Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 172 posts

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#61

Post by Erik816 »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #58
tomsthumb wrote: post #8

It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong. He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and defi…

> It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. At some point, what someone literally says they are or aren't against starts to pale in comparison to the perception of their stance. And if that perception persists, at some point, one has to call into question their sincerity.

You are calling someone's sincerity into question because other people have an incorrect perception of what they are saying?

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#62

Post by vowelless »

stcredzero wrote: post #28
tomsthumb wrote: post #8

It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong. He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and defi…

Not to mention scientifically dubious tests of "unconscious bias" used against you as evidence in kangaroo courts -- enshrined into law. That's something that might be in Room 101 in the world of Orwell's1984. Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)

There are five lights!

https://youtu.be/o_eSwq1ewsU

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#63

Post by hashberry »

lixtra wrote: post #49

I would place myself in the conservative corner, but I find Peterson quite problematic. 1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures. But if you don’t „follow“ and instead analyze what he is saying and how he forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. Bu…

I understand that cult leaders can be problematic. But do you think his followers are becoming a danger to society?

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#65

Post by kazinator »

renlo wrote: post #42
beat wrote: post #24

Thinking to his issue over pronouns... He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole . Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole. And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for…

I want you to refer to me using the 'floop' pronoun. Here's an example sentence: `Floop was referring to floopself when floop said floop wanted to go home`. If you don't use my 'floop' pronoun you're an asshole and a bigot, just apologize to me and I will forgive you. In all seriousness, I have no issue with people who want to be referred to by traditional pronouns that they choose for themselves. I do have an issue…

If it was even remotely plausible that being addressed using derivatives of "he" or "she" rather than "floop" caused you distress, I think I'd try to use "floop".

If the "floop" thing is just wantonly imposing your will over how others speak, then the pendulum has swung the other way: you're now falling afoul of "don't be an asshole".

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#66

Post by DanAndersen »

beat wrote: post #24

Thinking to his issue over pronouns... He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole . Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole. And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for…

Respectfully, I'd like to put this in a different frame.

"Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time. These things come about through consensus and if there isn't some consensus that that's the way things are, then those attempting to impose new norms are ironically also "being assholes."

When you have moral society in recent decades changing very rapidly in terms of what is being considered acceptable or not (whether or not you consider that positive progress), it's going to feel like whiplash to people who are not on the vanguard of the latest new definition of what's acceptable. People say, "Wait a second, I was taught to be a decent person, I think I'm a decent person -- who are these people telling me that I'm now a hateful person for doing or not doing what seemed reasonable up until a couple years ago? Do the people telling me this have moral authority in my eyes?"

Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#67

Post by stcredzero »

scribu wrote: post #54
sincerely wrote: post #21

>He believes that the insistence on the use of gender-neutral pronouns is rooted in postmodernism, which he sees as thinly disguised Marxism. I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.

I’ve never encountered this interpretation before either. The only way I can make some sense of it is by drawing a correspondence between postmodernism’s “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions” and marxism’s class warfare.

Yes, that's it. What is the ideological effect of “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions?”

"Decolonize Science" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXMG7YajHA0

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#68

Post by notconservative »

mcmacintosh wrote: post #56
jrs95 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is different! A mistake in common courtesy could cause one of these oppressed people to commit suicide. It has everything to do with pronouns and absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.

You’re not helping your case when you say that a mistake in common courtesy could lead to suicide.

I agree. If being mistaken as the wrong gender causes someone significant enough distress to make them commit suicide, they need (and likely are getting) serious mental health attention.

It is not the burden of anyone to cater to a stranger's mental illness. If you look vaguely male, I will say "excuse me sir, could I get past you?" (and "madam" for a vaguely female looking person). And there is no place where that should be illegal or morally wrong.

Deliberate misgendering is definitely a separate discussion from a genuine mistake.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#69

Post by anigbrowl »

pjkundert wrote: post #18
bomb199 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an odd viewpoint. Progressives (least ones I associate with) are increasingly shunning "Social Conservatives" because they release that the position that's become known as "Social Conservative" is about authoritarianism. The election of Trump has made the damage they're doing painfully obvious. Suddenly, Nazis are "good people" and that has really riled people up. It's hard for me to support someone when I know…

Unfortunately, in a world where everyone is purportedly a Nazi (including my grandmother), nobody is a Nazi. And state control of academia and industry for the purpose of punishing those that don't support ever-increasing state power is indeed of grave concern...

in a world where everyone is purportedly a Nazi (including my grandmother), nobody is a Nazi

This is a BS argument. Right wing commentators have been labeling everyone they disagree with as 'Nazis' for decades. Rush Limbaugh is famous for popularizing the term 'Feminazi' and has been using it regularly since ~1995. Jonah Goldberg wrote a book a decade ago that conservatives love citing, called 'Liberal Fascism' and whose cover depicts a smiley-face button with a Hitler moustache. I could cite numerous other examples.

It is simply false to suggest that this problem originates with the left, but it does (however unintentionally) give great cover for dismissing the fact that there are rather a lot of militant neo-nazis who have been significantly emboldened in recent years, organize with impunity, and commit violence regularly.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#70

Post by js8 »

hashberry wrote: post #36

Jordan Peterson became famous after a student tried to debate him about his "Nazi followers" and gender pronouns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA Many people see him as an enemy because of his conservative viewpoints. His most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

> his most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago

God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.

Post reply on HN