Current Events > turns out Jordan Peterson is an awful therapist too

(+) Yeah! (+)

You can be the most Shit person in the world and as long as you talk bad about the left there are many on the right who would give you a seat at their table .

BignutzisBack posted...

He is the perfect example of liberals not being able to handle someone who's views don't exactly align with theirs. Imagine being that triggered by someone who is just trying to help people with lectures lol

Being asshole that hurts people is ok, as and supported by some on the right as long as you hate the "Liberals"
---

This topic has made me realize we need a GIF of that Deadpool 2 bit where he fails to deflect Cable's bullets. It would be so fucking useful around here.
---

Romes187 posted...

Interesting...do you disagree with that claim?

And you equate that to defending?

no and yes

I, too, defend hierarchies, as a matter of fact, and I don't think he is an alt-right figure. My contention is more that the way that he argues leaves him open to those kind of gotcha moments because he employs them himself against the 'other side'

Romes187 posted...

The argument against him goes like this

1. There is inequality in our society
2. This inequality tends to displace minorities and women more than men and whites
3. Systemic racism and the patriarchy are solely or mostly to blame
4. Jordan Peterson does not believe this to be the case
5. Jordan Peterson does believe that systemic racism and the patriarchy do create SOME hierarchies based on power instead of authority, but that most sustainable long term hierarchies are based on competence
6. Therefore he is defending systemic racism / the patriarchy

Where I differ is that last point...I don't feel like he is defending things.

What say you

I think that is a good summary of the argument against him. Where I think the difference first occurs is in (5) since racism and sexism have been very long-term and sustainable hierarchies.

So it isn't clear where he stands on the idea of their existence of justification, since he phrases so many of his claims as questions -- e.g., "maybe men are rulers because they are more suited to ruling?" isn't a bizarre or off the wall question to ask, but if he was actually asking that, why does he never phrase it differently? "maybe women aren't rulers because men are more powerful and collectively benefit from subjugating women" is just as valid a question and the answer you get for either question should also answer the other

What IS clear to me is that he thinks hierarchies are necessary and inescapable, another thing I agree with him on FWIW. But I rarely if ever see him question the nature of hierarchies in western societies except to argue that they are understandable and laudable.

s0nicfan posted...

How the hell can I be more charitable towards "Peterson is a secret alt-right figure even though he openly and repeatedly claims to be left wing"? Like... where's the nuance that allows me to even consider additional charity?

Seriously, are you actually arguing that there's no difference between a debate on Derrida's particular ideological slant and a label given with little justification?

I'm saying that the two things are the same and you are giving a lot more weight to Peterson's argument than you should, yes. "Derrida is secretly a Marxist even though he openly and repeatedly claims not to be a Marxist" is literally the same thing, except you believe it is true so you are willing to go with it.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Where I think the difference first occurs is in (5) since racism and sexism have been very long-term and sustainable hierarchies.

We'll probably need to unpack long term and sustainable. Can you provide examples of hierarchies that have had long term success that are based off of racism and sexism? Not saying they don't exist...it'll just make the conversation easier for me if I have an example of what you are thinking.

Balrog0 posted...

So it isn't clear where he stands on the idea of their existence of justification, since he phrases so many of his claims as questions -- e.g., "maybe men are rulers because they are more suited to ruling?" isn't a bizarre or off the wall question to ask, but if he was actually asking that, why does he never phrase it differently? "maybe women aren't rulers because men are more powerful and collectively benefit from subjugating women" is just as valid a question and the answer you get for either question should also answer the other

I have heard him mention he speaks like that because he is thinking out loud...he has often stated that he is trying to figure things out when he lectures and taking the listeners with him.

The second question you stated reduces it simply to a power game. He has argued many times that of course that is part of it. But his main argument is that it is NOT all of it, and that he doesn't believe its even close to a majority of it. That seems likely to me. But its a hard question.

Balrog0 posted...

What IS clear to me is that he thinks hierarchies are necessary and inescapable, another thing I agree with him on FWIW. But I rarely if ever see him question the nature of hierarchies in western societies except to argue that they are understandable and laudable.

His main argument about hierarchies being inescapable is also partly because you can't have an ethic without one. Action becomes impossible because at the very least, when you act in the world, you are preferring one action above the other.

He has often said that hierarchies are brutal and unfair at times - but he has said that hierarchies built around competence are at the least, the best thing we could hope for. Unless you have a better idea of how to structure a hierarchy? I'm open to hearing

Balrog0 posted...

I'm saying that the two things are the same and you are giving a lot more weight to Peterson's argument than you should, yes. "Derrida is secretly a Marxist even though he openly and repeatedly claims not to be a Marxist" is literally the same thing, except you believe it is true so you are willing to go with it.

Except his exact words as quoted in that link below aren't "Derrida is secretly a Marxist". It's:

Derrida and Foucault were, for example, barely repentant Marxists, if repentant at all. They parleyed their 1960s bourgeoisie vs proletariat rhetoric into the identity politics that has plagued us since the 1970s. Foucaults fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. Thats a rehashing of the Marxist claim of eternal and primary class warfare. Derridas hypothetical concern for the marginalized is a version of the same thing. I dont really care if either of them made the odd statement about disagreeing with the Marxist doctrines: their fundamental claims are still soaked in those patterns of thought.

So he fully acknowledges their denial, and responds appropriately. Again, more nuance and context. If you want to provide some argumentative nuance or context to the people claiming he's alt-right then go ahead, but these are again NOT the same.
---

s0nicfan posted...

So he fully acknowledges their denial, and responds appropriately. Again, more nuance and context. If you want to provide some argumentative nuance or context to the people claiming he's alt-right then go ahead, but these are again NOT the same.

But people who say Peterson is an alt-right figure don't deny he claims otherwise, they deny that it is true when he claims otherwise, or alternatively, that being a self-described classical liberal isn't inconsistent with being part of the alt-right

In what way is that not the same thing?
---

"I don't really care if Peterson makes the odd statement of disagreeing with neonazis, his fundamental claims are soaked in their patterns of thought"

is literally something I can see a peterson detractor saying
---

cjsdowg posted...

Being asshole that hurts people

What delusion lol, anything to fit him into your little box. We get it dude, anyone who doesn't share your exact views is a monster.
---

Balrog0 posted...

"I don't really care if Peterson makes the odd statement of disagreeing with neonazis, his fundamental claims are soaked in their patterns of thought"

is literally something I can see a peterson detractor saying

And if you can find one that makes that argument with the same level of analysis of his against Derrida, you'll have a point. Until then, you're just blindly shooting in the dark and hoping to hit a point. If all Peterson did was say that line you'd also be right, but he actually bothers to examine Derrida's written lines of thought and make clear parallels between them and marxist theory. AGAIN, and I'll keep saying it, the difference here is the level of effort and thought put into his claim. He's actually engaging in rational arguments using his opponents' own work as evidence. They're NOT comparable.
---

Balrog0 posted...

"I don't really care if Peterson makes the odd statement of disagreeing with neonazis, his fundamental claims are soaked in their patterns of thought"

is literally something I can see a peterson detractor saying

That's fine, I'd just ask the detractor to provide which fundamental claims he is making that is soaked in that pattern of thought

and if lecturing on the evils of nazism for 20 years is an odd statement then i just dont know what to think

BlueJester007 posted...

Bloodychess posted...

It's amazing and unsettling how obsessed some people are with him now for purely negative reasons.

Honestly, this
---