All things relating to Jordan Peterson

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Jordan Peterson: love him, hate him, don't give a toss about him, never heard of him? Whether he is a man who is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame or whether he will remain in the spotlight for an extended time, he has become a contemporary topic of discussion.

He is a Professor of Psychology from Toronto, who has written self help books and maintains a youtube channel. He is a man with certain conservative opinions. He has disagreed with aspects of political correctness and he has drawn the ire of those with whom he has disagreed.

If you would like to discuss Jordan Peterson, please try do so here rather than in other threads or topics of discussion.

brevity

Anyone going to the event with Sam Harris Dublin?

I listened to a lot of Peterson's stuff and find most of what he says OK but I'm growing tired of him now. He tends to blurt out something silly and I think it's a bit of a ploy to keep the ball rolling so to speak.

tritium

brevity wrote: »

Anyone going to the event with Sam Harris Dublin?

I listened to a lot of Peterson's stuff and find most of what he says OK but I'm growing tired of him now. He tends to blurt out something silly and I think it's a bit of a ploy to keep the ball rolling so to speak.

Peterson’s interesting. He has a lot of ideas I can relate to but equally I think he misses the target on many others. I like that someone debates against the idea that collectivism is somehow inevitable (and indeed its amazing how many people frankly lose their **** over that position rather than consider it). He also takes a data based view of the world, which (in genuine form) seems rare amongst many social scientists (I.e getting the data and then drawing inference rather than making data fit your position). That’s said I find him too dogmatic in some areas

Agreed. Some interesting viewpoints but he tends to lose me after a bit. Still, he's a semi-reputable male who can argue against Feminists or far left wingers, and that, in my mind, is gold. Everyone who seems to do the same, losses all credibility after a while. I do wish he'd leave out the dating advice though... :rolleyes:

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I do wish he'd leave out the dating advice though... :rolleyes:

Aye, dating advice from a man who married his childhood sweetheart. Which is great an all, but going on "dry" observation isn't exactly that useful at the coal face of modern dating for people half his age. His spiritual stuff another example of his subjectivity. He has it, reads Jung(who also had it) through the prism of that and applies it - often not very convincingly - to the wider world and experience. Being a White highly educated and intelligent lower middle class academic Canadian is another filter he applies. As is his age group. His outright dismissal of the young being well... young and often daft(this is generally a good thing), at least the ones who don't run the young fogey routine in his image, another.

He does inspire and wind up in about equal measure and usually does so in a measured and considered way which is often a sign of hitting a few uncomfortable nails on the head, so there's that in his favour.

silverharp

Leaving aside the political stuff he is basically just giving out what I would class as Dad advice backed up with the weight of experience he has picked up as a clinical psychologist, if there is demand to hear that from a stranger on the net then that is telling. On the other side the level of vitriol against him is out of proportion to what he is saying and again that is telling. I half jokingly accuse feminists of having daddy issues, maybe Peterson is the embodiment of this hence the strong aversion to him instead of simply being critical of his advice where warranted?

ancapailldorcha

silverharp wrote: »

Leaving aside the political stuff he is basically just giving out what I would class as Dad advice backed up with the weight of experience he has picked up as a clinical psychologist, if there is demand to hear that from a stranger on the net then that is telling. On the other side the level of vitriol against him is out of proportion to what he is saying and again that is telling. I half jokingly accuse feminists of having daddy issues, maybe Peterson is the embodiment of this hence the strong aversion to him instead of simply being critical of his advice where warranted?

I think it is possible to divide Peterson's agenda into two halves; the "Clean your room" stuff and his political opinions which are based largely on generalisations and pushing the traditional conservative idea of the nuclear family while all other lifestyle choices are derided by him.

It's certainly admirable that some people seem to be resonating with the self-improvement and if these people are finding genuine direction and motivation in their lives because Peterson's opinions are acting as catalysts then that's great.

A lot of his political ideas seem to be right wing ideas dressed up as intellectualism, however. He seems to condemn the feelings narrative when it appears on the left but deigns not to do so on the right which has started peddling the same sort of pandering, feelings-based identity politics it has derided the left for.

I don't hate the guy or anything but I'm not seeing much in the way of sincerity from him either. He's a long, long way off being the worst Twitter-type celebrity in this day and age and, to his credit seems to have little interest in the onanistic, victimhood narratives peddled by far too many to an audience that seems to be showing signs of intellectual stuntedness.

We now live in a society where the middle has collapsed and we're starting to see a simplistic, binary divide between left and right, open and closed, international and national, black and white, etc... If you disagree with me, you're automatically one of the other side and that means you're just terrible. The result is that any sort of prominence now comes as part of a package that includes having vitriol hurled at oneself on a regular basis via social media which ultimately encourages us to be the worst of ourselves. None of this is Peterson's fault of course but hopefully his supporters take his advice about being polite to heart and set and example though I am doubtful.

BigDuffman

brevity wrote: »

Anyone going to the event with Sam Harris Dublin?

I listened to a lot of Peterson's stuff and find most of what he says OK but I'm growing tired of him now. He tends to blurt out something silly and I think it's a bit of a ploy to keep the ball rolling so to speak.

Yeah, I'd like to see him speak live so will probably go for a look. A large part of me also wants to see if the overblown femnazi response has made it to Ireland yet.

I notice that people spouting negative commentary don't appear to have actually read his literature or listened to a full lecture. Just basing their opinion on a Vice style article or a video edited without context. Some of the videos where he is "confronted" and some buffoon shouts him down as a Nazi are painful. Particularly when the accuser tends to be arguing that he is the one with the closed mind.

Which has led to him refusing interviews, which seems to have compounded the issue.

The far right wing and fascist following also seem to have fallen into the same context related issues regarding his works and opinions. Adopting some of his opinions as a well spoken hero of their cause.

I have one big issue with Peterson and its his relating of religious anecdotes and mixing scripture with scientific discussion. It distracts from cold hard logic!

El_Duderino 09

BigDuffman wrote: »

I have one big issue with Peterson and its his relating of religious anecdotes and mixing scripture with scientific discussion. It distracts from cold hard logic!

His religious stuff is painful to watch. 'you can't quit smoking without a mystical experience' was a real low point. People quitting smoking after a Mystical experience generated by magic mushrooms is evidence of the above claim and mystical experience is evidence for God.

He jumps to the conclusion that there are no atheists, only people who think they don't believe in Gowd. Because you act morally you must believe in God even though you don't know you believe in God.

He goes on about how gowd is the transcend metaphysical cultural substrate and continues spooling like a postmodern random word generator.

When you see him argue for God it shows him in a very poor light.

The way the talks about young people is disgusting. And the way he plays down activism in favour of what he's selling is sad. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if his next book is about changing society and his followers

He'd be better sticking to the simple stuff. Tidy your room etc. But his followers seem to see where people they disagree with should listen to Peterson. But they never seem to say, 'IVE got a problem with something so IM going to work on self improvement. You know, like Peterson says get my own house in perfect order before I criticise the world'.

The fact that so much of his popularity comes from the fact that he winds up t'other side should really set-off alarm bells around whether he's right or his supporters just like the reaction he gets from t'othes. I doubt most of his followers actually follow what he says half the time. His use of the English language is confusing at times.

mewso

I was pretty much with him on the original issue that got him fame (the speech laws in Canada). Was still somewhat with him when he did that interview with C4 but after watching him debate Matt Dillahunty I'm done. He uses linguistic spaghetti to win an argument and it's simply cringe-worthy. Some good ideas, many bad but ultimately yet another one who has let fame go to their head. As soon as they start showing up in "X detroys Y" or "X times when Y went beast mode" videos on youtube it's time to move on.

TheBiz

I think he means well, you can see how emotional he gets talking about certain topics..
He just doesn't come across as a mean hearted person and I've seen a couple of articles painting him in a horrible light, that he's just some conservative, anti progress, god loving, hateful person.

I don't agree with some of what he says but I can respect the fact that he wants to help.
He see's young men as a demographic that's struggling and he wants to help, if the suicide rate amongst men and young men is anything to go off I think at the very least he's giving young helpless men some guidance.

Deep Thought

Never heard of him until now..

Pug160

Just noticed this thread after mentioning him on the other one I've posted in about relationships. I'm going to be very honest and unashamedly say that he has had a big impact on me and is partially responsible for my decision to push the boat out further in terms of self improvement. I say this while at the same time acknowledging that he has certain views and ideas I wouldn't really be drawn to. I think the fact that he seems to have had such an impact on so many people's lives is commendable in itself, and would at the very least counterbalance any of the more negative effects he may be causing. i would class myself as more of a critical thinker than what I used to be - even compared to a handful of years ago but I can appreciate that some people may be inclined to almost hang on his every word and swallow it all as one package.

My first impression of him was that he was almost the personification of this kind of rational/analytical mind devoid of the sort of emotional baggage that hinders people's objectivity. So to have that kind of mind and present it so well verbally is mesmerising to watch initially and definitely commands your attention. When I found out he was religious it didn't seem to be consistent with what I had first thought but it also didn't make me totally lose respect for him either. I do get the impression he is genuinely compassionate and thinks everything he is doing is for a noble cause. He's clearly a very intelligent man and any attempt to smear him as a ''stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person is'' is just foolish and silly. That seems to be something that happens to anyone who is a celebrity. I think I have heard the same thing written about Stephen Fry.

For me personally, I like his idea of wanting people to know the harsh realities of life but trying to succeed anyway, in spite of it. To me that seems like a very pragmatic and reasonable way to look at things. Although I'm sure he's not exactly the first person to verbalise that. He's definitely doing far more good than harm in my opinion. But yeah, he's definitely better when he's speaking about areas he specialises in.

tritium

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/0702/975772-here-come-the-lobsters/

A fairly hatchet piece discussion of Peterson and others on Rte. I don’t expect an opportunity for a rebuttal but maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised

super_furry

I'm just baffled why he's being held up as this font of knowledge by certain corners of the internet. He seems like a dozen other different guys all selling the same thing to the same specific audience.

ancapailldorcha

super_furry wrote: »

I'm just baffled why he's being held up as this font of knowledge by certain corners of the internet. He seems like a dozen other different guys all selling the same thing to the same specific audience.

I think a lot of people these days are looking for something. We live in an age of hyperindividualism which has brought many benefits to society principal among them the ongoing eradication of traditional prejudice and bigotry. There was a trade off in that many of the old bastions of collectivism like churches and trade unions are now gone and have been replaced by social media which effectively isolates us further. The result is that many people feel neglected and powerless so when they perceive someone like Peterson laying it out for them, they feel like they're being noticed and that he's trying to help them when nobody else is hence the cult following.

Wibbs

I'd also reckon he's a daddy substitute for many of his young male followers.

20silkcut

Have been watching a good bit of his videos on YouTube over the last few months.
I find his interpretation of the Pareto effect and it’s application to everyday life interesting to the point of bothersome.
It is a logical explanation as to why things are the way they are and the inevitability of inequality and the futility of striving for equality but it is damned depressing.
His thoughts on race and IQ are also edgy and perhaps a most uncomfortable truth.
His destruction of the white privilege argument and his theory of the gay black female being the most oppressed of all individuals is also thought provoking.

Raging_Ninja

super_furry wrote: »

I'm just baffled why he's being held up as this font of knowledge by certain corners of the internet. He seems like a dozen other different guys all selling the same thing to the same specific audience.

I think it's that he is telling people to stop blaming others for their problems, that the issues aren't without, they are within. He is telling people to stop considering themselves as victims and to start improving themselves and take control of their lives one step at a time.

I'll be honest here, I wasn't in a great place for the last couple of years. I was kind of depressed, in a bit of a rut career and salary wise, and put on a good chunk of weight until I was medically obese.

Over the last several months I started to realise this, and I think I was at a place where I was able to not only listen to Peterson's message (who I first heard after the Cathy Newman debate) but to also internalise it. A few truths hit home for me.

So over the last 3 months I've lost around a stone and a half, the girlfriend seems happier with me and I've landed a new job with a significant pay rise.

Sure he says some things that I don't agree with, but most of what he says was both true and uncomfortable for me to hear and I think I'm a better person for having heard it.

WhiteMemento9

brevity wrote: »

Anyone going to the event with Sam Harris Dublin?

I listened to a lot of Peterson's stuff and find most of what he says OK but I'm growing tired of him now. He tends to blurt out something silly and I think it's a bit of a ploy to keep the ball rolling so to speak.

Harris is the far more interesting of the two. It is more intellectual and inaccessible but he has much more weight and meaning to much of his stuff. Peterson, while I find some of it interesting, is mostly contained within walls of a world he can't see beyond so it lends to practically in peoples life which is fine but I don't think it is of particular interest to the world or us as species. I think Harries on the other end sees far more outside the box.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd also reckon he's a daddy substitute for many of his young male followers.

a lot of what he says is just basic dad advice, probably why he triggers lefties so much

Pug160

He has definitely spoken to an audience who needed spoken to and has maybe pushed buttons that needed to be pushed. it is true that he does seem to be playing a kind of fatherly role and has given what appears to be uncomplicated advice. I guess the thing that's really striking about it all is the fact he has had such a profound impact whilst not appearing to have unearthed any new discovery. A word like competence, for example, is certainly not an obscure word, and I would be confident enough in assuming that the vast majority of people (even people who are not very articulate) have a fairly clear understanding of what it means. But oddly enough, I don't think a lot of what he says has actually been instilled in people and is spoken about on a regular basis. I have heard a lot of other cerebral, well spoken people who have made a lot of sense in what they're saying but Peterson is promoting this idea of life as being fundamentally tough whilst showing a high degree of compassion himself. That is defintely something I have found to be unique. There is also the fact that a lot of people, regardless of where they are politically or socially, can just appear arrogant and cold, and seem like they lack the ability to empathise or understand certain nuances.

He's imperfect like anyone else but he's clearly being taken out of context a lot by people who are not willing to be objective and have no intention of ever changing their stance. It's always worth remembering that a lot of those people he's debating are actually fairly intelligent in their own right, and that they're just being made to look unintelligent because Peterson is (some of the time) discussing topics he is extremely well read and knowledgeable on and they are simply not prepared to listen. That's something I've always noticed about some of those exteme feminists - they're clearly articulate and well read, and probably know a lot more words than most people, but there is just this absolute lack of rationality in some areas. Almost to the point where you're thinking that they couldn't possibly be serious. I know there are some extreme groups on both ends but the extreme women are certainly different.

WhiteMemento9

silverharp wrote: »

a lot of what he says is just basic dad advice, probably why he triggers lefties so much

Lefties? Do you actually understand the implications of what he saying about many topics. He comes at things with an attitude I wouldn't associate with the left at all. I don't agree with boxing things into left and right as we all should have far more nuanced views but if we are using those labels I don't understand how he could be viewed through a lens of the left. If i was placing tags I would consider him far more right-wing.

This is all mixed up though as you can paint many pictures which don't make sense which is why the whole tag is a load of rubbish. You should be able to listen to someone and make a judgement through your own moral lens of where you stand without the need to paint someone into a corner.

ancapailldorcha

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Lefties? Do you actually understand the implications of what he saying about many topics. He comes at things with an attitude I wouldn't associate with the left at all. I don't agree with boxing things into left and right as we all should have far more nuanced views but if we are using those labels I don't understand how he could be viewed through a lens of the left. If i was placing tags I would consider him far more right-wing.

This is all mixed up though as you can paint many pictures which don't make sense which is why the whole tag is a load of rubbish. You should be able to listen to someone and make a judgement through your own moral lens of where you stand without the need to paint someone into a corner.

I think Silverharp's point was that Peterson antagonises left wingers. He seems very much right wing to me so if "triggering lefties" is someone's metric for measuring insight then I wouldn't afford that opinion much credibility.

WhiteMemento9

Pug160 wrote: »

He has definitely spoken to an audience who needed spoken to and has maybe pushed buttons that needed to be pushed. it is true that he does seem to be playing a kind of fatherly role and has given what appears to be uncomplicated advice. I guess the thing that's really striking about it all is the fact he has had such a profound impact whilst not appearing to have unearthed any new discovery. A word like competence, for example, is certainly not an obscure word, and I would be confident enough in assuming that the vast majority of people (even people who are not very articulate) have a fairly clear understanding of what it means. But oddly enough, I don't think a lot of what he says has actually been instilled in people and is spoken about on a regular basis. I have heard a lot of other cerebral, well spoken people who have made a lot of sense in what they're saying but Peterson is promoting this idea of life as being fundamentally tough whilst showing a high degree of compassion himself. That is defintely something I have found to be unique. There is also the fact that a lot of people, regardless of where they are politically or socially, can just appear arrogant and cold, and seem like they lack the ability to empathise or understand certain nuances.

He's imperfect like anyone else but he's clearly being taken out of context a lot by people who are not willing to be objective and have no intention of ever changing their stance. It's always worth remembering that a lot of those people he's debating are actually fairly intelligent in their own right, and that they're just being made to look unintelligent because Peterson is (some of the time) discussing topics he is extremely well read and knowledgeable on and they are simply not prepared to listen. That's something I've always noticed about some of those exteme feminists - they're clearly articulate and well read, and probably know a lot more words than most people, but there is just this absolute lack of rationality in some areas. Almost to the point where you're thinking that they couldn't possibly be serious. I know there are some extreme groups on both ends but the extreme women are certainly different.

Intelligence with understanding and compassion for all people around you is a different thing to intelligence with a lack of that. He comes across at times with understanding but I see the same as I see in lots of people. It is a logical understanding rather than real empathy to dig into what makes people, people. He wields intelligence to cut lesser people down and he hasn't debated with many great minds of our time that show intelligence with understanding. Two intelligent people can come to some of the most ridiculous conclusions possible which history is littered with. Harris, on the other hand, has sat with and engaged with minds of our time that show understanding and caring while also wielding intelligence.

WhiteMemento9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Silverharp's point was that Peterson antagonises left wingers. He seems very much right wing to me so if "triggering lefties" is someone's metric for measuring insight then I wouldn't afford that opinion much credibility.

Thanks, I was a little quick to pull the trigger and only seen that on second reading. I don't really understand why he would trigger those on the left as while it may be provocative, I understand why it appeals to many as he is like some self help guru in the age of ME. His appeal makes perfect sense in a ****ed up world.

WhiteMemento9

This probably won't make sense to many but Harris while not being the most captivating speaking really digs into us as humans. He excavates us as humans being. He is influenced by many great minds of the past but most people can't actually think outside of themselves, the here and now, the significance of life, the madness of life. I sound like a **** and I know I do but really the gravity of some of the things he talks about is so important. They are fundamental to the ways in which we could change things and everything would be so much better for us all. He is though the coal face of something which requires a tremendous amount of understanding that I don't think we are capable of without experience. His work is a footnote in what we should be screaming from the hills and I laugh at the ridiculousness of posting this few minutes as some beacon towards which people should see the light but hey if it resonances with someone . . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srxDtefn740

WhiteMemento9

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Lefties? Do you actually understand the implications of what he saying about many topics. He comes at things with an attitude I wouldn't associate with the left at all. I don't agree with boxing things into left and right as we all should have far more nuanced views but if we are using those labels I don't understand how he could be viewed through a lens of the left. If i was placing tags I would consider him far more right-wing.

This is all mixed up though as you can paint many pictures which don't make sense which is why the whole tag is a load of rubbish. You should be able to listen to someone and make a judgement through your own moral lens of where you stand without the need to paint someone into a corner.

I think you're forgetting that most of his material is aimed at the US which is far less nuanced when it comes to Left/Right, although TBH in the year I've been back in Ireland, I've noticed a serious increase in attitudes which I would normally have considered to be "American". Admittedly, I was rather shocked at how divisive the left/right labeling had become when I returned (after living in a bubble of China for ten years you kinda don't appreciate this stuff the same way as you would being exposed to it).

In many ways, I don't really see that much difference between a lot of Left/Right attitudes. They're both hellbent on shutting down discussion unless it's discussion that marches with their line of thinking. It's all become rather black or white in the west these days. Less so in mainland Europe but the English speaking western countries are very much that way.

Either you support trans rights completely or you're completely against it, and if you're against it, then you must hate them, which adds you to another "phobia". Or whichever <insert>phobia you want to look at.

And then there's massive upsurge of victimisation. Lauding being a victim (whatever the circumstances). Sure, Feminists latched on to that one quickly, but both the Left & Right are throwing their own lack of responsibility spin on everything. Utterly Bizarre to me.

Europe used to be far different from the US but that gap is disappearing fast in many areas. Not so much Ireland, but that's unlikely to last much longer considering our politicians just love to join in with whatever the bigger countries are doing...

I do have a lot of issue with what Peterson says, or perhaps more accurately how he says it. There seems to be a habit of his to overly complicate subjects as if using jargon makes him more intelligent... Still, I do welcome his views because it adds to the whole. Too many people seem to get shut down online, and we're stuck with a chorus group of speakers.

WhiteMemento9

Thanks, much of that post makes sense. I guess in the bigger picture I just view Peterson as an idiot who doesn't really see the world. He has found a niche in which he can bang a drum about topics but in the general sense of advancing us as a species to a better place, I think he has nothing to offer. I rather look towards people who are talking outside of the box about how we can actually change things for the better as a world society. Some guy talking about how he helped him consider losing a few pounds to advance his life isn't really what I am looking for from great minds of our time. I am sorry by the way, I am not being flippant about your life and I am glad it has helped out but at the end of the day this guy I feel isn't someone who will help us get where we need to go as a people. Globalisation may not have been my first choice but since it has happened why the hell are we still thinking isolationist as countries and not what is best for us all.

WhiteMemento9

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Thanks, much of that post makes sense. I guess in the bigger picture I just view Peterson as an idiot who doesn't really see the world. He has found a niche in which he can bang a drum about topics but in the general sense of advancing us as a species to a better place, I think he has nothing to offer.

For the last few years I've been teaching at universities in China. I teach/lecture business/finance subjects in English, along with corporate ethics classes. Chinese people really find it difficult to truly grasp the logic behind western culture... and in many ways, I'm finding the younger generation here to be similiar. Better because they grew up surrounded by the culture, but unwilling to ask the hard questions as to why things are as they are.

Anyway, I mean to say that I've been surrounded by Professors with PHDs coming out of their ears, and loads of publications to boot. I have a MBA. That's it. The thing about academia and those with PHDs is that they tend to feel a certain contempt towards whats practical knowledge, and focus everything through the lens of their PHD discipline. Which is understandable since they've invested so much time into it, and it's all they really use on a regular basis. But there's also a lack of challenge too. Those with PHDs are supposedly experts in their field, and nobody really wants to challenge them about that expert status.

Now... I have a variety of NLP practitioner certifications, and I'm also certified to be a hypnotist although I've never used any of it on a "patient". However, I've attended dozens of seminars on NLP and Psychology. Psychologists are very much like those with PHDs I described before. They're hellbent on translating everything through the lens of their expertise, and very few are willing to think outside of that very limited box. Pseudoscience & pop "psychology" has made it's way into psychology with the rise of feminism and the massive increase of women within the industry coming from US universities.

Peterson isn't quite as bad as the others but there's elements of his talks which follow the same trend. I appreciate that he uses statistical knowledge to back up his claims/observations, but I've become less comfortable in believing statistics over the years since reporting stats comes with its own biases.

haha. I started with a clear idea of what I wanted to say, and kinda lost it.

Suffice to say that Peterson talks about the real world like he would a social experiment assigned to a class. He tends to miss out on the pain, passion, deceit, etc that is involved with living. But then, so too do his opponents. Peterson is perhaps better at this though, but I find him overly clinical at times.

I rather look towards people who are talking outside of the box about how we can actually change things for the better as a world society.

Me too... but then traditional thinking failed me in so many ways, or I failed at applying traditional thinking to my life. Everything that makes me a better person, or a happier person, I've found through non-traditional means. My life isn't "normal" compared to virtually everyone I grew up with or know (outside of the friends I have "collected"). And yet, I'm generally happier than them. Far less stress lines on my face or gray hairs too.

Some guy talking about how he helped him consider losing a few pounds to advance his life isn't really what I am looking for from great minds of our time. I am sorry by the way, I am not being flippant about your life and I am glad it has helped out

Peterson arrived a long time after I helped myself. I'd highly recommend that you listen to a variety of "Richard Bandlers" recordings on how NLP was created, and the application of it. That probably affected me more than most other recordings... but then there's the (literally) hundreds of business management books, or the "spiritual awakening" books I've read.

Improving yourself is a journey. There is never going to be one single source that does it all for you. That's why people nowadays are so unhappy... Everyone seems to want that quick fix. The magic answer that will solve their problems. Sorry, it doesn't exist, and never has. [Although, LSD does make you re-evaluate your life, and is worth doing once. Play safe. ]

but at the end of the day this guy I feel isn't someone who will help us get where we need to go as a people.

The time of great leaders or inspirational leaders is dead. I don't believe that we, as a society, are capable of trusting anyone enough for him/her/it (I'm being modern now ) to actually lead us anywhere suitable. People have become too jaded and cynical about the whole thing, tired of hearing the promises of politicians or spiritual leaders who promise the sky but deliver the sewer.

So..., I would say to not look to a person to lead (or inform) society to something better, but that society will discover a better way to perceive the world.

I'm not holding my breath though. Living in China/Japan/Korea brought a lot of clarity to my views regarding Western societies, and the accusations of other nationals describing "the west" as decadent and abusive, which made me re-examine a lot of my convictions... and I found them wanting. There is a lot of truth to the views of these peoples outside of "the west", although you'll rarely hear any of it being said inside of western countries. There really is so much of a superiority complex going on within western societies when people compare their countries to those outside, and very little of it is justified.

Globalisation may not have been my first choice but since it has happened why the hell are we still thinking isolationist as countries and not what is best for us all.

Because people are inherently selfish but taught to feel guilt at being selfish.

Most Chinese people do not understand Americans. Most Americans I know (not all mind but most) don't really understand the differences between Europeans and themselves. Most Irish people don't really understand the Poles or the Germans.

The point is that Globalisation is a bit of a propaganda piece. Considering the population of our countries, very few people really spend any time trying to get to know or appreciate other countries culture, beyond what is written in a guide book or a school book. There really is very little pressure on people to look beyond their own culture and actually appreciate the world. Oh! Some people do, but most people who travel go for short hops within very controlled circumstances.

Globalisation isn't real. It's spin. Oh, we have the internet, global communications, and relatively fast transportation links, but there has been very little actual understanding and knowledge shared. Most countries are still very isolated to the rest of the world, and there are heaps of people who never leave their own national borders (or in the case of Ireland, never leave Ireland/UK/Ibiza).

{I probably shouldn't have written all this but I'm rather drunk right now. :pac:}

dd972

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Thanks, much of that post makes sense. I guess in the bigger picture I just view Peterson as an idiot who doesn't really see the world. He has found a niche in which he can bang a drum about topics but in the general sense of advancing us as a species to a better place, I think he has nothing to offer. I rather look towards people who are talking outside of the box about how we can actually change things for the better as a world society. Some guy talking about how he helped him consider losing a few pounds to advance his life isn't really what I am looking for from great minds of our time. I am sorry by the way, I am not being flippant about your life and I am glad it has helped out but at the end of the day this guy I feel isn't someone who will help us get where we need to go as a people. Globalisation may not have been my first choice but since it has happened why the hell are we still thinking isolationist as countries and not what is best for us all.

Well said, JP rants on about 'you should be doing this/that/the other' in his slightly whiney voice which I can listen to less and less with each listen. He's got nothing to say about the money and why neoliberal capitalism has been a disaster creating loads of disenfranchised young men.

Raging_Ninja

dd972 wrote: »

Well said, JP rants on about 'you should be doing this/that/the other' in his slightly whiney voice which I can listen to less and less with each listen. He's got nothing to say about the money and why neoliberal capitalism has been a disaster creating loads of disenfranchised young men.

Neoliberal economics has created the single most comfortable mode of being for the most amount of people regardless of skill, heritage or class in the history of the world.

If it's been a disaster, if it's created "disenfranchised young men", it's because it's removed the sheer struggle and torture that was common in life up to as little as a hundred years ago or ateast in the post-WW2 era.

Anyways, in his psychology lectures he actually does have a bit to say about income inequality and the problems that creates.

WhiteMemento9

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Neoliberal economics has created the single most comfortable mode of being for the most amount of people regardless of skill, heritage or class in the history of the world.

If it's been a disaster, if it's created "disenfranchised young men", it's because it's removed the sheer struggle and torture that was common in life up to as little as a hundred years ago or ateast in the post-WW2 era.

Anyways, in his psychology lectures he actually does have a bit to say about income inequality and the problems that creates.

It has created a class of people that are struggling in completely new ways.

WhiteMemento9

Deleted User wrote: »

{I probably shouldn't have written all this but I'm rather drunk right now. :pac:}

You should and thank you for taking the time to put those thoughts together and post them. There is some absolute gold in that post. I agree completely about people using qualifications as a lens through which they view things without using themselves as a person. It is almost like they have been programmed with this toolbox from which they can't free themselves from looking at things in any other way. Psychology is probably at the forefront of this because they generally feel smarter than the average bear and that they have figured stuff out about people that people can't figure out for themselves.

I'll give Bandlers a go. I have never come across him.

I'm not looking for great leaders. I am looking for people to wake the **** up. You talk about happiness quite a bit in that post. You see in people around you a lack of that which I feel corresponds to people, not really understanding how to turn themselves on as people. That sounds quite smug but it isn't it is just an observation on people who are doing all the 'right' things yet are miserable as hell underneath. Eh, you know all that crap you are told will make you happy . . . The world needs to change through people starting to realize some truths and changing the kind of people we elect in all areas and not just one great leader as all men have their own failings and fallibilities.

I'm not sure that I agree with the comments about selfishness. I think people are scared, we are all a little scared and as such that fear leads rise to people motivations being selfish as they want to look after themselves. Now those are core feelings, this world after that today promotes the age of ME in a hyper way which leads selfishness unbound. I don't think it is inherent in people though and I think we are far more caring than you give credit. I posted this elsewhere recently and I stole it from Hitchens who stole it from Socrates so it isn't really any insight from myself.

I don't know that we all have it but I have it and Socrates believed we all have it. It is something like an internal witness that when we don't do something that we fully believe in we know it as a person. We can ignore it but we are aware. It might bubble in our subconscious but we understand on some level that we are either not being true to ourselves or doing the wrong thing.

The world we have created though makes it very hard for people to live in this world and listen to that voice. That eventually damages people though, bitterness etc flows out to other people and you can see if you are alive enough that they aren't really home. I think Hitchens gave the example of saying something clever to someone to get a laugh that you don't truly believe, an inner voice tells you, that was funny but it wasn't something you should have said. We have that same feeling that grates at people going against themselves in so many areas of life now that its destroys them.

Wanderer78

Raging_Ninja wrote:

Neoliberal economics has created the single most comfortable mode of being for the most amount of people regardless of skill, heritage or class in the history of the world.

....and increased wealth inequality that hasn't been seen for decades, and less not forget about neoliberials partner in crime, i.e. neoclassical theory, we may have just created our perfect storm!

Raging_Ninja

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

It has created a class of people that are struggling in completely new ways.

There was always a class of people that struggled. But nobody is starving to death any more if they don't want to.

Wanderer78

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

There was always a class of people that struggled. But nobody is starving to death any more if they don't want to.

you may need to do some more research on this, theres still many people starving on this planet, including some in developed countries

silverharp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Silverharp's point was that Peterson antagonises left wingers. He seems very much right wing to me so if "triggering lefties" is someone's metric for measuring insight then I wouldn't afford that opinion much credibility.

leaving aside his politics, his advice to young people is exactly what parents / dads should be passing on to their kids. Why this would trigger some people so much is strange from my point of view unless they are the stereotypical feminist etc. with the daddy issues we here about.

WhiteMemento9

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

There was always a class of people that struggled. But nobody is starving to death any more if they don't want to.

Nobody in the world is starving to death if they don't want to?

I don't think there is a class of people that are struggling. I think most of society is struggling only in different ways.

Deleted User wrote: »

Suffice to say that Peterson talks about the real world like he would a social experiment assigned to a class. He tends to miss out on the pain, passion, deceit, etc that is involved with living. But then, so too do his opponents. Peterson is perhaps better at this though, but I find him overly clinical at times.

If you can finding meaning in what this poster is saying here you should also be able to understand a little of what I mean. I don't want to sound like an asshole but my views on this are formed by a wide array of interests of which it would take me a book to explain.

WhiteMemento9

btw klaz, if you haven't seen it I think you would really enjoy 'The Act of Killing'. It is a harrowing watch and I am not generally a fan of visiting something so dark too often as it weighs heavily on me as a person but it is an immensely rewarding watch in the understanding stakes.

Wanderer78

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

btw klaz, if you haven't seen it I think you would really enjoy 'The Act of Killing'. It is a harrowing watch and I am not generally a fan of visiting something so dark too often as it weighs heavily on me as a person but it is an immensely rewarding watch in the understanding stakes.

ive never heard of this 'the act of killing', can you explain? sorry im under a bit of pressure here, dont have the time to google. thank you

WhiteMemento9

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ive never heard of this 'the act of killing', can you explain? sorry im under a bit of pressure here, dont have the time to google. thank you

It is a very unique documentary about a brutal period in history. It comes at things through in a very challenging way which asks some important but dark questions about human beings. I found it rewarding but I wouldn't recommend visiting it unless you are in a good place in life and are happy to pose some pretty serious and often dark questions to yourself. The way it pushes you to open your mind though is incredibly rewarding from giving understanding towards many different areas.

ancapailldorcha

silverharp wrote: »

leaving aside his politics, his advice to young people is exactly what parents / dads should be passing on to their kids. Why this would trigger some people so much is strange from my point of view unless they are the stereotypical feminist etc. with the daddy issues we here about.

I really hate this obsession with triggering. I tend to dismiss anyone who thinks it's a good thing. If you've articulated your ideas which should be logical and rational properly then you have no need to gloat about triggering people.

I don't think it's his "Clean your room" advice that's antagonising people. It's his political views which, frankly are nonsense. While I certainly wouldn't call him a professional troll, there are those like Ben Shapiro who are taking certain issues like transgender pronouns and making them out like they're the biggest thing facing modern society which is just basic whataboutery. Peterson has time to go on and on about this while ignoring actual political issues.

Raging_Ninja

Wanderer78 wrote: »

you may need to do some more research on this, theres still many people starving on this planet, including some in developed countries

Gonna have to throw me a link or two there for starvation in developed countries.

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Nobody in the world is starving to death if they don't want to?

Well, not worldwide but I thought I was referring to Ireland. Not a citizen of the world yet.

WhiteMemento9

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Gonna have to throw me a link or two there for starvation in developed countries.

Well, not worldwide but I thought I was referring to Ireland. Not a citizen of the world yet.

This is maybe where we differ. I consider myself someone living on planet earth. My empathy extends to all people.

WhiteMemento9

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I'm not looking for great leaders. I am looking for people to wake the **** up.

Wake up and do what exactly?

Western society is going through a messed up period. All the constraints of the past (Religion, marriage, social constraints, sexuality, etc) are being removed and replaced with the "promise" of something better. But most people can feel that it's an empty promise and they're stuck in limbo. The traditional places to find security and inspiration are disappearing. Political scandals, corruption and irresponsibility is rife across the board. Most people don't really trust the law to be impartial or effective anymore, and there's no real movement to fix it. The Church is essentially gone, and replaced with nothing. So, people are adrift.

You talk about happiness quite a bit in that post. You see in people around you a lack of that which I feel corresponds to people, not really understanding how to turn themselves on as people. That sounds quite smug but it isn't it is just an observation on people who are doing all the 'right' things yet are miserable as hell underneath. Eh, you know all that crap you are told will make you happy . . . The world needs to change through people starting to realize some truths and changing the kind of people we elect in all areas and not just one great leader as all men have their own failings and fallibilities.

I find most people aren't happy with their lives... The state of their lives, and where they expect to be in twenty years time. As I said above, everything is changing and there is no security anymore. Without that assumption that there is a clear line to regular living, people become anxious, and anxious people find fear quite quickly.

Happiness is important for a society. Without that happiness, and stability, people seek more radical answers, and the world is full of con-artists. [Or they blindly accept "official" or "institutional" research/statistics without checking their validity. Doesn't help that so many of our "trusted" organisations are biased or sponsored by private concerns]

I'm not sure that I agree with the comments about selfishness.

Westerners like to believe in individuality and take pride in how our society promotes the individual. Individuality leads to being selfish otherwise how do you create a self separate from the needs of the community (although community is essentially dead in western culture. so perhaps society is a better word).

Virtually all the media and advertisements going around are all about "Me! Me! Me!" That constant bombardment to the senses about providing to the individual is going to have an effect. Coupled with the fear and insecurity, it encourages a bunker mentality.

I posted this elsewhere recently and I stole it from Hitchens who stole it from Socrates so it isn't really any insight from myself.

You agreed with it, so therefore its yours.

I don't know that we all have it but I have it and Socrates believed we all have it. It is something like an internal witness that when we don't do something that we fully believe in we know it as a person. We can ignore it but we are aware. It might bubble in our subconscious but we understand on some level that we are either not being true to ourselves or doing the wrong thing.

And your internal witness is developed through social conditioning, education, your own unique perception of events, and experience. We have been told for a very long time that we are thinking beings, and that pure instinct is bad. Society reinforces this by teaching us the norms through which to see good/evil. Right/Wrong.

The problem though is that Right/Wrong are no longer the same thing as it was 30 years ago. Take the Transgender movement towards children, for example. 30 years ago, there would have been no question as to whether this should be allowed. It would have been shut down immediately, and the proponents sent off to a health center. Today? While there are many people against it, they're powerless to prevent it, because all causes have greater importance than what people actually want. The minority beliefs are greater.

And the "witness" recognises all of these things, and adapts.

The world we have created though makes it very hard for people to live in this world and listen to that voice. That eventually damages people though, bitterness etc flows out to other people and you can see if you are alive enough that they aren't really home. I think Hitchens gave the example of saying something clever to someone to get a laugh that you don't truly believe, an inner voice tells you, that was funny but it wasn't something you should have said. We have that same feeling that grates at people going against themselves in so many areas of life now that its destroys them.

The greatest moment in my life was when I realised that I could say anything I wanted to someone and that I shouldn't feel any burden of guilt for doing so. I'm serious. Oh, I don't do it all the time, because it's dangerous... but the sense of freedom, knowing the option is there is incredible.

Most people I know don't have that freedom. They're afraid of the consequences in being honest, because society has developed to become a rather superficial thing where everyone's 'feelings' matter. It's even gotten to the point where saying you're against something (voicing your opinion) will get you labeled as a "phobe" or "ist".

I recently was in a discussion with friends and their friends about seeing gay people kissing, or making out in public. I really have no issues with gay people, but we weren't talking about the normal behavior of people in public. Instead, it was the case of a male couple, kissing passionately in the main street of the town, with their hands moving everywhere, with plenty of grinding going on. I wouldn't want to see a male/female doing that in the street either. It's not the place for it. And when i said as much, I was called homophobic. Simply because I said they shouldn't be doing it in public. I've no issue with them doing it in a nightclub, or private area, but that didn't matter. After the group broke up, I received messages from most of the others, thanking me for being honest, and that they wished they could have said the same... but were afraid they would be called the same. Their reputation would suffer. A very real worry in a small town.

There is a movement in western society to place the freedoms of minority groups over the beliefs of the majority. That we must provide complete freedom to everyone and everything... and to suggest otherwise is a black/white statement of ism.

This is why western society is failing, and people are so unhappy. Their own freedom to speak out against so much change is being taken away from them. In many ways, western society is starting to look a lot like Chinese society. Not a fear of the government but fear of social condemnation against what's officially accepted as being "true and good".

Raging_Ninja

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Gonna have to throw me a link or two there for starvation in developed countries.

Consider looking at the poverty index of developed countries, and consider what poverty actually entails. The US is a good one to look at because of the sheer number of homeless in or around their cities without any welfare system to help them.

WhiteMemento9

Deleted User wrote: »

Wake up and do what exactly?

Western society is going through a messed up period. All the constraints of the past (Religion, marriage, social constraints, sexuality, etc) are being removed and replaced with the "promise" of something better. But most people can feel that it's an empty promise and they're stuck in limbo. The traditional places to find security and inspiration are disappearing. Political scandals, corruption and irresponsibility is rife across the board. Most people don't really trust the law to be impartial or effective anymore, and there's no real movement to fix it. The Church is essentially gone, and replaced with nothing. So, people are adrift.

Wake up for a start and be alive. Actually embrace the here and now and live. Much of what I mean is talked about in that Harris video I posted where people never truly connect with the present moment and end up living life in the future or the past. The movement to fix it will only happen when enough people are awake to see a change is needed. At the moment there is an acceptance that things are this way and it is the best we can achieve. That needs to change. People can't look at the world and see what we are doing is crazy and we are doing a terrible job of caring for people in the world. They can't do that because they are so consumed with their own lives in this age of ME. Trying to find happiness in all the wrong places, sleeping walking through life.

I could rant here about working hours, trend lines in productions and wages and how it all makes no sense until you follow the money and what is happening but I know reading your posts you already know all this.

Deleted User wrote: »

I find most people aren't happy with their lives... The state of their lives, and where they expect to be in twenty years time. As I said above, everything is changing and there is no security anymore. Without that assumption that there is a clear line to regular living, people become anxious, and anxious people find fear quite quickly.

Happiness is important for a society. Without that happiness, and stability, people seek more radical answers, and the world is full of con-artists. [Or they blindly accept "official" or "institutional" research/statistics without checking their validity. Doesn't help that so many of our "trusted" organisations are biased or sponsored by private concerns]

I see this everywhere. People doing all the 'right' things that we proport as being important but when you dig into people it is a ****ing shambles.

Deleted User wrote: »

Westerners like to believe in individuality and take pride in how our society promotes the individual. Individuality leads to being selfish otherwise how do you create a self separate from the needs of the community (although community is essentially dead in western culture. so perhaps society is a better word).

Virtually all the media and advertisements going around are all about "Me! Me! Me!" That constant bombardment to the senses about providing to the individual is going to have an effect. Coupled with the fear and insecurity, it encourages a bunker mentality.

Agree with it all but if people could see the joy that it brings to care about the collective. To actually see pain and suffering and not think of it as some logical exercise towards their brain of computing, "oh that is sad". Instead let the pain in and show genuine compassion and understanding it relates to all the other feelings in life you don't experience because you dull the pain, you dull everything to live like that. Being a good person is its own reward.

Deleted User wrote: »

You agreed with it, so therefore its yours.

And your internal witness is developed through social conditioning, education, your own unique perception of events, and experience. We have been told for a very long time that we are thinking beings, and that pure instinct is bad. Society reinforces this by teaching us the norms through which to see good/evil. Right/Wrong.

The problem though is that Right/Wrong are no longer the same thing as it was 30 years ago. Take the Transgender movement towards children, for example. 30 years ago, there would have been no question as to whether this should be allowed. It would have been shut down immediately, and the proponents sent off to a health center. Today? While there are many people against it, they're powerless to prevent it, because all causes have greater importance than what people actually want. The minority beliefs are greater.

And the "witness" recognises all of these things, and adapts.

This gets quite weird and messy from a personal perspective. I understand the points you are making towards a lack of free will. I agree but I also think there is something deeper in that inner voice. I know because I have experienced it at points in my life when it doesn't make sense for it to have formed so truly and I couldn't connect with it on the surface but subconiously it was driving me to act out in ways because I can see with complete clarity I was doing much of the stuff that I thought was the right direction but it wasn't. I couldn't tell that on the surface but something deep within always knew from a very early age.

Deleted User wrote: »

The greatest moment in my life was when I realised that I could say anything I wanted to someone and that I shouldn't feel any burden of guilt for doing so. I'm serious. Oh, I don't do it all the time, because it's dangerous... but the sense of freedom, knowing the option is there is incredible.

Most people I know don't have that freedom. They're afraid of the consequences in being honest, because society has developed to become a rather superficial thing where everyone's 'feelings' matter. It's even gotten to the point where saying you're against something (voicing your opinion) will get you labeled as a "phobe" or "ist".

I recently was in a discussion with friends and their friends about seeing gay people kissing, or making out in public. I really have no issues with gay people, but we weren't talking about the normal behavior of people in public. Instead, it was the case of a male couple, kissing passionately in the main street of the town, with their hands moving everywhere, with plenty of grinding going on. I wouldn't want to see a male/female doing that in the street either. It's not the place for it. And when i said as much, I was called homophobic. Simply because I said they shouldn't be doing it in public. I've no issue with them doing it in a nightclub, or private area, but that didn't matter. After the group broke up, I received messages from most of the others, thanking me for being honest, and that they wished they could have said the same... but were afraid they would be called the same. Their reputation would suffer. A very real worry in a small town.

There is a movement in western society to place the freedoms of minority groups over the beliefs of the majority. That we must provide complete freedom to everyone and everything... and to suggest otherwise is a black/white statement of ism.

This is why western society is failing, and people are so unhappy. Their own freedom to speak out against so much change is being taken away from them. In many ways, western society is starting to look a lot like Chinese society. Not a fear of the government but fear of social condemnation against what's officially accepted as being "true and good".

You are on shaky ground with me here. I don't believe people should be able to just say what they want. I agree the ability to do so is incredibly freeing for you personally but it should always come with a caveat of caring and understanding of the people around you are just trying to get through this life thing. Many with little understanding that you have as a person. Jim Carey recently came to this realisation and he showed up at some fashion event deriding the whole thing as one of the most vacuous things we are doing on planet earth. He may be right but he comes at things from what I can see of having lived in a money bubble with little understanding of how hard and difficult life is for many people. He doesn't know those people he is talking to. He doesn't know their struggle. What gives him the right to judge without that knowledge.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Wake up and do what exactly?

Western society is going through a messed up period. All the constraints of the past (Religion, marriage, social constraints, sexuality, etc) are being removed and replaced with the "promise" of something better. But most people can feel that it's an empty promise and they're stuck in limbo. The traditional places to find security and inspiration are disappearing. Political scandals, corruption and irresponsibility is rife across the board. Most people don't really trust the law to be impartial or effective anymore, and there's no real movement to fix it. The Church is essentially gone, and replaced with nothing. So, people are adrift.

I find most people aren't happy with their lives... The state of their lives, and where they expect to be in twenty years time. As I said above, everything is changing and there is no security anymore. Without that assumption that there is a clear line to regular living, people become anxious, and anxious people find fear quite quickly.

Happiness is important for a society. Without that happiness, and stability, people seek more radical answers, and the world is full of con-artists. [Or they blindly accept "official" or "institutional" research/statistics without checking their validity. Doesn't help that so many of our "trusted" organisations are biased or sponsored by private concerns.

I'm inclined to see it as much more of a good thing than a bad thing. The caveat is that then erosion of traditional bodies of collectivism and the promotion of individual agency and liberty aren't inherently linked. The Catholic Church has largely been crippled by the child abuse scandal, the banks nearly crashed the economy only to be bailed out by the state, trade unions have had their snouts in the trough for some time now, MP's have had the recent expenses scandal and so on...

Deleted User wrote: »

Westerners like to believe in individuality and take pride in how our society promotes the individual. Individuality leads to being selfish otherwise how do you create a self separate from the needs of the community (although community is essentially dead in western culture. so perhaps society is a better word).

Virtually all the media and advertisements going around are all about "Me! Me! Me!" That constant bombardment to the senses about providing to the individual is going to have an effect. Coupled with the fear and insecurity, it encourages a bunker mentality.

Pretty much. Membership of some of the bodies I mention above imply participation in a higher cause which can help one feel fulfilled and purposeful. A trade union employee might see themselves as the guardian of their members' rights and welfare against an avaricious and uncaring employer for example. All this has been replaced by consumer capitalism which amounts to little more than "Buy this thing and you'll be happy". Of course, there's always another thing and reality never meets expectation.

Deleted User wrote: »

And your internal witness is developed through social conditioning, education, your own unique perception of events, and experience. We have been told for a very long time that we are thinking beings, and that pure instinct is bad. Society reinforces this by teaching us the norms through which to see good/evil. Right/Wrong.

The problem though is that Right/Wrong are no longer the same thing as it was 30 years ago. Take the Transgender movement towards children, for example. 30 years ago, there would have been no question as to whether this should be allowed. It would have been shut down immediately, and the proponents sent off to a health center. Today? While there are many people against it, they're powerless to prevent it, because all causes have greater importance than what people actually want. The minority beliefs are greater.

And the "witness" recognises all of these things, and adapts.

The greatest moment in my life was when I realised that I could say anything I wanted to someone and that I shouldn't feel any burden of guilt for doing so. I'm serious. Oh, I don't do it all the time, because it's dangerous... but the sense of freedom, knowing the option is there is incredible.

Most people I know don't have that freedom. They're afraid of the consequences in being honest, because society has developed to become a rather superficial thing where everyone's 'feelings' matter. It's even gotten to the point where saying you're against something (voicing your opinion) will get you labeled as a "phobe" or "ist".

I recently was in a discussion with friends and their friends about seeing gay people kissing, or making out in public. I really have no issues with gay people, but we weren't talking about the normal behavior of people in public. Instead, it was the case of a male couple, kissing passionately in the main street of the town, with their hands moving everywhere, with plenty of grinding going on. I wouldn't want to see a male/female doing that in the street either. It's not the place for it. And when i said as much, I was called homophobic. Simply because I said they shouldn't be doing it in public. I've no issue with them doing it in a nightclub, or private area, but that didn't matter. After the group broke up, I received messages from most of the others, thanking me for being honest, and that they wished they could have said the same... but were afraid they would be called the same. Their reputation would suffer. A very real worry in a small town.

There is a movement in western society to place the freedoms of minority groups over the beliefs of the majority. That we must provide complete freedom to everyone and everything... and to suggest otherwise is a black/white statement of ism.

This is why western society is failing, and people are so unhappy. Their own freedom to speak out against so much change is being taken away from them. In many ways, western society is starting to look a lot like Chinese society. Not a fear of the government but fear of social condemnation against what's officially accepted as being "true and good".

This is largely an online phenomenon, largely confined to certain sites and social media which is itself inherently anathema to the idea of civilised, mature debate. Most people, I've found don't subscribe to many "-isms" if any. If it transpired that, say a toy company had used a harmful variety of paint only a small few would argue for the state to nationalise it or to have a bonfire of toy and paint regulations. They'd just expect the firm to issue a recall and pay compensation where necessary.

I think a certain few troublemakers are intent on pushing the idea that we're losing our free speech for their own personal gain. It's was Peterson's own stance against Bill C-16 which fuelled his rise to prominence. I don't think he was expecting this but now that he is in this position, it suits him to try and make as much hay out of this as possible. Ditto for various professional trolls among whom I would not count Peterson.

WhiteMemento9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm inclined to see it as much more of a good thing than a bad thing. The caveat is that then erosion of traditional bodies of collectivism and the promotion of individual agency and liberty aren't inherently linked. The Catholic Church has largely been crippled by the child abuse scandal, the banks nearly crashed the economy only to be bailed out by the state, trade unions have had their snouts in the trough for some time now, MP's have had the recent expenses scandal and so on...

This all makes sense. We all know that generally, people being mass indoctrinated into things is essentially a form of brainwashing. We still have large parts of the societal structures than continue in this vein but much of which is a necessity to form what we can envisage as a functioning society currently. The collective that I and I think the other poster is referring more towards is that people want that feeling of connection, they don't want it in a structured way that preaches but we know or at least I do that all people are important and we should be trying to do a better job at taking care of everyone. Funny enough, that makes you feel better as a person too if you have genuine empathy. Things aren't right at the moment and people know it which is why the likes of Peterson is able to gain such a cult following because people want something to believe in.

WhiteMemento9

The actual content of what you said is an interesting one about two people getting heavy with each other on the street and been rattling in the head. On one side I think we need some sort of social decorum to interact with each other on a daily basis. On another side, I think is that just my nature expunging from me that has been shaped by my life in rather a conservative way toward people showing affection. What is so wrong with two people feeling horny for each other and showing it and why do I even think of that in a negative way when it is displayed in public.

It gets weirder again if we break down the social walls a little further. Let's say we were OK with two people having sex in a park in full public view. Would it also then be OK to watch those two people. Would you watch?

Won't somebody think of the children.