Author Topic: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?  (Read 4628 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10436
Re: How about a Discussion on Jordan Peterson?
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2020, 08:22:05 pm »
Ok that's fine.  If you don't like or agree with or are offending by Jordan's opinions or behaviour that's your right.  No provincial human rights commission will haul you in front of a hearing for it.

I don't think I said I dislike or disagree with him, and if I did then fine but it's beside the point.

So what you're saying is that the standard for which you set for him is perfection.

Hahahaha.  Joe Rogan !

Do you hold the same standard for thinkers on the left?

I believe so.  But there's nothing like a Peterson on the left as far as I can see. 

...has to deal with the large majority of the mainstream media trying to do everything to undermine and discredit him in endless articles and interviews, so if he loses his cool once in a while i think it's understandable.

Well, it's not though.  What people say matters and it's hard to step back from that.  Hillary Clinton called her opponents 'deplorables' and lost a large swath of voters.  And it's not the media undermining him and discrediting him if he does it himself.

If he says something that's incorrect and you or I challenge him on it, great.  That's called civil discourse.

No - civil discourse is being CIVIL.  You can't call people the n-word or call them women if they're not and so on.  You didn't talk about that in your definition.

He's not God, he's not a saviour, he doesn't have to be right all the time, I disagree with him on things.

I don't think being God or a saviour was ever on the table.  The question is does he hold water as a reasonable public intellectual who has earned the attention of a critical mass of "the" public ?  That's a high pedestal, but - no - he doesn't do it.

I also don't see him waving the flag of "civil discourse", that sounds like something you've projected on to him.

I think others on this thread said it about him, which is why I commented on it.

  Like Ben Shapiro, I enjoy listening to him because he provides a different point of view than than the vast majority of the discourse we see, he challenges many of the "holy" assumptions that are shoved down our throats. 

Listen to Sam Harris then.  I disagree with him quite a bit on lots of things, but he is immensely thoughtful and precise with his language and ideas.

And he does it with an intellectual rigor missing from the vast majority of right-leaning commentators who are often a bunch of ignorant boneheads.

You are misunderstanding something here: a *commentator* and an *intellectual* are very far apart and have been since ... well the 80s or early 90s I would say. 

In case you missed it: there is no leftist intellectual who is in the ballpark of what I'm calling for either.

Using "cultural marxism" is a bit off as a term, but there's nothing wrong with calling people post-modern marxists if that's what they are.

It's an oxymoron, though, right ?  Post-modernism is post-Marxism.  The Marxists I know of are anti-woke. 

You're the one you brought it up, i responded to you.

I used it because I felt you were tacitly referring to the mob, or at least popular whims, with your statements on page 1:

"Socrates was executed for "corrupting the youth".  Jesus was nailed to a cross.  Who are we crucifying today?  What are our holy beliefs that only heretics question?"

He is having public conversations.  He's going out and doing debates and interviews.  He hasn't called for anyone to be banned or fired or arrested, and he isn't burning cars or looting stores, and he doesn't call people names, unless "cultural marxist" or "post-modernist" is a bad name.

Your bar is too low.  A public intellectual needs to be held to a higher standard than "not burning cars", seriously.

What are you talking about??  If his opinions are offensive to you or anyone else, that's the whole darn point.

He insults people to their face, is my point.  Not "he says things to which people take offense".

you're doing now. I've never seen him purposefully try to offend people just for its own sake, or be unreasonably "provocative".  That's just a meme.  He's not Milo.

But he does.

Many people don't like his opinions, his narratives are a dangerous threat to their political agendas, and they want to take him down  Do you have anything to say about any of his actual opinions, or do you wish to keep trying to discredit him?

I have been very clear as to why he's to be rejected as a public intellectual.

1. He insults people on purpose
2. He aligns himself with The Rebel, an anti-intellectual and anti-human endeavour that exists to disunify people and spread falsehoods
3. He's sloppy with his language and his thinking

I'm not saying he should be killed, or that I dislike him personally.  I'm saying he's unfit to lead public discussions, except to continue to sow disunity and extend the culture war.  At the beginning of his career as a public intellectual, it wasn't so.  And as time goes on, he shows himself to be a poor thinker, a hypocrite in terms of his moral stance and his didactic advice to others.. and kind of a sad individual to boot.

This is a leftwing "alternative" student newspaper in the most leftwing province in Canada that doesn't provide any evidence he "misgendered' anyone.  Let's see the footage.

I gave you a source.  Do you want another one ?  Does this mean that if there is evidence of what I claim, you will change your opinion on him somewhat ?  I would like to know if I'm just on a wild goose chase, given that I gave you a cite already.

If people disagree with his opinions that's great, that's called civil discourse.  If they just "don't like him", well that's their opinion, but it means nothing.

You keep missing the other option - that his reasoning and his thinking is flawed.  Whether or not people like him, or his opinions is beside the point really.  I respect people with whom I disagree, if their opinions have enough basis to be reasonably close to valid.

You can "reject him" all you like, that's your right..  He isn't a marginal voice "in the discussion" (whatever that is) though, because a lot of people are listening to his arguments. 

He's marginal because he isn't generally acceptable.  It's like saying Rush Limbaugh is an important voice in the trans rights debate because he has millions of listeners.

Goldy was fired for things that happened after Jordan appeared on the Rebel.  McGinnis was on the Joe Rogan podcast, is Joe guilty by association?  Is Peterson on the far-right?

The Rebel didn't have Gavin McInnes and Faith Goldy as guests - they worked there.  It's a ****-slinging organization and doesn't deserve to be considered legitimate.