All things relating to Jordan Peterson

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

I wouldn't agree.

I'm yet to see a serious example of Peterson's followers attempting to forbid "any actual debate." Can you provide any?

Anti-Peterson people on the other hand... There have been several attempts by official organisations to no platform the good doctor and even more efforts by unofficial, shrieking "activists" to disrupt his events and to intimidate and deter both speakers and attendees. One such gentle champion of human rights turned up to a talk armed with a garrote.

Peterson's media critics enjoy an enormous platform(being most of the mainstream media) and unlimited airtime to attack him- despite which none has yet managed to land a convincing blow.

What does get tiresome is his constant misrepresentation in the media, both social and official. Many who lambast Peterson have no obvious understanding of his work beyond what they have apparently gleaned from their own echo chambers: Leftist/feminist sources and/or the mainstream media (it's becoming increasingly difficult to discern the difference).

You see it a lot on these boards, with people who have clearly never read a page of his books or watched a minute of his lectures telling everyone else what a fraud and creep he is. Those are the only people I've observed outsourcing their opinions around this topic.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Something I've noticed online. Not got any to hand.

So you have nothing.

I've not noticed anything of the sort online. Granted, I doubt I spend as much time online as you do but my point that anti-Peterson elements have been far more censorious than pro-Peterson people remains unchallenged.

Do you really need to use language like "Gentle Champion of human rights?"

Yes. Isn't English fun? Don't attempt to moderate my language, please, that was the cause of all this trouble.

The good doctor is not above underhanded tactics himself.

Can you give examples of his "underhanded tactics"? To me, he seems a sincere commentator, honest to the point of his own detriment.

In any case, I don't ever recall Peterson bringing a lethal weapon to a seminar nor do I recall any of his followers doing likewise or being encouraged by him to do likewise.

To attempt to equate him with that deranged terrorist is laughable.

As does Peterson himself. He's getting a lot of coverage as well. Balance seems fair enough here.

He does, despite the occasionally violent and always venomous efforts of his opponents, because his message resonates so strongly with people that even a media that, for the most part, despises him ideologically cannot ignore him. Instead they set him up for constant character ambush and fail every time.

Where have I said this?

I didn't claim you said this, it was a general observations. I wouldn't lay that charge on you individually, you're an excellent, reasoned contributor.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

If it’s a trend it’s not a recent one. Twitter has been a pretty good lens for seeing the cult like behaviour within society and it has touched all sides, but it greatly predates even that.

The unquestioning acceptance of badly researched views or indeed plain old lies by adherents on the left and the right is remarkably toxic to reasoned debate, and that sort of nonsense dates back to the citing of things like Koos’ 1 in 4 rubbish and possibly earlier. It became a headline idea when Trump, a master of “fake news” started whining about “fake news” by his detractors but to be honest we’ve been exposed to this garbage for decades.

In Peterson’s defence at least he seems to put the statistics out there in a relatively raw and unadulterated form and allow others to challenge them.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you're playing the fake news card and not bothered posting any links. Fair enough. I'd better leave it there.

Your link is, in my opinion, a hysterical propaganda piece about as worthful as Cathy Newman’s interrogation of Peterson and her later play for victim hood.

Anything I’ve posted in this discussion is easily verified and a matter of recorded fact and my own thoughts thereon: no pressing need for links, much less those from dubious, ideologically driven sources like that which you produced.

Try googling: “Peterson woman with garrote” and it will take you to library loads of material detailing violent opposition to him and efforts to deplatform him.

In contrast, there will be nothing significant detailing attempts to silence the opposition to Peterson, which is huge and loud, because there hasn’t been any; despite your nebulous, unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm noticing that there seems to be a disturbing trend of people seeming more and more inclined to sign upto cults centred around people like Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk to the point where they seem intent on outsourcing their own thinking to these figures. Anyone who dissents gets set upon and any actual debate about what they say is forbidden.

Because perhaps they see value in what they are saying. President Trump isn't known for being particularly academic or introspective, so perhaps the inclusion of him there among the others is a quasi slur on the other two in that regard.

I don't think anybody is outsourcing thinking to anybody, but perhaps more interesting is the fact that they are thinking and considering a viewpoint. It stands to me that the real sheep here are the ones who turn the news on at night and take that as gospel.

I know I'll get the standard "fake news" retort, as if the media are a reliable informant to the masses. I don't buy it. It's clearly evident that pretty much every tv news channel we have in this country (and from the UK) are ardent supporters of the EU, feminism, Hillary Clinton, LGBTQWERTY+ etc. You can't move for this sort of stuff on RTE these days. Not everything critical is fake news, but there is some dishonest media and fake news, and it's always critical of the same people.

There is also a degree of social cost to sticking the head above the parapet and perhaps suggesting that introducing positive discrimination policies may potentially be harmful to society, so it's pretty clear why a lot of people are reluctant to do so, even if they think it. You only need to look at the other side of this in years gone by where people were afraid to speak up against the church for example. The number of people is small by design, to make them seem like outliers, against the general prevalence of the populace. We have seen time and again that this really isn't the case in reality.

There is no problem with debating people with these views, the frustration comes from deliberate misrepresentations, which are largely thrown out willy nilly by the media, and then used as if it were a legitimate argument against them. Case in point, the "here come the lobsters" piece on RTE last week.

Trump, Peterson, Farage, and a small number of others stand-out because they are the nominated "others" that the consensus brigade are more than happy to put in the middle of the shame circle.

In the case of Trump he sort of relishes it, and I can understand it to a degree. It goes way too far though, and the character assassinations go way beyond the ammunition that is legitimately available on such characters. An example of this, anyone who goes outside the circle is "alt-right", whether they are or not. Here's a hint......they aren't.

One other thing I've been thinking about, which maybe hasn't been touched upon, (at least not in this thread) is the possibilty that some of Peterson's critics and detractors are people who actually agree with most of what he believes and says, but have a certain degree of envy because he has managed to reach out to such a large audience, whilst they have not. It's an emotion that few would ever admit to, yet it can influence the best of people. What percentage is anyone's guess, but there would presumably be at least a small minority in that camp.

DeadHand wrote: »

There’s certainly a huge amount of saltiness (to borrow a gaming term) and jealousy involved. Peterson has achieved an audience and depth of genuine, public admiration that his detractors could only dream of.

In my opinion, what upsets them most is that it was achieved by defying establishment dogmas they themselves are too cowardly to challenge, but plenty brave enough to enforce- that being the socially safer option in these totalitarian times.

I have no doubt that the self satisfied virtue signallers of today would, if they were in 1940s Ireland, be just as ardent about snuffing out opposition to the Catholic Church then as they are about quelling dissent against the “liberal” agenda today.

Peterson has committed a successful, ongoing heresy, and so must be destroyed.

People form herds and find safety therein- sometimes the direction of the herd changes, but it’s still a herd. The wayward rebels will always be attacked by the conformists. Yet, the rebels are needed- this is what makes Peterson so essential: it’s not so much his genius and it certainly isn’t his origianality- it’s the context he toils in.

Except for the fact that Peterson parrots classic Christian apologetics while his cult following in a lot of cases atheist or agnostic themselves seem to ignore or actually try to reconcile his beliefs with their own views, for fear of realising Peterson isn't the perfect person they seem to think he is.

Anyone who starts trying to explain that a "genuine" atheist would be a murderer isn't preaching values of those who criticise the Catholic Church I'm sorry to tell you. I'd also add that such claims you'd normally hear from the likes of Ray Comfort definitely should detract from the "genius" label you seem to want to apply to him.

Oh, I forgot the other thing, his whole you can't quit smoking "without a mythical experience" and proceeded to claim this was some sort of scientific fact backed by evidence when it really sounds like pseudoscientific bull**** which Dillahunty then proceeds to call out.

Oh sure, I think there must be some kind of cognitive dissonance going on with Peterson, but the fact he's religious and has made a few curious claims is certainly no basis for completely disowning him. You could pick faults with anyone if you tried hard enough, but the sensible thing to do is to read and listen to everything with objectivity. Someone mentioned Christopher Hitchens earlier. He supported the Iraq War, right? That was not a popular position to take, but I'm guessing it didn't diminish his reputation as an intellectual. There is probably a ''fly in the ointment'' with everyone - it shouldn't be a big deal.