the 20th century. Is it any wonder why he thinks what he thinks and does what he does?

Why would he throw away the consensus that everyone around him has? After all, "they must be thinking that for a bloody good reason"! Why would he go against everyone else? Only insane people think they know better if anyone tells them they are wrong! Because what do you know, one person, against an entire network of people.

He does the best he can with what he has access to. That is what humans do and how they live. This is the state of entire humanity - getting one thing right, and the other completely wrong. It cannot be another way. Expecting anyone to be more than that is equal to expecting them to stop being human.

 

[fabric]

Jordan Peterson is not God, why expect him to be perfect? Why expect him to know and understand everything?

I don’t think anyone here is expecting him to be perfect.

Why would he throw away the consensus that everyone around him has?

He actually already has been by going up against the left and compelled speech. So for him to do that with regards to his political stance wouldn’t exactly be a new thing for him.

The point I was trying to make is that he needs to be careful in this area. His reach and ability to influence many people carries a much greater responsibility to be aware of as much as possible. If not, he runs the risk of being co-opted and his work can be undone or damaged if they are freed from one lie only to find themselves directed into another one. It may not turn out to be the case but one needs to be critical when people come to rise and have the potential to effect social change on that level. It's not an attack on Peterson, although it appears you see it that way.

 

[taratai]

He actually already has been by going up against the left and compelled speech. So for him to do that with regards to his political stance wouldn’t exactly be a new thing for him.

That is just one consensus he's going against, and it's one he never agreed in the first place.

But what are the chances of someone throwing away something they believe is true when their surroundings only confirm it? What are the chances of someone seeking do invalidate what they see as the only alternative to communism? Even if the West is flawed, it's still better than nothing.

The point I was trying to make is that he needs to be careful in this area. His reach and ability to influence many people carries a much greater responsibility to be aware of as much as possible. If not, he runs the risk of being co-opted and his work can be undone or damaged if they are freed from one lie only to find themselves directed into another one. It may not turn out to be the case but one needs to be critical when people come to rise and have the potential to effect social change on that level. It's not an attack on Peterson, although it appears you see it that way.

I don't see it as an attack. I see it as having expectations no human being can live up to.
It's pretty much the same with Putin. People expect him to save the world, and then they are surprised each time he talks to Natanyahu. Well, he's not perfect. Nobody is.

I'm sure Jordan Peterson is very careful and is trying to be responsible, but let's face it - he's not responsible for other human beings, they are themselves.
It's like with trying not to offend people - how much of it are you going to do when there are millions of people you might offend? There's no chance you won't offend someone. You either stop talking, or you talk despite knowing you will offend people.

So JP will say stuff that won't be true and he won't realize it. So what. Are people going to be mislead by it? Are they going to believe the mainstream media now because JP believes them too?
Why are there people following his lectures, yet disagreeing on his stance on issues like Middle East, then? Why are people here commenting on how they disagree with his stance on certain issues?
I guess people are capable of finding out by themselves where JP is wrong.

Sure, some people might blindly believe what he said. I will even tell you - there will be, because it's inevitable with so many people.
But those that do that, are they really there for knowledge? Or maybe they're there just to have someone tell them how to live and what to think? Should be anyone held responsible for people that don't want to be responsible for themselves?
If not JP, they would have found someone else. But with him they will at least make their lives in order while believing lies, as opposed to have a disordered lifes and believing lies.
In fact, it's probably better that JP doesn't understand everything himself - he won't try to give people more information that they are capable of taking.

And this is the main point of why I'm writing this: people are exactly at the position they need to be, with the knowledge they need for that. Trust them. If they don't know something, then maybe it was never their role to know about it in the first place.

Maybe that's what your role is. So go and tell him where he's wrong, and let him and others make their own choice, whether you will agree with it or not. Humanity is a combined effort.

 

[thorbiorn]

Regarding todays topic:
The Affirmative Action Brigade: How Identity Politics Is Destroying Western Militaries it appears, the UN might be motivated by the same underlying ideology:
Parity on the frontline: U.N. seeks to boost number of female peacekeepers - France 24
Related might be:

Feminism and diplomacy: Putting equality first when drafting foreign policy - France 24
With the shift of politics to the right being a global trend, we talk about feminism in the world of diplomacy with Isabelle Hudon, the Canadian ambassador to France. Also while Canada may be leading the charge on gender equality, the country's authorities are facing questions over the disappearance and killing of scores of indigenous women.[...]