Mens Tennis Forums banner

21 - 40 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,034 Posts
I like his anti-PC stance, but he always sounds so angry.

Last year a grad student teaching assistant in a Canadian university showed one of his videos in a class. Her "progressive" prof hauled her into a meeting, where she was confronted by four staff members, who told her that showing a Peterson video was like showing a Hitler video and she should never have done this without warning her students, so as to avoid any triggering. She said that she presented the video neutrally, and left the students to decide for themselves, if they agreed with Peterson.

This wise young woman secretly recorded the meeting. She got a complete apology. And the progressive professor? The university decided that there need to be more dialogue. In other words, the progressives could continue in their ways, but just try not to get caught repressing free speech.
Well yeah this is how he started, but he's revealed way more about himself since then, and you of all people should think he's an ass.

Unless Abraxas just makes you look progressive by comparison!

To only say this much about him is really "fake news" there's been mountains since--he has all the classic positions of alt right, just in fancier, more eloquent clothing.

Plus he's just cheesy and self promoting and totally facile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,034 Posts
His recent interview with Helen Lewis for GQ was quite interesting. I hope that his tendency to cite Dostoevsky will lead some of the victims of modern education to read more great literature and spend less time on the internet.
No it doesn't work that way.

They will spend even more time on the internet googling Dost., none have the attention to read a book like that.

And if they did, they will misunderstand him, like Peterson did.
Peterson is a character in a Dost novel, almost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,380 Posts
As for the widely circulated assertion that he is "alt right", it is patent nonsense. The accusation could only come from someone unfamiliar with the alt right, whose acolytes are broadly hostile towards Peterson. They are right to be hostile, too, because he does not share their quasi-religious commitment to racial nationalism (the foundational and most integral precept of the "alternative right"), and has consistently spoken at length against their racial identitarianism. They correctly view him as a threat to the growth of their movement.

Given how much the term "far-right" has been diluted over the past 20 years, it comes as no surprise that someone like Peterson can be mislabeled in that way. I find it funny that some of the people who apply these inappropriate labels to him have the gall to complain when he abuses terminology for his own ends (particularly in relation to postmodernism).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57,539 Posts
Religious nut sexist transphobic proto-fascist who maintains (well, used to maintain) an aura of respectability by couching this in terms of outdated psychology and checkout aisle self-help platitudes.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
So it's really that bad in universities? That's a part of his speech that I couldn't really verify, so I though that maybe he's exagerating a bit on that topic.
Yes, it is. If the woman had not been smart enough to record her inquisition, she would have been punished for using a Peterson tape in a class discussion, because she did not warn her students in advance that they may not agree with his opinions.

As it turned out, during her inquisition it came out that no student had complained. Only her professors complained.
And that is the debate in Canadian universities today. Do students have the right to be taught in a "safe place" where they will never be exposed to non-progressive opinions.

There are quite a few cases of student groups with non-PC opinions that want to have on-campus meetings. They are told that they must pay large amounts of money to pay for security, because some students will threaten violence if their meeting goes ahead.
But other meetings take place with no demands for money from the university at all.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
Well yeah this is how he started, but he's revealed way more about himself since then, and you of all people should think he's an ass.

Unless Abraxas just makes you look progressive by comparison!

To only say this much about him is really "fake news" there's been mountains since--he has all the classic positions of alt right, just in fancier, more eloquent clothing.

Plus he's just cheesy and self promoting and totally facile.
And a widely published and respected academic in his field.

How can it be fake news if you do not dispute what I said about him, other than claiming that I did not say what you think I should say? But the bottom line here is that my post said absolutely nothing about Peterson, only about a student teacher that showed a Peterson video.

Yet you are ready to condemn me for even mentioning his name, apparently. Because he should not be spoken of in progressive circles? Why should I of all people think he is an ass?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,927 Posts
He uses his charisma and oratory skills to introduce God/supernatural into some of his talks, the Christian God to be precise. And he is very slippery around it. It is difficult to see past his words, but after spending some effort you can. "Is Jesus' resurrection real? His spirit certainly lives on. Spirit is a pattern of being. Patterns can be transmitted across various substrates - electronic impulses, air, vibrations in your ear. The pattern is independent of its material substrate. Did his body resurrect? I don't know.".

Deepak Chopra does the same stuff with hinduism, just that he isn't as smart or charismatic.
The thing is Peterson's religious phenomenology is based on Carl Gustav Jung's archetypical religious-psychology which is quite flawed, not only from an agnostic point of view, but more so from a Christian. There's a reason why he's called a Jungtard among us (philosophers/theologians), so his in-depth stances on religion scratch solely the surface. He's more secure and eloquent, when he's talking on basic fundamentals (not to be confused with fundamentalism) of Christianity as its whole.

However, Peterson isn't outstanding for his takes on religion, but more so on free will and its correlation with political correctness. In nuce you could say he's anti-ideological (which is quite common for a conservative) and today's use of political correctness could easily turn into a political correctnessism if there's no debate on the linguistic turn-over of the way we (shall) speak with freedom of speech. And it's definitely a very crucial point he's mentioning (and I'm also working on) as he's the first one to publicly point out what nobody dared to say or do (which I'll lose a few words on at the end).

How much of my freedom I have to give up for to speak universally true sentences without discriminating any possibly thinkable minority? I need to have them on my mind, whenever I want to say something. Peterson emphasis that this focused way of how to speak is a deprivation of liberty and it had unforeseeable impacts we haven't yet discovered from a psychological view. He thinks that this linguistic turn has a huge influence on how men became more insecure and less manlier for example.

So basically he's asking which are the psychological effects from the meta level of linguistic terms on the way we speak and shall speak; and whether *'political correctness' needs to be politically obligatory or subjective voluntary. He's asking this question to everyone and nobody is allowed to be in my position of responding this question without asking me as compelled speech would be violating my freedom of speech.

Gonna spoil a short preview of the quintessence of my upcoming essay on it which is that Peterson is the psychological challenge for analytic philosophy, just like Jung and Freud have been for continental philosophy. Psychological impacts of linguistic terms were never part of the analytic philosophy, but will do in the future. Gonna attend a congress of him hopefully soon.

Those are the philosophical aspects of his thinking, but I don't agree with him and my opinion differentiates of his one on the same matter.

* Peterson wouldn't agree to use the term 'political correctness' here, he'd call it differently, but I phrased it with a more common word in the sense of what he means with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,984 Posts
He lives around the corner from me, and is alt right in sheep's clothing.

Really a piece of pseudo-intellectual crap.

Writes idiotic books with "rules" for living--this should give him away to anyone with a brain.

He initially spoke out against some PC language and the Charter of rights in Canada (he could have technically gone to jail for not using gender neutral pronouns and was protesting this) around trans-genderism and was brefily sympathetic--even I liked him 2 minutes.

Then he became an internet star fast and start spewing all kinds of garbage. There are many articles on him in Canada written by former friends who describe him as a little demagogue, kind of a creep.

Even the normally middle of the road national magazine Maclean's calls him "the stupid person's smart person"

I think that's accurate.

If you're a progressive, look deeper into him and you will find him repulsive.

If not, and you're not too bright, he might be your man!
:lol: Maclean's is middle of the road. I suppose the CBC is middle of the road too?

Well, because you think an opinion piece in a left leaning magazine is accurate does nothing to Jordan's Peterson's argument. As usual, very little was done to oppose him academically so people have adapted the ad hominem attacks like a 'stupid person's smart person': ridiculous.

I like how you smuggle in the concept that if you are not 'progressive' (whatever that means) you might not be too bright. Typical arguments, or lack thereof. You can nit pic all you like because you don't agree with his position, but without a decent argument you are just handwaving.

Of course academics in universities don't like him because he has the audacity to critique their little oligarchy of thought control, un-verifiable theses about society, and very poor academic standards. Go figure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,984 Posts
So it's really that bad in universities? That's a part of his speech that I couldn't really verify, so I though that maybe he's exagerating a bit on that topic.

@buddyholly already beat me to the punch. Yes, it is absolutely that bad. Not only the points he mentioned, but also there are ramifications in the way students are evaluated.

Good luck criticizing Marx if your Victorian Lit professor is a radical left-wing marxist postmodern thinker. They spend their careers navel gazing and writing papers, going on 'research' sabbaticals etc., so they will have no criticism of their pet theories - their life's work. It is even worse now than 10 years ago when I was back in University as a mature student.

I may not agree with all of Peterson's positions, but I give him credit for attacking the elephant in the room that many were too scared or felt threatened to address.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,984 Posts
As for the widely circulated assertion that he is "alt right", it is patent nonsense. The accusation could only come from someone unfamiliar with the alt right, whose acolytes are broadly hostile towards Peterson. They are right to be hostile, too, because he does not share their quasi-religious commitment to racial nationalism (the foundational and most integral precept of the "alternative right"), and has consistently spoken at length against their racial identitarianism. They correctly view him as a threat to the growth of their movement.

Given how much the term "far-right" has been diluted over the past 20 years, it comes as no surprise that someone like Peterson can be mislabeled in that way. I find it funny that some of the people who apply these inappropriate labels to him have the gall to complain when he abuses terminology for his own ends (particularly in relation to postmodernism).
Spot on! All someone has to do is wave around the term 'alt right' and they have immediately discredited an opposing view - at least in progressive circles. Those who can think for themselves are not so easily fooled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,017 Posts
The thing is Peterson's religious phenomenology is based on Carl Gustav Jung's archetypical religious-psychology which is quite flawed, not only from an agnostic point of view, but more so from a Christian. There's a reason why he's called a Jungtard among us (philosophers/theologians), so his in-depth stances on religion scratch solely the surface. He's more secure and eloquent, when he's talking on basic fundamentals (not to be confused with fundamentalism) of Christianity as its whole.

However, Peterson isn't outstanding for his takes on religion, but more so on free will and its correlation with political correctness. In nuce you could say he's anti-ideological (which is quite common for a conservative) and today's use of political correctness could easily turn into a political correctnessism if there's no debate on the linguistic turn-over of the way we (shall) speak with freedom of speech. And it's definitely a very crucial point he's mentioning (and I'm also working on) as he's the first one to publicly point out what nobody dared to say or do (which I'll lose a few words on at the end).

How much of my freedom I have to give up for to speak universally true sentences without discriminating any possibly thinkable minority? I need to have them on my mind, whenever I want to say something. Peterson emphasis that this focused way of how to speak is a deprivation of liberty and it had unforeseeable impacts we haven't yet discovered from a psychological view. He thinks that this linguistic turn has a huge influence on how men became more insecure and less manlier for example.

So basically he's asking which are the psychological effects from the meta level of linguistic terms on the way we speak and shall speak; and whether *'political correctness' needs to be politically obligatory or subjective voluntary. He's asking this question to everyone and nobody is allowed to be in my position of responding this question without asking me as compelled speech would be violating my freedom of speech.

Gonna spoil a short preview of the quintessence of my upcoming essay on it which is that Peterson is the psychological challenge for analytic philosophy, just like Jung and Freud have been for continental philosophy. Psychological impacts of linguistic terms were never part of the analytic philosophy, but will do in the future. Gonna attend a congress of him hopefully soon.

Those are the philosophical aspects of his thinking, but I don't agree with him and my opinion differentiates of his one on the same matter.

* Peterson wouldn't agree to use the term 'political correctness' here, he'd call it differently, but I phrased it with a more common word in the sense of what he means with it.
Thank you for this, Andreas, really appreciated, was a good read.

I also would like to learn your opinion (if you have any) on David Benatar and his antinatalist stance; although kinda off-topic since here it is more about where Peterson is standing regarding left & right and other stuff. But Benatar really caught my attention, listening bits of his podcasts, so would like to read your take-on if you are familiar with him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
That Cathy Newman interview was painful, the issue I had, was her continued reframing of his answers 'so you are saying...*insert something outrageous*'. I don't know if she was looking for a soundbite, but he wasn't giving it her, it was so cringe. When one person is aggressive, and the other isn't, there is always an uncomfortable dynamic, and it makes the aggressor look a bit ridiculous, regardless of the point they are trying to make.

Just to clarify, his issue with transgender pronouns is based on the law, rather than any prejudice against them? He didn't like being told that he had to use certain language, but if asked personally, he would address them in the way they ask, and this became a huge controversy?

I haven't heard of him before, I don't really know anything about his views, but I will have a look, he seems to raise interesting questions at least.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
He lives around the corner from me, and is alt right in sheep's clothing.

Really a piece of pseudo-intellectual crap.

Writes idiotic books with "rules" for living--this should give him away to anyone with a brain.

He initially spoke out against some PC language and the Charter of rights in Canada (he could have technically gone to jail for not using gender neutral pronouns and was protesting this) around trans-genderism and was brefily sympathetic--even I liked him 2 minutes.

Then he became an internet star fast and start spewing all kinds of garbage. There are many articles on him in Canada written by former friends who describe him as a little demagogue, kind of a creep.

Even the normally middle of the road national magazine Maclean's calls him "the stupid person's smart person"

I think that's accurate.

If you're a progressive, look deeper into him and you will find him repulsive.

If not, and you're not too bright, he might be your man!
This whole posts reeks of the self-described progressive view that anything or anyone that does not toe the progressive line is to be stomped out.

It exactly defines why universities are suffocating and becoming institutions where free speech is abhorred instead of revered.

Of all places, universities are where young people should expect to be confronting opposing views. And instead of fostering an intellectual ability to discuss them, the mantra of today is to silence anything that is an opposing view to that of the progressives.

Anyone who is interested should find the ‘Laurier University Lindsay Shepard audio" on YouTube. Her secret taping of the inquisition was what saved her from these repulsive professors. It is chilling how these three progressive professors try to beat up on the student, even telling her that it is none of her business who, or even how many of her students, complained. It was later revealed that there was no complaint. Yet this professor lied and told Lindsay the names of the people complaining were kept secret so as not to risk their safety! It later transpired that a professor overheard Lindsay's students discussing their class and ran to the authorities to tell them that heresy was being taught at Laurier!
During the inquisition the progressives keep on insisting that non-progressive views must not be presented to students, driving Lindsay to tears, but she fights back and reduces her inquisitor to silence. When this happens, another of the three inquisitors picks up the baton and tries to continue the inquisition, but eventually is also reduced to silence.
The lead inquisitor instructs Lindsay that in a class on the use of grammar, showing a Peterson video is akin to showing a Hitler video.
He tells her such videos should only be introduced by first telling the class how wrong the content is. She replies that her concept of teaching is to let the class debate the opinions. The progressive inquisitors seem to think that the students are not mature enough to debate opinions and should be told what opinions are correct and what opinions are not acceptable.
Eventually Lindsay is reduced to tears and says that she does not even like the views of Peterson, but that is not reason to tell the class that the views expressed are not hers. Just as it was not necessary to tell the class in advance that an opposing video was the "correct" one. At university level, teaching is not just a matter of saying this is what is right and this is what is wrong. That is for kindergarden.


The whole thing sounds like some kind of "re-education" in a Communist gulag from the fifties. Roxitova should feel like an ass for applauding such anti-intellectual behaviour by the very people that are supposed to be intellectuals. But if you are not too bright you might easily be brain-washed by these pseudo intellectuals that pervade our universities and tell their students that stifling opposing views is their mission in furthering the progressive cause.
They are actually being hoodwinked into being "oppressives", not progressives.

And the saddest part of all is that the university finally concluded that the inquisitors should maybe try to be somewhat less belligerent in the future disciplining of teachers who present for discussion views that may be discomforting to some students.

Edit; This just in. I pick up my newspaper this morning and find that all over England, universities are changing the written word "woman" to "womxn". I kid you not. The good news is that the pronunciation has not yet been changed. So this is where roxita and her merry band of progressives has led us. Monty Python-like skits are the new reality.
I thought the Cambridge decision to ban applause at debates, in order to not upset people who do not like applause, and replace it with waving hands in the air, was the ultimate in progressive buffoonery, but it seems it is merely the beginning.As someone joked, this is unfair to blind people. How will they know when to stop waving their hands?
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
52,404 Posts
Of all places, universities are where young people should expect to be confronting opposing views. And instead of fostering an intellectual ability to discuss them, the mantra of today is to silence anything that is an opposing view.
So we haven't really moved far away from the times of Socrates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Edit; This just in. I pick up my newspaper and find that all over England, universities are changing the written word "woman" to "womxn". I kid you not. The good news is that the pronunciation has not yet been changed. So this is where roxita and her merry band of progressives has led us. Monty Python-like skits are the new reality.
My first reaction was to be insulted, I'm happy to be a woman, so this all inclusive 'womxn' doesn't actually include me, they can sod off with that rubbish. I can happily say that it has been widely mocked, and only adopted at two Universities, Goldsmith's and King's College (both London based, surprise, surprise). It also seems to be student union's using it rather than the lecturers and admin. What a load of rubbish.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,067 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
My first reaction was to be insulted, I'm happy to be a woman, so this all inclusive 'womxn' doesn't actually include me, they can sod off with that rubbish. I can happily say that it has been widely mocked, and only adopted at two Universities, Goldsmith's and King's College (both London based, surprise, surprise). It also seems to be student union's using it rather than the lecturers and admin. What a load of rubbish.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,067 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
omg, are we chucking out the word 'human' next? Maybe we should only refer to ourselves as Homo Sapiens, since the term 'man' is so offensive. I am all for equality, but I can't believe people are wasting their time on things like this, it isn't going to help anyone.
Just Sapiens. Homo means man, so also offensive. :grin2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,954 Posts
For some words like 'man-made', 'mankind'... I tend to opt for 'human' in place of 'man'. IINM those options are even found in dictionaries. Trudeau's choice sounds peculiar.


edit. I see human would also be backwards these days... wow... humxn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Just Sapiens. Homo means man, so also offensive. :grin2:
Well I walked right into that lol, do I need to brush up on my Latin?


For some words like 'man-made', 'mankind'... I tend to opt for 'human' in place of 'man'. IINM those options are even found in dictionaries. Trudeau's choice sounds peculiar.

edit. I see human would also be backwards these days... wow... humxn.
I think he's got us, it has to be peoplekind, and maybe person-made.
 
21 - 40 of 78 Posts
Top