- Projects and Committees
- Initiate's Programme suggestions
- IP suggestion: Jordan Peterson
IP suggestion: Jordan Peterson
Kelrax "Stormcaller" Lorcken, Jedi Navigator
May The Force Guide You
That's all well and good, but when the message of puppy-kicking is carved into the table, it becomes noticeably harder to distance the art from the artist. Jordan Peterson is problematic in that way.
I've only watched about half an hour of his stuff so far, and I have not seen anything "problematic" embedded in it, I have other stuff to do today than police everyone with an opinion and an internet connection, so if you want to hasten my learning by directing me to his troublesome works, that might be of an an assistance.
Admittedly I have not seen anything novel enough that I would care if it was in the IP either, but the idea of add-this-to-the-IP comes up often enough around here that I don't generally weigh in on what meets the criteria for essential thinking activities....
ok, there's a link. content warning- this lady makes mention or reference to some things that some may find offensive or otherwise not for general audiences.
Still, I like how she argues and discusses things, and this video is extra relevant (and she's funny) and presents a very articulate and educated counter to the idea of embracing this guy and his work (kind of, seriously, watch the video, don't just run with my yay watch this video that agrees with me bit)
Kelrax "Stormcaller" Lorcken, Jedi Navigator
May The Force Guide You
I still have not found a video interview or lecture by him where he actually speaks against women’s rights, equality of opportunity, or against transexual people.
But some people are taking offense, and that is well worth the intellectual exercise of analyzing why.
The truth is something that burns. It burns off dead wood. And people don't like having the dead wood burnt off, often because they're 95 percent dead wood. - Jordan Peterson
I've looked up this guy twice before.
Twice, and it took me that long to realise.
I see two possibilities here - one, that my mind is failing far faster than I would wish.
Two - this guy is incredibly forgettable, that his views, and the views of those in his orbit are so utterly plain, tame, or inane that I've not found a spot in my head to keep them.
Now this is in a lot of ways a choice on my part, I've filtered it out and moved on, and I wonder if I'll do the same again?
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of things I filter out, like the particulars of roof tiling, because it's just not something I care about.
Philosophy, politics and identity are things that do interest me to one degree or another, so it would seem to me that if this guy had material worth knowing, I would have striven to retain it, I would have dug deeper into it, or I would have shared it.
I'm not the be-all-and-end-all of what is worth thinking about, by any stretch, but in the words of pick anyone you like "we are what we repeatedly do" ("i think it was Shaq) then since I have made no real effort to make this guys views a part of my life, or act on them in any deliberate way, I would have to say I give them 1/5 stars, not out of any spite, or because he took the long way, or didn't offer me a mint, they just simply were not useful.
Your mileage may vary, and if he speaks to something in you, and you are driven to success, then I'm not going to "yuk your yum" as the yankees say.
(I still don't think he's a bogeyman)
In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.
In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.
In the positive influence of spiritual growth and awareness on society.
In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination within religious, political and other structures.
In the separation of religion and government and the freedoms of speech, association and expression.
He says things like:
"I'm a credible scientist...and I've tried to bring it all together, and to make a case for...these things that sound old-fashioned, but are old-fashioned in the best sense...because they're absolutely necessary. And people need a call to responsibility because they need to mature, they need to want to be adults. And I don't believe we do a very good job in our culture of making a case for why it's a good thing to be an adult."1
Which sounds reasonable, until he says something to counteract it, like discussing the gender demographic split of his book sales:
"I don't know. I doubt it, because it's usually women who buy books, although men buy non-fiction if they buy books."1
He espouses an ideology which vaguely seems to resemble Taoism on the surface, but on deeper examination, is misogynistic. (That men represent order, and women represent chaos, symbolically.1) He then names his book 12 Rules for Life: an Antidote to Chaos and says:
"It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal..."2
...which is patently, and scientifically verifiably, false. And not just in human society, but also in the social structures of animals. There are many societies and structures in which monogamy is either optional or an unneeded/nonexistent property of relationship.
Nellie Bowles stated that "Most of his ideas stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender. 'The masculine spirit is under assault,' he told me. 'It’s obvious.'"3 Later, in the same article (which rugadd posted earlier), Nellie states "Wherever he goes, he speaks in sermons about the inevitability of who we must be. 'You know you can say, "Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine" — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore. They’d be something else. They’d be transhuman or something. We wouldn’t be able to talk to these new creatures.'"
He makes broad claims like "Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent,"2 in a day and age where terrorist acts in the US are overwhelmingly committed by people who look just like himself, and then shills this as responsibility training. He preaches this drivel to crowds of people, many of whom are so-called "incels", who've been responsible for increasing violence against women, at least in the US.
"Over the past two decades, the incel community, which numbers somewhere in the tens of thousands, has fallen under the sway of a profoundly sexist ideology that they call 'the blackpill.' It amounts to a fundamental rejection of women’s sexual emancipation, labeling women shallow, cruel creatures who will choose only the most attractive men if given the choice."4 In response to this, we get Peterson's solution: "'He was angry at God because women were rejecting him...The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.'"3
MacLean's author Tabatha Southey says that "With these statements, the University of Toronto psychology professor, bestselling author and sex know-it-all is pretty much saying 'I feel your pain, men, we should address that,” and the incels appreciated his approval. “Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners,' is how the New York Times’ Nellie Bowles summed up his thoughts. Following custom, his thoughts disregard the staggering number of women who are abused and killed by their partners, often when they try to leave as in 'Why didn’t you leave?'
Peterson also offers tacit support for another core incel belief. He endorses the idea that some men are being denied sex because other men are taking all the sex from women who are allowed to choose to give them that sex, and that if something could be done to prevent all this 'having sex with people of your choosing' nonsense, some unlucky women would eventually have to settle for the incels. If we could just make that happen, these men would not have to be so 'angry at God' and commit mass murder, the argument goes.5
The rest of what he says is meaningless word-salad, and while he claims not to validate them, incels flock to his messages (to the point of him having an article/profile dedicated to him on IncelWiki[/url]) because of his ideas about women which he says, again, are unchangeable and inevitably the social order.
This is a guy we want in the IP? Find some other self-help guru. One that says the same inane bullshit but isn't a huge, honking, more-red-flags-than-a-Communist-parade problem.
- " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5sHelen Lewis vs Jordan Peterson ". British GQ. YouTube. Published October 30, 2018. Accessed August 08, 2019.
On the New York Times and 'Enforced Monogamy'". Jordan B Peterson. Official website. Published May 20, 2018. Updated June 08, 2018. Accessed August 08, 2019.
- " Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy ". Nellie Bowles. New York Times. May 18, 2018. Accessed August 08, 2018.
- " Our Incel Problem ". Zack Beauchamp. Vox. Published April 16, 2019. Updated April 23, 2019. Accessed August 08, 2019.
- " The Context of Jordan Peterson's Thoughts on 'Enforced Monogamy' ". Tabatha Southey. Maclean's. Published May 25, 2018. Accessed August 08, 2019.
"We've concentrated on rights and privileges and freedom and impulsive pleasure; those are all useful in their place, but they're shallow, and that's not good..."1
I think I've read similar words about the flaws with democracy elsewhere. I would just as likely suspect he is musing on those concepts as much as he is suggesting a police-state be enforced.
The rest...well that is things that other people have said about him, and I'm sure they are all experts in their field, but Bert telling me that Ernie stole his cookies isn't enough to throw Ernie in Gaol.
I'm still not voicing support for his work being included in the IP, and I'm just not ready the join a lynch mob.