Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

iNow replied mainly with examples of purposeful comments that were intentionally designed and aimed at being offensive, even though some appeared to be or attempted to be jokingly cloaked.  My point was aimed at the minority who just take things completely out of context when it was evident that the allegation is totally unfounded.

But this seems to have gone over everyone's head. So now I'm made out to be unsensitive (which I could take offense at) by not considering everyone's perspective, the irony.

Society is a pyramid, like understanding, the height it achieves depends on the base. If everyone's just a little bit more sensitive to other's, there's less dogshit on the streets. 

I don't think it's gone over anyone's head, there's a difference between offence and righteous indignation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people insist on their right to be offensive. Some people insist on their right to be offended. Each group wants the other to stop being and doing what are and do. They can't both win at the same time. The law tries to stop them doing one another too much damage. So they both attack the law for going too far/ not doing enough. 

Over all, in the last five decades, the offensive people have been steadily losing the right to intimidate people who have less power than they do (students, employees, immigrants, subordinates, minority religions, homeless people, handicapped people) and that's caused a great seething grievance among the formerly privileged. They have used words as weapons and they don't want to be disarmed; don't want to be as vulnerable as their erstwhile prey.  That's understandable.

If they're numerous and vocal enough; if a few more from their ranks attain position of political power or social influence, they may win the next round. At the moment, it's a stand-off, with legislators and, adjudicators and arbitrators caught in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Society is a pyramid, like understanding, the height it achieves depends on the base. If everyone's just a little bit more sensitive to other's, there's less dogshit on the streets. 

I don't think it's gone over anyone's head, there's a difference between offence and righteous indignation. 

I'm not angry concerned or offended, I'm not that sensitive.

I don't have a problem with people being sensitive towards others, I advocate such. My issue (thus my point) lies with people being unnecessarily over sensitive and then making a big song and dance out of it, when it is perfectly clear and accepted that the person doing the alleged offending had no intention to do so, or the comment/s made was taken out of context and sensationalised either for attention seeking or sympathy. 

People should be considerate and sometimes sensitive towards others, but over sensitivity, especially over petty issues, promotes and encourages weakness in people. This is one aspect where the "nanny" state mentality can arise from. 

Yet another point of view that JP and people who dare to speak out on get slated for.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Another thing from the military (though not exclusively military, of course) was called "attention to detail"

And even if dyslexia is an excuse, a reasonable person would focus on the mention of your dislike of a certain spelling, rather than assume you're sensitive about members using your correct username. I think your mind, education, and professional status intimidates some people who object to being tethered to facts.

And that could also be part of why some folks grab the words of JP and use them to bolster their own positions. He's a professional (in a different field), well-educated, with a prestigious position, and he wants them to be real men!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, beecee said:

I don't summarily dismiss anyone's objection/s.

When you say "PC Brigade" that sounds like you are referring to a group of people who you believe are making unreasonable requests with respect to things they find objectionable, and that you are not taking them seriously.

Did I misinterpret that? Because it certainly doesn't sound like you are grouping them together due to their outstanding work in shedding light on inappropriate language and behavior.

8 hours ago, beecee said:

But it does not change the fact/s that there are reasonable sensible limitations on sensitivity.

Of course. No one is suggesting otherwise. The questions are 'who decides what the limit is', and 'how do you respond if you disagree with them'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not angry concerned or offended, I'm not that sensitive.

I don't have a problem with people being sensitive towards others, I advocate such. My issue (thus my point) lies with people being unnecessarily over sensitive and then making a big song and dance out of it, when it is perfectly clear and accepted that the person doing the alleged offending had no intention to do so, or the comment/s made was taken out of context and sensationalised either for attention seeking or sympathy. 

People should be considerate and sometimes sensitive towards others, but over sensitivity, especially over petty issues, promotes and encourages weakness in people. This is one aspect where the "nanny" state mentality can arise from. 

Yet another point of view that JP and people who dare to speak out on get slated for.  

Is it weak to just pick up the dog shit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My point was aimed at the minority who just take things completely out of context when it was evident that the allegation is totally unfounded.

Evident to whom? Does the person you are claiming took things out of context agree with you?

It looks to me as if society is having one of their many debates/conversations where we work out the new rules on a topic that had previously been ignored. These conversations tend to go better when we address each concern rather than saying "that is totally unfounded".

If someone posts in the science forum about some crazy idea, the response they typically get is to point out flaws in their idea, or to ask pointed questions meant to allow the poster to recognize the flaws of their idea on their own. It is not considered good form to simply say 'we won't discuss your idea as it is evident to me that your idea is totally unfounded'.

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

JP often takes this approach and is slammed for his opinion, and many times people are offensive towards him. Whether you agree with his claims or not, right or wrong he maybe, considering his perspective and then discussing this can be productive, especially when the things he talks on are "sensitive" subjects. 

Sounds similar to how PC people are treated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I don't have a problem with people being sensitive towards others, I advocate such. My issue (thus my point) lies with people being unnecessarily over sensitive and then making a big song and dance out of it, when it is perfectly clear and accepted that the person doing the alleged offending had no intention to do so, or the comment/s made was taken out of context and sensationalised either for attention seeking or sympathy. 

One big problem with this stance is that you become the sole arbiter of what "unnecessarily", "over sensitive", "perfectly clear", "accepted", "alleged", "offending", and "intention" actually mean for all those you interact with. It's far too easy to confirm your own biases in these circumstances, yet want others to take everything YOU do in context. If you're into science, you should be trying to remove subjectivity where you can.

And I'm sorry, but I've seen FAR too many folks flat out insult someone else and then claim I didn't know you were so sensitive/I'm just poking fun/I'm just being honest/don't make such a big deal/I call them like I see them/you're taking this wrong. You can't hold yourself blameless when your words cause offense if you aren't trying to maintain objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You can't hold yourself blameless when your words cause offense if you aren't trying to maintain objectivity.

Indeed, Nietzsche said as much the sole man... Hitler took it the wrong way.

Quote

“I teach you the Superman. Man is something that should be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All creatures hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and do you want to be the ebb of this great tide, and return to the animals rather than overcome man?”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

When you say "PC Brigade" that sounds like you are referring to a group of people who you believe are making unreasonable requests with respect to things they find objectionable, and that you are not taking them seriously.

Did I misinterpret that? Because it certainly doesn't sound like you are grouping them together due to their outstanding work in shedding light on inappropriate language and behavior...

 

I have similar objections to the recent sarcastic usage of "woke" or "woke brigade" which people on the conservative Right are using.   PC,  woke,  illiberal, social justice warriors --  all terms used to avoid actually addressing the issue raised.  It's really just name-calling.   I had "woke brigade" used on me recently for making the outrageous suggestion that schoolchildren would survive learning about Jim Crow laws and events like the Greenwood massacre.  My interlocutor felt that school history classes should focus entirely on noble men astride magical horses that pooped rainbows.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

My interlocutor felt that school history classes should focus entirely on noble men astride magical horses that pooped rainbows

Har! Made me laugh out loud! 😆

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 PC,  woke,  illiberal, social justice warriors --  all terms used to avoid actually addressing the issue raised. 

I agree completely. It's simply a shortcut that leads to a preconceived conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I have similar objections to the recent sarcastic usage of "woke" or "woke brigade" which people on the conservative Right are using.   PC,  woke,  illiberal, social justice warriors --  all terms used to avoid actually addressing the issue raised.  It's really just name-calling.   I had "woke brigade" used on me recently for making the outrageous suggestion that schoolchildren would survive learning about Jim Crow laws and events like the Greenwood massacre.  My interlocutor felt that school history classes should focus entirely on noble men astride magical horses that pooped rainbows.  

First, we have to agree on what's magical...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I have similar objections to the recent sarcastic usage of "woke" or "woke brigade" which people on the conservative Right are using.   PC,  woke,  illiberal, social justice warriors --  all terms used to avoid actually addressing the issue raised.  It's really just name-calling. 

Name-calling with an agenda. It's a dog-whistle to others to insult and categorize you, and also, by doing so, the implication is that nobody needs to engage you on the substance of any topic. It is or at least is a close cousin to an ad hominem argument - "you are wrong because you are <belittling description>"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People should be considerate and sometimes sensitive towards others, but over sensitivity, especially over petty issues, promotes and encourages weakness in people. This is one aspect where the "nanny" state mentality can arise from. 

Yet another point of view that JP and people who dare to speak out on get slated for.  

 He really doesn't have to get up on stage to strut his grievance and take all this criticism. The up-side is, it's made him rich and famous. On balance, I can't see him as victim.

I certainly can see him as a little drummer boy for the right-wing back-draft. Interesting Guardian article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any new ideas are offensive to some people, all of the time.*
Just ask the millions of Republicans, and MAGAs, in the US about J Biden's agenda, and whether they find it offensive.
Do you think 'right-to-lifers' are not offended by the on-going 'murder' that 'pro-choicers' call abortion ?
Do they have a right not to be offended ?
Does that right only extend to people you agree with ?

Or, do you think we should pass laws that forbid new ideas, as they might be offensive to some ? 

Social justice is a valid ideal to strive for, but you guys need to get off your hypocritical high horse.

*( that is also J Peterson )

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fundamental argument is that Peterson has shown that he wades into a lot of topics related to social and political sciences as well as law and philosophy where typically experts demonstrate that he has no clue what he is talking about. Even if OP was oversimplifying his argument, there is little to assume that his reasoning would make more sense in that area.

Just now, MigL said:

Any new ideas are offensive to some people, all of the time.
Just ask the millions of Republicans, and MAGAs, in the US about J Biden's agenda, and whether they find it offensive.
Do you think 'right-to-lifers' are not offended by the on-going 'murder' that 'pro-choicers' call abortion ?
Do they have a right not to be offended ?
Does that right only extend to people you agree with ?

Or, do you think we should pass laws that forbid new ideas, as they might be offensive to some ? 

Social justice is a valid ideal to strive for, but you guys need to get off your hypocritical high horse

I think context is important. As you mentioned, there are different social norms in different groups and hence, folks feel offended by different issues. That being said, not all is similar. 

The big issue is whether there were social norms allowing systematic unfair treatment of folks. And here is a bit of the crux of the matter, there are ideals both in law and society (say equal treatment regardless of a person's identity) and there there is the reality of folk having been marginalized both by unjust laws (e.g. related to severity of punishment, but also starting with overpolicing) as well as de fact unequal treatment (resulting in reduced job chances due to certain perceptions). 

In the latter case it is more of just being offended but it becomes more about entrenching certain stereotypes that have tangible effects on outcomes (i.e. inequity). The issue of course is that the lines are blurry when either of these things happen. However, often it is not an equal side kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Just ask the millions of Republicans, and MAGAs, in the US about J Biden's agenda, and whether they find it offensive.

I don't need to ask them: they express their sentiments from large and well-funded podia, in mass communications, governor's mansions and senate chambers. Nobody muzzled them.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Do you think 'right-to-lifers' are not offended by the on-going 'murder' that 'pro-choicers' call abortion ?

They, too, make their objections known, and make their position on the issue count. Nobody muzzled them.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Does that right only extend to people you agree with ?

That right is exercised by anyone, with any views, who has the clout to to do so without repercussions. It does not extend to the marginalized and vulnerable who have no public voice. As I don't make any of the legal or policy decisions, who agrees or disagrees with me is very far removed from the allocation of rights.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Social justice is a valid ideal to strive for, but you guys need to get off your hypocritical high horse.

*( that is also J Peterson )

Why? Unarmed foot-soldiers would be rather stupid to stand up against sword-wielding cavalry if they have an option. Peterson has an option to use all the power of white male tradition, academic credentials, money, mass media, free publicity through controversy, right-wing supporters and a credulously adoring, crowd-funding book-buying public - and he makes clever use of those resources. Why shouldn't his opponents make use of the resources available to them?  

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Any new ideas are offensive to some people, all of the time.*

I'm not clear on what "new" ideas have been presented.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am deeply offended by the two neg reps, without explanation.
There should be a law against those who don't share my subjective viewpoint on such matters 😄 😄 .

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not clear on what "new" ideas have been presented.

You don't seem to be clear on many things ...
It is not the fact that they don't have a venue to present their dissenting views, but the fact that laws are enacted to prevent them from doing so.
Do you actually not see the difference, 'Napoleon'.
( reference to Orwell's Animal Farm )

Anyway, I'm out.
You guys carry on your 'virtue signaling' and patting each other on the back as to how 'woke' you are, all the while, enacting laws which diminish people's rights.
Good uck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

When you say "PC Brigade" that sounds like you are referring to a group of people who you believe are making unreasonable requests with respect to things they find objectionable, and that you are not taking them seriously.

Did I misinterpret that? Because it certainly doesn't sound like you are grouping them together due to their outstanding work in shedding light on inappropriate language and behavior.

If I  would hazard a guess, it would be that not all the PC brigade are all on the same page, and many would balk at some of the extent that some think we should go to.

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Of course. No one is suggesting otherwise. The questions are 'who decides what the limit is', and 'how do you respond if you disagree with them'.

Who decides what the limit is? Good question. Perhaps its all in the "intent" of the spoken word that need be considered more. Let me give an example with two probable outcomes. I meet a new friend and am having a few drinks with him...During our common everyday banter I ask him, "how is your wife, I hope she is fine" He replies, "I'm gay, he is fine" I immediately say "Oh OK, sorry about that" He laughs and says..."That's OK, just an innocent mistake" Then we both laugh it off and continue drinking. A real, true to life example I may add, in which I made the mistaken assumption, and he understanding that there was no ill intent, accepted it and laughed it off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

it is not the fact that they don't have a venue to present their dissenting views, but the fact that laws are enacted to prevent them from doing so.

This has not happened, contrary to many and repeated false claims.

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

If I  would hazard a guess, it would be that not all the PC brigade are all on the same page,

Who, precisely is "the PC brigade"? Is there a website? A head office? Membership cards? Ranks and offices? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Who, precisely is "the PC brigade"? Is there a website? A head office? Membership cards? Ranks and offices? 

My mistake. Not all political correctness is unreasonable, and some I fully support. The unreasonable brigade I put in the same pidgeon hole as the "professional protestors" that infiltrated the recent protest march by the CMFEU in Melbourne. You know, people that protest and act indignant just for the sake of it. And before you reply, I have taken part in a few genuine protests and marches in my time, and I personally saw these "professional protestors" infiltrating a genuine cause.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

Perhaps its all in the "intent" of the spoken word that need be considered more.

I think it usually is considered. However, when the offender says "I didn't mean anything by that", the offended person gets to decide whether to believe him. Your friend did, in the case of a quite ordinary assumption, and that's fine. Where a professor or supervisor  persistently makes the same "mistake" in the pronoun they use or pronunciation of one's name, or the same 'slip of the tongue' in commenting jovially on one's physical attributes, the target might not be so easily convinced that their intent was innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not clear on what "new" ideas have been presented.

Well let's start off with the lyrics objected to in the  song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_3sFeQGNeo  or the demanded use of non gendered terms when speaking like "partner" as per my previous example...or maybe innocently asking a person where he or she is from...something I often do, as I love guessing where a person comes from, based on their accents. By the way, I have never yet experienced any objection when asking that question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

The unreasonable brigade I put in the same pidgeon hole as the "professional protestors"

Why pigeon-hole anybody on the basis of second- or third-hand information. By professional protestors, I assume you mean political agitators. That's a real and serious activity, practiced by well organized and funded groups - but I wouldn't be able to spot one in regular street garb; I would only be able to identify them in the performance of a specific action. If there are unreasonable demands made on standards of public speech, or legislators or communications media, these demands are made by individuals, with names and faces - not by brigades in black hoodies. 

9 minutes ago, beecee said:
1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not clear on what "new" ideas have been presented.

Well let's start off with the lyrics objected to in the  song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_3sFeQGNeo  or the demanded use of non gendered terms when speaking like "partner" as per my previous example...or maybe innocently asking a person where he or she is from...something I often do, as I love guessing where a person comes from, based on their accents. By the way, I have never yet experienced any objection when asking that question.

That's not any newer, nor any more of an idea than the grievances Peterson is on about.

On the whole, while I understand why the climate of the time made that song suspect, I would prefer each radio station made its own programming policy. Oh wait - they did! Listeners' reaction matters to them. Then the backlash and reversal. Listeners' reaction strikes again.

If you don't want to address people in the terms they expressly prefer, no law forces you to address them at all. If you don't know their preference, nobody blames you for guessing wrong, unless it's outright insulting. If nobody objects to being asked a question, who did the objecting? You were not forced to obey Emily Post, and you're forced to obey a modern arbiter of good manners. The new ideas in common courtesy never made it Dr. Peterson's podium. .

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Why pigeon-hole anybody on the basis of second- or third-hand information. By professional protestors, I assume you mean political agitators. That's a real and serious activity, practiced by well organized and funded groups - but I wouldn't be able to spot one in regular street garb; I would only be able to identify them in the performance of a specific action. 

Political agitators, or protestors, same thing. Recognising them by their actions, certainly, much as a plain clothed policeman/woman is recognised by their specific actions. The point I'm making is that these political agitators and protestors, take the spotlight off the legitimate protest, and gives the far right something to focus on and use in their propaganda. Likewise the unreasonable aspects of political correctness gives the same loonies ammunition to focus on that extreme crap, instead of the legitimate and reasonable political correctness that aims to eliminate racist undertones, sexual exclusion and discimination.

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Where a professor or supervisor  persistently makes the same "mistake" in the pronoun they use or pronunciation of one's name, or the same 'slip of the tongue' in commenting jovially on one's physical attributes, the target might not be so easily convinced that their intent was innocent.

I see an important difference in commenting on a man's or a woman's attire, eg: "Lovely dress Mary! or Nice Jacket Bob" to commenting that you like Mary's legs or any of her other atrributes, or that Bob has big thighs or his other attributes..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.