Jordan Peterson

Here's the link to the original interview.

Here's a a good primer as to the role of the insidious hybrid of postmodernism and neo-Marxism that has infested and corrupted Academe, government and HR depts. throughout the Western world

Do we really need several threads about this guy? Is he the new Mia Farrow?

How many times are you going to start a thread on this guy? You abandoned the other one because you couldn't handle people posting actual facts about this right-wing nutjob posing as a "free speech warrior." Will you abandon this one and start another, and another, and another?

What a good use of your time.

R4 You're not better for following him around, asshole.

Jordan Peterson has aligned himself with the far-right wing website Rebel Media, which he makes regular appearances. Would we hold up anyone for praise on DL if they had appeared regularly on Fox news?

I don't think so.

Actually I'm a new OP - not the one from the original thread - I thought the Atlantic article was pretty interesting, since the interviewer is really NOT engaging him on the substance of what he's saying and seemed to be going out of their way to put words in his mouth. The only post I could find here was from some idiot who said "leftists". But please carry on with your blathering.

If you want to know what Peterson thinks, just look at his lessons, a lot are on line.

I think he's interesting guy but I don't have to agree with him.

[quote] I think he's interesting guy but I don't have to agree with him.

Would you say the same about someone who appeared regularly on Fox News?

R9 In fact yeah, it's not cause someone appears on Fox News that I don't listen what he has to say. I listen then I judge if I agree or not.

Someone like Maajid Nawaz is invited on Fox News and he has interesting things to say. I don't have to agree with everything, but it's interesting.

You have to be quite brainwashed to believe that anyone invited to speak on Fox News is automatically some ideological enemy that you have to fight until death without even listening to what they said. It's called being intellectually dishonest.

[quote] You have to be quite brainwashed to believe that anyone invited to speak on Fox News is automatically some ideological enemy that you have to fight until death without even listening to what they said. It's called being intellectually dishonest.

You mean the same network that gave a free pass to Roy Moore raping an underage girl? But it is okay to tune into that channel

OK gotcha.

What Jordan Peterson has to do with Roy Moore?

Fox News has a shitty editorial line so anyone who speaks on Fox News is condemned without even listening to what they actually say?

R9, stop embarrassing yourself. If you have nothing intelligent to add, read more. Elsewhere. Then come back.

I bet you don't discount all the progressives who go on Tucker to be mopped around, right?

Look at Dave Rubin. A gay liberal who dares to question the orthodoxy and isn't invited to lefty conditions so gets applause from the right.

[quote] I bet you don't discount all the progressives who go on Tucker to be mopped around, right?

I would, because I don't anyone should be on that network who is a true progressive. Which Peterson IS NOT

I thought his discussion with Camille Paglia was pretty informative and I don't see why so many hard-right people appreciate Paglia. You can't cherry pick the things about personal responsibility and criticism of the left and leave out her pro-gay, (reluctantly) pro-choice and sex-positive, pro-pornography views.

I like a lot of what Peterson has to say, but he really sold his soul by aligning with the alt-right for money. If I'm right his Patreon has more donations per month that the ultimate sell-out Dave Rubin. Last time I checked it was over $30,000 a month.

I'm all for first wave feminism, equality in the workplace and equality in general (which we have, despite what buzzfeed says.) It's the radical part of the (far) left that has brought out the hard right wingers for one last stand. Biology is real. They're are two genders... blah blah blah. All stuff we know is true, but for some reason (a few) radicals have the right in an uproar that would make you think we are becoming a communist nation within the next week.

Leftists do a lot of noises on social medias and Internet, but that's all. Trump is their chance to shine.

I am not right-wing OP. I am a Latina woman living in South America. I just do not understand why adults are letting whinny, spoiled children (SJWs) dictate how the rest of the world address them. Leftist 'activists' do not have the smarts or self awareness to realize they are wrong.

*addresses

R15 - love it when people take their speculation right to fact.

Just out of curiosity what is "equality in general?"

r17 Only right-wing trogs call the left in America "leftists".

Well said r15.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the Atlantic article? The examples in it about the comments and leading questions from the interview are pretty glaring - that isn't journalism, or shouldn't be.

Stupid bitch got her ass handed to her. No wonder she doesn’t want a rematch.

Since he won’t pretend to play nice at the beginning this time, she will be crying like a little girl at the end.

R2

Excellent. Every datalounge resident should listen to that YouTube.

The distraction of the Cultural Marxist Left is almost complete.

Socialism has become a word of mockery.

R7

Actually engaging in his arguments would be a losing proposition for Socialist Cunts.

They hate logic and reason.

R8

His lectures are fascinating.

His deconstruction of Socialism is brutal.

Thing must be getting bad for the Trumpies if they're bumping dumb old threads like this.

Cry harder, you big babies.

I read Derrida at 16, as a juxtaposition to Solzhenitsyn.

The latter changed me, the former is a Retarded CUNT.

R4

What thread?

I sincerely doubt that any of the marginal morons that populate this website could provide any kind of coparent rebottles Peterson.

[quote] First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.

Media has followed a pattern for the last generation. It's been noticed before but only in recent years has it been fought with some moments of success.

We can do "The Innuendo" We can dance and sing

When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing

Well parroted R21

R27

What an excellent example of how stupid you people are.

I wish someone would please post a single dispute of Jordan Peterson.

Not going to happen.

Peterson has commie pinko fags nailed to the walll.

To those who follow Peterson, the reason will be apparent. Damore clearly picked up much of his information about innate gender differences from one of Peterson’s many lectures on the subject of psychometrics, an academic discipline that mainly focuses on empirically measuring the variations in different psychological traits between human beings, including across the axis of gender.

Peterson has been in similar trouble to Damore for posting his supposedly controversial lectures online. In August, he was briefly suspended from YouTube and Google without explanation, although he was quickly reinstated after a furore in the Canadian media.

At the University of Toronto, after receiving two written warnings, he has been in danger of losing his job following his announcement that he would refuse to use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty who don’t identify with their biological gender, to the fury of radical transgender activists. The use of such pronouns is mandatory under a recently instituted Canadian law, Bill C-16. Peterson rejects the injunction on free speech grounds. ‘I’m not going to cede linguistic territory to post-modernist neo-Marxists,’ he says. He has expressed the view that he might use the preferred gender pronoun of a particular person, if asked by that individual, rather than having the decision foisted on him by the state.

I first came across Peterson not in any of his political manifestations but because as a novelist and writing teacher I stumbled across his deconstructions of classic stories and myths, which for any storyteller are extraordinarily instructive. He has turned his mind to popular classics like Disney’s Pinocchio and The Lion King, and he is currently giving a series of lectures (viewable online) on the psychological meaning of the most popular story of all, The Bible.

The pointlessness of trying to have a rational debate with a woman.

R36

Many women are rational. The vast majority of them refuse to engage their rationality.

This occurred at talk concerning (ironically) rise in compelled speech. The talk is interesting and thought provoking in its own right, but what is most disturbing is that protesters banged on the stained glass windows for most of the talk, at times shouting "let us in. burn it down." It starts at approximately 21:29 and continues for most of the rest of the talk, at times becoming quite intense.

Meanwhile, this thread gets red tagged. Something fucked up is going on. There is a concerted effort to silence, to prevent the free expression of ideas, and to use violence and intimidation to make these things happen

There's quite a funny video on youtube of Milo Yiannpolous and Katie Hopkins making fun of Cathy Newman's perm.

I lost count how many times Cathy Newman said "So you're saying..." I got to and stopped.

Here is a relaxed often funny interview with Peterson and Joe Rogan. He talks about the explosion of his Patreon account every time he has a "scandal". And there's a conversation about all the stress this has caused and his new found fame.

He's cranky but he's not right wing.

I'm from Toronto and had his verbal diarrhea inflicted upon me. He's an alt-right agent provocateur in white gloves, basically an educated version of Milo Y. There's very little interesting about what he has to say, just more of the right wing garbage but phrased in a more sophisticated language.

R41, I suspect what he is saying is way beyond your little triggered head. What exactly is he saying that is right wing in your book?

Love Jordan Peterson! Hell, I wish he'd run for Prime Minister!

DL has become so censored. Isn't this a gossip board? Why the sudden moralism?

I love him and I'm having a ball of a time with his new book. He's a bit like Madonna in her prime in that every scandal just ups his appeal. I think if he designed a class for teenage boys and it was national curriculum we'd see a lot less school shootings.

And the alt-right thing is just transparent character assassination. Nobody who seriously listened to him for 10 minutes would think he was fascist this man who has spent his whole career analysing the anatomy of fascism.

R46 Simple people want simple answers.

If he didn't spout all that "boohoo, Canada is so bad for being so PC" crap, he would be a second tier Professor at UofT. If he's so fed up, why doesn't he move to Trump's non-PC America where sun always shines and everything is SO much better? And I'm sure he'd land a tenured position right away. Oh, wait...

Character assassination? He has documented links to alt-right sites and organizations. And wasn't he supposed to show up and give some kind of lecture with that neonazi cunt Faith Goldy on Ryerson campus that got cancelled? If you're going to be a little MAGA foot soldier, do your homework a bit better.

R49, did they link to his work or is he involved with them? He is very against the leftist, PC, postmodern, marxist crowd. That doesn't make him alt-right. It makes him rational and sane.

You're using the alt-right terminology, dear MAGA foot soldier @R50. Oh, and did your cohort brethren clear their cookies or did they get slapped with the red tag of shame?

[quote]but what is most disturbing is that protesters banged on the stained glass windows for most of the talk, at times shouting "let us in. burn it down." It starts at approximately 21:29 and continues for most of the rest of the talk, at times becoming quite intense.

Such infantile behavior.

Those terms are not exclusive to the alt-right, R51. They're part of the lexicon of neo-reactionaries, classical liberals (such as Peterson), libertarians, those on the center-left, and many other fellow travelers critical of the radical left.

There are 6 or so alt-right trolls furiously posting in this thread only. I hope Jordan is paying his "interns" per word.

Do you realize that bestowing the label "alt-right" so liberally devalues it to point where it ceases to hold any meaning?

There's really nothing "alt-right" about Peterson, just common sense. He dislikes the far left and the far right equally.

Dunno about "alt-right," but the guy is like some unholy mix of warmed-over Nietzsche and 80s motivational speaker. It just reminds me of when shit like "The Secret" becomes phenomenally popular for a few months and then everyone feels vaguely embarrassed about it. And undoubtedly the next insta-guru will be even worse.

Except, R57, his ideas are based on what he has learned while acquiring advanced degrees, during years of clinical work, and years of teaching in universities. Hardly the source of new age feel good crap. He faces chaos, the horrors that humanity has perpetuated, especially in the 20th century, and he encourages all of us to see the evil that is within us so we might choose otherwise.

Probably the best Peterson interview yet.

And he sees chaos as feminine, R58. How cutting-edge!

R60 Where does he say that he sees chaos as feminine?

Peterson discusses concepts that are so complicated.

And most of us prefer 4 second soundbites rather than a ten-mnute video,

R61 he says it his 12 Rules for Life book, among other places.

I'm a liberal, but I hate how the regressive left throws out words like fascist or alt-right to describe people like Jordan Peterson who are anything but those things. Peterson came to the public eye because he opposed fascist legislation (now law) in Canada that makes speech a criminal offense (if you misgender someone or don't acknowledge their gender pronouns). How crazy is this legislation? It's Orwellian. Jordan Peterson was making very logical points, and what he has predicted has come to pass in Canada. Teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd was hauled into a professor's office to be lambasted for showing a debate with Jordan Peterson in her communications class. Luckily she recorded the inquisition, and we now all can see how crazy leftist, Marxist ideology has infected Canadian universities and culture.

I have to admit, though, that I have a huge crush on Peterson. He is a major GILF. I find his intelligence and looks sexy.

R63 Have you read it?

It's 400 pages.

Neo-Marxism may be a big problem in Toronto but it has been almost nonexistent in the US since the early 1970s.

If it walks alt-right, quacks alt-right, well...

Just F&F trolls and let Muriel slap them with a scarlet letter.

What an intelligent argument, r67. If you've ever read or listened to Peterson, he's anything but alt-right.

R66 Neo-Marxism has different names now.

Cultural Marxism, Post Modernism, SJW, The Intersectionalists, The Perpetually-Discontent.

"Cultural Marxism" always seemed like a bit of a nonsense term to me. What exactly does it have to do with Marx? I wouldn't call him a post-modernist. I consider him a product of the Enlightenment, which it seems like a lot of post-modernists are critical of.

I have better things to do with my time, than listen to some crypto-regressive butthurt right winger giving speeches with neonazis and other shady characters and who is shaking his dumb worshippers for money.

R71 You're angry, aren't you?

You use the meaningless expression "butthurt" as part of your list of insults towards Peterson but I suspect you're more 'hurt' than him.

I'm just a skosh to the left of Ghandi, but I find his discussions pretty level-headed, compared to the loons who stay so upset with him. He's dead-on about the trans/pronoun thing, for example.

Ann Coulter (yes, I KNOW!) recently gave a talk and a Q&A at Oxford University (it's on Youtube), and the students were extremely polite and civil the entire time. Every single student who asked her a question was not a fan of hers, but the entire affair was civilized from beginning to end. None of the tantrum throwing and screeching and disruption you see over here. It was quite a contrast.

I'm NOT a fan of Ann Coulter at all, I'm just using this as an example that the histrionics and "shut it down" mentality of the left in the US and now Canada hurts them more than it helps.

This look familiar?

[quote] What a bunch of cowardly, self-involved, self-righteous and deluded fags. It is hysterical that you think anyone cares or is going to miss you.

R75 Who are you talking to?

Be explicit. Speak plainly!

70+ posts here, and I still have no idea what this guy has said or done that makes him considered alt-right by some. In fact, his only comment that has been highlighted is that he considers chaos feminine, a concept that doesn't make sense to me.

R77 Presumably he means it in a Jungian or mythopoeic sense. And as such the male and female need the qualities and energies of both sexes in order to achieve a healthy balance. For me this is his weak point, his near religious uncritical belief in the absolutely unscientific and discredited historical fads of Freudianism and Jungianism..which are no more credible than their postmodern offspring Lacan with its horrible admixture of Marxist theory

I admire Peterson's words and his calm good sense.

But I deplore his fanboys who upload his videos to Youtube with silly sensational titles saying that Peterson 'destroys' his interviewer.

Because it triggers people like R4, R12, R41, R54, R57 and R71.

Yeah, I don't get triggered, I just have stuff I like and don't like. Same as anyone. The shit quoted at R75 is a good example of why I'm suspicious of the Peterson fanboys who've sprouted like weeds over the last couple months. And while I understand the world is fucked up and people are confused, I'm also suspicious of people offering quick fixes to "chaos." No matter how many degrees they have.

He speaks in complex ideas and the media cannot handle it.

This is your chance once and for all to prove Peterson is alt right. Alt right ideals include protectionism, isolationism, antisemetism and most of all white supremacy. If Peterson has expressed support for ANY of these ideals I urge the leftwingers here to produce full quotes right now.

Is he uncut?

Peterson speaks much sense.

But a lot of his critics are complaining about small peripheral things (like how his voice occasionally goes up into a whiney high pitch and how he resembles that painful Jimmy Stewart).

But they are small peripheral things

R84

Actually confronting the questions that he poses, honestly reflecting on them, and then continuing to support many of the legislative initiatives they seek to implement would break their brains.

He points out, in detail, how women that don’t have children, focus on their career and are competent earn as much or more than their male peers. Then he dismantles all arguments for “equal pay” legislation.

Such arguments are hate speech now.

Troll R23 (They’ll be takin’ our guns) has made some very cogent arguments, defending Peterson and his campaign to save freedom of speech.

I’ve watched a few of his videos (the Trannies was horrific, but he handled it with aplomb) and interviews and he comes off as eminently reasonable and liberal.

Why all the vitriol towards him by OP and others?

R1

The Trannies video was my first exposure, but that interview me me a fan for life. The rampant and wanton destruction of free speech – on and off campus – is disturbing.

R6

I have worked with members of the Democratic Socialist party to enact criminal rights reforms. We disagreed vehemently about many things, but we ultimately worked together to stop a tragedy.

Peterson has identified as a liberal, so painting him as some kind of neo-Nazi puppet of Vladimir Putin is just stupid.

R10

The idiot at R9 is described in this 9 minute video.

SJWs (not normal liberals) get thoroughly demolished. SJWs are far more dangerous than White Supremacists. Mostly because SJWs outnumber them 100 to 1 and have multi millionaire backing.

This is what made me search for Peterson on DL.

Pleased by the people who are defending him.

[quote]I thought his discussion with Camille Paglia was pretty informative and I don't see why so many hard-right people appreciate Paglia. You can't cherry pick the things about personal responsibility and criticism of the left and leave out her pro-gay, (reluctantly) pro-choice and sex-positive, pro-pornography views.

Conservatives usually try to avoid conflating homosexuality and stupidity, unlike reality DL. The vast majority could give a shit about with whom she sleeps. The fact that she is reluctantly pro-choice and is able to articulate that is another plus. Oh, and conservatives watch as much porn as anyone.

Paglia is almost sui generis in her ability to take some extremely conservative positions and reconcile them, to a great extent, with extremely liberal positions, and also point out that Left and Right are NOT utterly divided on big issues (powerful corporations/banks, domestic government spying, innumerable wars that leave busted social programs and destroyed young men returning from overseas duty, unlimited corruption in DC/NYC.)

Reflexively hating on anybody that isn’t 100% anti-Trump is stupid

R13

That kind of disillusionment is going to result in disappointment in November unless Democrats wake the fuck up and develop a message. Waiting for Trump to fail is not an option

He has large hands.

R28

Solzhenitsyn changed my life at 16 too. Viktor Frankl too.

Fuck Derrida.

R38

Yes, you are marked as a troll.

Why?

I’m assuming that asking the question will give me a call troll nickname! This thread is a perfect example of the bullshit that Peterson is railing against.

I think if he designed a class for teenage boys and it was national curriculum we'd see a lot less school shootings.

—Anonymous

YES!

Teaching boys to be men, including the responsibilities of men, would reduce violence dramatically. Our society is sick.

Blocking r51 caused a LOT of posts to disappear.

R64

It fucking sucks that these retarded twats are destroying liberalism. They are delegitimizing real problems with this kind of whiny bitch attitude.

R70

Marx=socialism, the biggest killer of the 20th century.

His name should be reviled along with Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot...

Peterson was on Bill Maher last night making sense. The rest of the panel seemed aghast.

[quote]SJWs are far more dangerous than White Supremacists

No, you and your alt-right brethren just say so because exaggerating the influence of social liberals is in your best rhetorical interests. That's why you guys go on at length about individual college students or pretend like some associate professor who has never done anything of note is making US political policy. That's why Milo would go to colleges and use photos of Democratic students in his PowerPoint presentation and tell people to attack said Democrat.

Exaggerate their importance, declare them dangerous, attack them as though they were representative of a larger problem. Old, old trick, a favorite of dictators. Seriously.

Your shtick also involves jabbering on with vague pronouncements ("you just proved his point!" said without any other explanation, for instance) and wedging in something truly gross, like you just did. Diminishing white supremacy? Come on now.

Besides, everyone knows why you're here. It's for the same reason every alt-right group comes to places like DL: anonymous posting allows you to spread propaganda, and you go places where you think you'll find disaffected white men to join your cause.

R98

SJW too stupid to grasp reality.

[quote]If Peterson has expressed support for ANY of these ideals I urge the leftwingers here to produce full quotes right now.

You and your little pals have spent the whole thread saying he's a liberal, therefore he's not alt-right. But then you also call everyone else here "commie pinko f*gs" and leftists and left-wingers, so it's clear you've positioned yourself as anti-liberal, which makes it weird that you claim he's not right-wing.

You guys do occasionally say he's classical liberal, but like 99% of bros online you don't seem to really know what that means. To you, it's something to say when someone points out "women are irrational and shouldn't be paid the same as men" is not a liberal philosophy.

I don't believe in asking trolls to keep trolling so please don't take this as a request, just as observation: people would be more inclined to explain specifically why Peterson is alt-right if you guys ever convincingly showed he was truly the "common sense liberal" you claim. Because you don't bother to do anything but call names and say big words like "paradigm" and "Derrida," no one is going to bother with you.

I wouldn't bother myself, except that I hate how you assholes keep bumping this thread despite being repeatedly outed as trolls.

Can a metorite hit our planet already?

[quote]Peterson was on Bill Maher last night making sense. The rest of the panel seemed aghast.

The rest of the panel barely interacted with him, except for the moment when he condescendingly told Alex Wagner how to raise her kids. She was actually pretty gracious about it, all things considering.

This guy makes one or two good points underneath the bluster, but it's bizarre to me that he already has a cult who believe he can do no wrong. Nobody knew who the hell he was last year. People are so thirsty for gurus these days.

Socialism and Postmodernism are mutually exclusive. The former is all about adhering to a strict ideology, while the latter is all about disavowing rules and ideologies. Peterson should stick to psychology. Like virtually all scientists, he’s clearly not a polymath.

r103 what did he tell her to do with her kids?

He was just expounding on his general theories about children and parenting (which I don't think are all bullshit, to be fair) but he personalized it in a way that was a bit obnoxious ("since you're a parent, you'll want to know this"). I mean, we're still dealing with psychology and social science here. There's room for him to be wrong.

Postmodernism IS an ideology, R104

Postmodernism draws on strands of Marxist thought such as the Frankfurt school and other Marxist intellectuals in linguistics, sociology, even psychoanalysis (lacan); when after their god failed (communism) they were left up a blind alley and instead tried to pull the wool over everone else’s eyes.

R106 - Her response was "Parenting is hard." She proved his point - parents are unwilling to take responsibility for their decisions.

So what, you think parenting is easy? Would even Peterson agree with that?

Peterson hates people who don't have kids. I'd link to a good example of this but the article in question is posted on the Institute for Family Studies, a homophobic right wing organization that spent a lot of time railing against gay marriage. I don't want to give them clicks.

Peterson works there and is loved by the right wing readers of the "institute's" blog, but he's totally not right wing.

Anyway, he tends to yell about people not having kids like they're supposed to, and for those who have had kids, he yells about them being too liberal and turning their sons into weenie men.

I take it back -- he doesn't seem to work at the "institute," they're just big fans of what he says about "traditional marriage."

R111 and I can link you to actual hardline communist Reddits that rail against SJWs does that prove they are alt-right? Get some fücking critical thinking, tool.

Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man's smart person?

The terms alt-right and alt-left just get thrown around casually these days. Those are really the party fringes, who are beyond just "the right" or "the left".

The problem is that people are so afraid of actual conversation and debate, and so angry that both sides have some valid points, that they immediately label people alt-right or alt-left to try to discredit them, without having to seriously look at or consider alternate opinions.

Agree, r115

Liberals have lost any ability to actually argue facts- now, only feelings matter.

Sure, except that "alt-right" was originally a term that some geniuses on the right came up with, to separate themselves from neo-cons and libertarians. Breitbart types thought it was a great idea at one point. Then some other geniuses on the right got embarrassed by it because of its roots in outright white supremacy and decided "alt-left" needed to be a thing. It does get used now to describe all sorts of conservatives and not just Bannon's "economic nationalists," but it's no more a vague nonsense term than "SJW." Both are just used as insults and evidence that someone is falling back on played-out buzzwords instead of thinking.

R117

Do you happen to have a link to the first use of alt right as a term?

Not sure how I (or anyone) would be able to cite the first use of the term, but the wiki attempts to trace its history. It's not something the left invented.

[quote] it's no more a vague nonsense term than "SJW." Both are just used as insults

SJW's call themselves SJW's and consider it a badge of honor.

^ Not sure I've seen a single legit instance of that, but if so, I'm sure they're people I want nothing to do with, just like I want nothing to do with the Pepe freaks.

Example of proud SJW.

Here's an entertaining response to Peterson's book—and to most of the posters on this thread. R57 is almost the only one who speaks truth.

R123, did the guy at R122 write the review? It sure reads like it. Total SJW BS.

Anyone who stands up to the T madness is automatically vilified. It takes cojones to do so, especially when your livelihood is being threatened.

Not that I much give a shit, but you'll notice the rather annoying gent at R122 is striking a defensive posture about the term. Because it is overwhelmingly used as an insult.

And also as a substitute for thought, as we see in R124

Toxic rightwing bullshitter.

The fact that his positions – which are generally correct and factually unassailable – have not been disputed is telling.

Another narcissistic asshole. Perfect for the Trump era.

As someone pointed out above, psychology is not science, so he' not infallible .

His Cult-like followers consist mostly of straight white men.

He’s not openly anti-gay. He’s more like Richard Spencer, in that he probably thinks gays are just 2nd class citizens, who do not need to be persecuted or banished, but you shouldn’t waste too much words or time on them either, cause breeders are the only ones who really matter.

What unites Paglia and Peterson most is their background in academia. Both are railing against extremism that is troublesome but really only exists in academia. And for most students, that kind of extremism vanishes upon graduating university.

They make sense in a particular context, not as much in everyday life.

R130, no one is claiming Peterson is infallible, least of all him. He is actually quite humble. What is most galling to his opponents is that he focuses on facts, especially researched-based facts, with an awareness that there is still much to be discovered.

This is a really brutal takedown of him. It makes him sound part senile, part mystic snake oil salesman.

I saw him on Bill Maher last weekend. Never heard of him and knew nothing about his book, but I thought he was a pompous windbag who took forever to make a point.

r135 As said before, he does sound a bit senile.

I think we have some of his cult- stans on here. R133

He asked a very compelling question on Maher’s show- what happens if you remove Trump, and how will his supporters react. None of the guests actually attempted to answer.

President Mike Pence is the answer, BTW.

Little Nazi dude is upset ppl don't like him. Tragic. What happens if trump is removed??

So, we should ignore the rule of law with regard to trump cuz the little Nazis will be sad. Boo hoo.

Btw, he's a Nazi. Nazis and Marxists aren't the same.

[quote]what happens if you remove Trump, and how will his supporters react. None of the guests actually attempted to answer.

All that question proves is that Trump supporters are a violent mass who are holding the country hostage to their entitlement and insanity.

Someone made a very good point against Peterson.

This guy is someone who loves to say that political correctness and the fear of offending is hurting the West.

But he also passed his entire appearance on Maher insisting no one must offend Trump's people.

Sounds like a consistent thinker to you?

[quote]I don't see why so many hard-right people appreciate Paglia

Let's see...

Maybe because, despite being a lesbian, she says homosexuality is anti-natural and we should not have pursued equal rights?

Maybe because, despite saying she's an atheist, she speaks of nature as if it had an intelligence and a personality, much like a God, and says it even dictates to us what is natural and moral - much like a God would?

Maybe because, despite repeating again and again how much of a Democrat she is, she only comments on partisan politics to take a jab on Democrats for dumb reasons, such as mocking Sarah Palin's know-nothingness and child-like speech?

Maybe because she supported the Iraq War? Maybe because she says climate change is a hoax? Maybe because that capitalism alone suffices to liberate women from patriarchy (a novelty no doubt to the women in Saudi Arabia)?

There's no dearth of reasons for ordinary right-wingers to love her.

what bothered me about the BBC interview is that he actually called the female reporter "unsuccesful" and "unhappy". He was so rude laughing at her questions. It seems this guy also have issues with women. Hmm

Just go and read the You Tube comments on that interview. They think this guy is some sort of God and the reporter, who was doing her job, was a dumb bitch, "how dare you to challenge this highly superior human being", Really scary this dude and his followers. Similar to the deplorables indeed.

r142 He has an ego attitude that has developed since he blew up. I first saw him on a local current affairs show, and he didn't have it. He's acquired the Dawkins Smugness that will eventually do him in.

All the people who criticize him don't want to take an honest look at why he's popular, particularly amongst young, intelligent, helicopter-parented white males.

The academy is threatened by him because many colleges are financially struggling, and anything or one curtailing their cash flow is a threat. No administration wants to see a boycott that would affect enrollment in the genderqueer, intersectional and womens studies programs that make up a lot of the liberal arts colleges now. Alumni donations would be hurt by any controversy, so they'll just allow the media and radical SJWs to demonize him.

A university administrator was so threatened by an assistant prof using a video of a debate of his in her class he actually made up a fake complaint about an un-named trans student feeling "threatened" by it. She was called into a meeting and bullied by three superiors, and told now she'd have to have her teaching material approved. It was a horrible encounter, and wisely she taped it. One of the first things she was asked was if she studied with Peterson or attended uni where he taught.

After she released the tape, the shit hit the fan, and the university called in an independent investigator who determined that there was no complaint, formal or informal, about the lecture or the video. Why that guy is not fired right now is beyond me.

[quote] particularly amongst young, intelligent, helicopter-parented white males

I'm not convinced his target audience is that intelligent (I guess as intelligent as they can be in the world of fake news and the online echo chamber) but the fact that he is so popular with such a narrow demographic is indicative that there's not a lot of substance below the surface.

This isn't a debate about ideas. It's a reaction to a perceived threat to straight, white male social, cultural and political dominance. As a gay man, this really worries me. I see some pretty awful homophobia reasserting itself in the not-too-distant future in places it hasn't been seen in decades.

“Nazis and Marxists aren't the same.”

Maybe not. But tell that to the millions upon millions who were starved, murdered, sent to “re-education” camps, gulags, imprisoned for thought crimes, repressed, dispossessed, brutalised etc etc etc ad naseum

Beware of any ideology that aims to create the perfect human or the perfect society. Mass murder is soon to follow.

95% of his audience are young, lost, straight males looking for guidance and a daddy figure. The same guys who are vulnerable to joining the military. Underneath all the free speech, anti-PC talk, his "antidote to chaos" is basically a return to "traditional values" like getting married and raising a family, the larger the better. He doesn't really have a lot to say to gay people (or any people) who are reconciled to not wanting kids, and who believe it's possible to live an ethical life and navigate the complexities and confusions of modern life without just succumbing to the dictates of nature.

R142 Firstly, it was Channel 4, not the BBC.

Secondly, how are you reading that he has issues with women from that interview? It was a car crash that was entirely the fault of the interviewer; calling her out doesn't make someone a misogynist, nor does laughing at her frankly ridiculous questions.

Cathy Newman on the BBC was a horrible interviewer.

"So what you're saying is..."

How many times did she say that? I lost track at twenty.

I'm sorry that no one on the Maher show had a good answer to his question. The answer is, that during Nixon's impeachment investigation and hearings that the process was so lengthy and drawn out that bit by bit Nixon's supporters had to drop out and concede defeat. As people get indicted and convicted over the course of the process it becomes an inevitable conclusion that the leader has to go. The process itself takes care of the divide.

And that's whats going to happen here as well.

Yes there will stilll be ardent followers but the number will diminish until they are satisfactorally marginalized.

r101 I've never called anyone a commie pinko fag. I use 'leftwingers' because it's the most polite neutral term for leftwing people I can think of. I think it's telling how you accuse me of slinging baseless insults when you're the one who tried to assassinate Peterson's character by calling him alt-right and nazi adjacent. You still haven't backed up what you said. I don't think you ever will. But I like you responding because it shows me the legitimacy of what Peterson is saying.

The comparison to Marxism is interesting because I think it's similar in that the analysis is good but the solution isn't. That's how I look at Peterson.

And I think the larger issues he raises are important. The "self-identifying" doesn't mean that the rest of society has to automatically agree. It's necessary to have a 'centre' and the disruptors and 1% are actively trying to discourage fair discussion for their own ends.

Nazi=National Socialism =Marxist.

R140

If Trump is removed, his base will be enraged and quickly pledge support to President Pence. This will NOT be helpful to Democrats.

Pence is far more calculating and refined.

R148 This thread was fun until the Peterson apologists showed up.

R154 We are not discussing frivolous issues.

"Fun" isn't appropriate if we're discussing such issues as this which are fracturing our nation.

Cry me a river.

R155

Fracturing is probably the moa correct word possible.

Trump vs. The Media vs. what opposition can be summoned by our neutered Congress is the reality and unless dialogue can be restored then we no longer have a “united” states.

R157 I have spoken to eldergays who have remembered their 'horror' during the Reagan years because of his fumbling senility. Yet the nation survived.

But now we seem to be headed towards an uncivil war.

[quote]SJWs are far more dangerous than White Supremacists.

😂😂🙄

No, R154, it was fun until the ones who don't really understand what they're talking about showed up.

R160 here we go again, the JP cult gang are the bright ones who understand what they're talking about, the rest are just too dumb to understand JP's superior mind"

R148 "her frankly ridiculous questions".

"Equal pay for equal work" is a ridiculous subject to you? Talking about male privilege ...

R161 Have you seen the full interview?

R161 Can you praise Newman's style?

R162

Of course not. No one could watch that interview and consider her anything less than incompetent. She was like a rank amateur trying to understand quantum physics.

When you control for actual hours worked at the same actual job with the same degree and experience the way to get disappears completely.

If the wage gap is so large, why don’t these rapaciously capitalist companies hire only women and then save 20% in labor cost up front, undercutting any competition?

R163 wut? too much JP bullshit has ruined your brain.

Pagila is Ann Coulter for the trump set. Peterson is a Nazi and he is dangerous. The 14 year olds on 4chan think he's smart.

He's the guy who doesn't know deficit and debt are different.

R165 Who says he's the guy who doesn't know about deficit and debt?

Are you quoting something? or are you just grabbing at an insult?

I'll freely admit that I know next to nothing about Peterson, but I don't understand how the Nazi label applies. I'd love to see an actual detailed argument that outlines why his positions make him a Nazi.

I think you're all a bunch of stans for your respective points of view, because I read every freaking post in this thread, and I still have no clear idea about who Jordan Peterson is or what he's about. Nothing but ad hominems and rhetorical bait from all sides. Truly a tour de force of trollery.

[quote]She was like a rank amateur trying to understand quantum physics.

It truly is astounding to see people convince themselves in record time that this guy is the second coming of Einstein, Freud, Descartes, Aristotle, Jesus Christ and Buddha. Nobody knew who he was a few short months ago. He is the very definition of media hype.

R168 You shouldn't come to DL if you want a clear idea about Jordan Peterson.

Go to man himself on Youtube.

He talks about many things.

R166 I'm not grabbing an insult. My point is he's not as smart as he thinks he is. The dude is a clinical psychologist. Not a thing wrong with being a therapist. We need therapists. But, sweetie no. He doesn't know the difference between a debt and a deficit. He can't do the math, that's one reason he chose to be a therapist.

R171 Your point is you think he's not as smart as he thinks he is. In that case, ignore him.

And don't impose your intellectual bullying about the 32 genders blah, blah on him and us.

Phd in psychology and 20+ years in clinical practice = an idiot. Welcome to the world of the left.

Anyone stupid enough to label him a Nazi, when he has entire courses on the evils of the Holocaust, should be banned as a troll

Oh, wait, that’s only for people that don’t have proper beliefs about things Datalounge holds sacred.

R173 wow JP fanboys are so transparent. Oh, the dumb lefties who can't understand this brilliant man ! GTFO

This video is a good intro to his philosophy and a good starting point for those who are thinking about delving further. I also enjoyed his talk with Joe Rogan, where he explains his reasoning in a way that anyone could understand. His talks with Ben Shapiro, however, get too metaphysical and obtuse for my taste. Still, lots of great stuff. I also love the new video of Jordan and Stephen Fry exposing Michael Dyson and a visibly nervous Michelle Goldberg who is literally shaking.

R176 Please, stop it fanboy.

I still haven't heard WHY he's a Nazi

R168 is the epitome of DL lately. Several people posted details about Jordan "Enforced Monogamy" Peterson and yet he complains as though no one has, and shouts some version of "both sides are just as bad!" Insufferable.

The Peterson fanboys will never leave DL even though recent events have proven Peterson only cares about straight guys getting laid, married, then having kids. Gays don't exist to him... yet. When the usual offensive crap stops getting him attention he'll move on to homophobia and racism.

I'm not a fan, it just gets me defensive when people try to assassinate his character for helping men find who they are in this new world where it's not clear what role men are supposed to have. Gay men are still men and it's always been a matter of taking what's useful to you and leaving the rest.

We have taste, so we would never fuck you r177

Peterson is a genius at pointing out the failures of the modern Left, and we should be LISTENING not attacking.

Calling someone who has dedicated their lives to helping Jews a Nazi Holocaust denier just shows how stupid the majority of young liberals are, and many adult liberals that should know better. You people are just idiots.

R178

He doesn’t believe you can change your gender. He doesn’t believe that socialism can ever work except in small homogenous societies. He does not believe that multiculturalism enriches the society it infects.

So, he’s not a Nazi, he just pokes holes in the sacred beliefs of ignorant liberals.

Here's the full Munk debate with Peterson, Fry, Dyson and Goldberg.

The only use for Jordan Peterson is that he's proof for why tenure is important. He's not saying anything particularly enlightening, his claim to research in neuropsychology is a decade and a half expired, and his views are probably the culmination of bias in search of an ideology. However, the next publicly controversial academic might say something enlightening and we can't risk that she will be shut down in the fashion that some would like to shut down Peterson. Therefore, Peterson makes the case for tenure but little else.

[quote] His talks with Ben Shapiro, however, get too metaphysical and obtuse for my taste.

Did you mean "abstruse"? Even if so, ben trovato!

The link at R134 should answer the posters claiming that Peterson's critics have only made ad hominem charges.

R183 Not impressed with Dyson or Michelle Goldberg, who looked like Alex Borstein from a Mad TV sketch. The Canadian audience even booed Dyson at one point.

R185 That article is fascinating in that the author accuses Peterson of obfuscating in the same manner that academics and postmodernists have been doing for decades. However, instead of drawing from various disciplines, as Peterson does, they will impose their own meaning as a way to deconstruct art and literature from the past in a way that suits their political agenda. Peterson uses historical and social context as a way to enhance his theories.

[quote] It’s very easy to hear the echoes of authoritarianism, even fascism, in this: strong men create order, which is what God intends, and the social structure is preserved by deference to authority, tradition, hierarchy, flags. (Heck, he even talks about the trains running on time!) But the moment one tries to critique this, to talk about the dangers of adhering to flags and traditions for their own sake, Peterson will angrily insist that you have misunderstood his theory: order is symbiotic with chaos, not superior to it! (“Order is not enough.”) The feminine is necessary as well, because chaos is associated with “possibility itself, the source of ideas, the mysterious realm of gestation and birth.”

Peterson has never advocated for a patriarchal system. His view is that both genders need each other and support one another. This view is shared by many social scientists and academics who study human behavior. Both genders are different and both have different ways of dealing with conflict. He doesn't speak in absolute terms because neither one is right or wrong.

[quote] This is the same thing that happens with his discussions of nice guys and cruelty. He’ll say that people who are too nice will get taken advantage of, and talk about the importance of being capable of cruelty, which certainly sounds like it’s encouraging people to be sadistic dicks, but then he’ll insist that actually he’s not talking about being cruel he’s talking about being able to be cruel (you idiot, how could you not see the difference?) and he’s not against nice people, he’s just saying that the weak shall perish.

The nice guys he is talking about are ones who don't face their fears and who avoid conflict.

[quote] When he seems to be saying something fallacious (e.g. hierarchies are okay because natural) he will qualify it with a caveat that means he is saying nothing at all (e.g. natural things are sometimes okay but not always).

This is his endorsement of a capitalist society. You can admit that one system has flaws without endorsing an alternative system that is ultimately more destructive.

[quote] I think it’s worth remembering here what anti-discrimination activists are actually asking for: they want transgender people not to be fired from their jobs for being transgender, not to suffer gratuitously in prisons, to be able to access appropriate healthcare, not to be victimized in hate crimes, and not to be ostracized, evicted, or disdained. Likewise, the social justice claims on race are about: trying to fix the black-white wealth gap, trying to reduce racial discrimination in job applications, trying to reduce race-based health disparities and educational achievement gaps, and reducing the unfair everyday biases that make life harder for people of color.

The author again shows his bias. The author tries to discredit him by saying he has nothing of value to say but doesn't address what Peterson says about racial or gender inequality.

College professors that freshmen come in certain that they know EVERYTHING based on his teachings. They say these students are nearly unteachable.

R183

Thanks for that. Anyone who believes that this man isn’t a hard-core liberal is just being obstinate. Stupid people will believe whatever the media tells them to believe. Since Peterson is a threat to them, by exposing the truth of the dangers government power always creates, liberals hate him.

They refuse to actually listen to his arguments, just repeating bullshit they heard from MSNBC.

R184

Just wait until the research on IQ and place of genetic origin finally reaches the mainstream. Cyril articles have been rejected by scientific journals because they draw specific conclusions about general intelligence levels with in various ethnic subgroups.

Once the data cannot be denied, and differences in parental biology are shown to be statistically significant, imagine the blowback.

The fact that Nigerians from the Igbo tribe, Ashkenazi Jews, and Han Chinese score higher on IQ tests, “White Privilege” will be replaced by something equally stupid.

R184: One can debate what is better, tenure or a good union. It is interesting that he never published that doxing list of University of Toronto professors who were all MARXISTS ARGLE BARGLE! Probably cause the University said he would be fired and he would be sued by any name on that list. The man is a coward and a phony, and it's sad so many self-loathing trolls on this site keep creating and bumping threads about him.

R188: As a future college profess (hopefully), that is bad news. I've taught as a grad student and had to shut down a pizzagater in one of my classes. A fellow grad student instructor said anyone who uses the terms cuck or deep state automatically gets an F in participation (he was only half-joking).

Both are immensely important, r191, in my opinion.

What happens when the tide turns, and anyone with socialist or Marxist beliefs are automatically removed from any position in society because those beliefs?

I'm not sure I understand your comment, r190.

r165, you've obviously never read her work. Moron.

If the end goal is individuality why should I conform to specific gender assignments?

R196: Her work is garbage. She just thinks putting a penis on everything is subversive, while she openly supports any and all right-wing political movements in the name of contrarianism. She is a waste of time.

Paglia was way ahead of her time and only lately has she been called a right winger. Her views haven't changed much but society has, which is why they view her work differently now.

R199: She was always a right-wing waste of time. She has never said anything accurate or interesting in her entire career.

r200 one long ad hominem... what a terrible article

200 you're obviously not familiar with Paglia. She can be nuts, but at times she can also be very insightful.

R195

Imagine the uproar when the datasets regarding genes that correspond with IQ are released, with DNA from hundreds of millions backing up the data, and genes that overwhelmingly correspond with IQ are more prevalent in many North Europeans and Eastern Asians.

How will honest, deeply philosophically liberal people react to that kind of science?

Before you called me a white supremacist, I would like to point out that East Asians have a five point advantage over us!

[quote]As a future college professor (hopefully), that is bad news

When you start a sentence with "As a future college professor," the next word can only be "I."

R202: She's anti gay-rights. She's a waste of time, no one cares about her. It's not 1992 anymore, stop trying to maker her happen.

One thing I never understood about Paglia is that she insists on environmental factors making someone gay yet she is pro biology on everything else.

We didn't like her in 1992 either.

Aah..just watched him. I'm so much better than him. You are as well.

R203—I'm skeptical that there will ever be conclusive evidence of a genetic link to intelligence that can also account for environmental factors. In other words, I'm skeptical of the usefulness of the hypothetical datasets as you describe in propagating the sort of "informed" bigotry some describe as forthcoming.

Nevertheless, tenure will be important for academics researching such a controversial subject. I'm much more encouraged by the ability of a tenured professor researching the subject than by a basement dweller looking to confirm his bias. If we don't let the academy research controversial subject matter, we cede the ground to those who are far more likely to cover it dishonorably.

R206: That's easy, she's a fraud who doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about. She's an English professor for God's sake, she is not remotely qualified to talk about biology or psychology yet she opens her yap on these two things every chance she can. But the real reason is she hates liberals and especially liberal gays, so she's trolling.

R203: Hi Charles Murray, how long has your racist ass been trolling DL?

Interesting article on Peterson in the New York Times, written by a woman who spent two days with him. She details his anti-PC views and opinions on what he sees as the proper societal positions of men and women. She also accompanies him to a public event, where he interacts with his mostly male followers. (Her observations of how he dresses for this, as well as his use of different vocal expressions, is telling.)

However, after all that, there’s no mention of his wife, whom he married in 1989, nor their son and daughter, all three of whom must have opinions of their own. Odd, that after so much sturm und drang about gender expectations, not a word is said about his own life, and how he and his family manage.

Nor is there any noted opinion of his about gay people, who after all have been around for millenia, let alone how we fit into his heteronormative scheme of things. (I even checked online about this, and he seems to have avoided voicing any opinions on gays and gay history, at all)

That said, he seems to access the disenfranchised group of so-called “incel” males (“involuntarily celibate,” because the women they want don’t want them). This group believes that women should be federally doled out to them, and included a man, who recently went on a killing spree in Toronto, simply because he didn’t have a girlfriend, and was resentful of women in general. He is not alone.

Paglia has never been anti-liberal or anti-gay. WTF do you people even read her stuff?

R212: I've listened to her in interviews and she is those things. She was opposed to gay marriage, opposed to gays in the military, praised David Horowitz, says being gay is a choice and repeatedly attacked "East Coast liberals" for being "mean" to Barry Goldwater. Reading her book will not give a full view of her belief system. She is not an ally to us. You want to fanboy for her, go ahead. But you don't get to deny reality to make her look better than she actually is.

I can only think of one video of his where he referenced gay men, saying something to the effect that sexual promiscuity was higher among them than the 'general population'.

No way I can track it down now, as there are so many videos of his on YouTube, many with stupid clickbait titles from conservative channels ("Jordan Peterson DESTROYS liberal dipshit", "Jordan Peterson ANNIHILATES leftist assclown" and so on).

What Paglia actually said about gay marriage:

[quote]I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past. My position has always been (as in "No Law in the Arena" in my 1994 book, "Vamps & Tramps") that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement.

That's hardly being anti-gay marriage, she's opposed to marriage for everyone, and favors civil unions. Whether you agree with that or not, she's not saying gays shouldn't be married.

R215: In a 2003 BookTV interview, she said gays could handle the marriage issue using contract law, wills and power of attorney, and if they weren't already doing that, then they were "irresponsible." Your little quote there is cute, but the bitch has done nothing herself to make her views reality and knows that her views will NEVER be enacted. She was and is anti-gay marriage, which is the only way we were going to get the benefits of it.

I think this is the article referenced by R211.

r216 the point is she doesn't believe in heterosexual marriage either.

[quote] government should get out of the marriage business

This blatant denial of reality is just the sort of "foot stomping" she complains about in the gay community. We have to live in the real world where this is very unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

The only time Peterson ever mentions gays on Twitter is when he wants to use gays for his anti-trans stuff.

He went fully homophobic a month ago in a YouTube video, starting about 31 minutes in if you're interested.

What the hell is "posting error #69"?

[quote]He went fully homophobic a month ago in a YouTube video, starting about 31 minutes in if you're interested.

Except he didn't. He warns against single parenting and maintains that the basic nuclear family is the ideal structure, but also he's open to alternative structures.

Peterson = vaguely recycled Jungian crap with some Joseph fucking Campbell thrown in to make it all go down nice and easy for anguished white dudes. He's not really saying anything very interesting once you start to dig into his nutty diagrams and apothegms.

Doesn't mean he's wrong about some of the postmodernist loon-toons running around some floors of the ivory towers, but it surely doesn't mean that he's the next coming of Hegel or whatever intellectual flavor gets people riled up before age 25.

His followers are, almost to a one, stupid people who imagine themselves as some cosmic elite. Asinine!

In contrast, the attractive men in the NCDS sample have a mean IQ of 105.00, and the unattractive men have a mean IQ of 91.39. The difference between them is 13.61, which is almost one full standard deviation in the IQ distribution (σ = 15). This mean difference implies a correlation coefficient of r = .414, which is very large in any survey data.

Genes determine looks, why not intelligence?

Stephen Jay Gould, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

R219 and R223 both get it! Here endth the lesson.

Peterson on IQ and race.

To many of his followers, he is the first 'public intellectual' they've had any exposure to. They're easily impressed.

Keep telling yourself that, r228

When he is proven right you will throw a tantrum like a little bitch.

I never said I didn't like him or that he wasn't worth listening to, R229, or that he doesn't have interesting opinions on some subjects. I just realize many of his admirers are young and haven't been exposed to a lot of different ideas and therefore may have an inflated opinion of him.

Your second sentence is predictably pulled out of your ass.