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

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#81

Post by jseliger »

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.

"Postmodernism" and "deconstructionism" are often used synonymously: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-decons... and like many overarching "isms" they've come to mean such different things that they can be used to mean almost anything.

That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just change the language.

Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).

So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed.

This, anyway, is the line of thinking, though it isn't my own view of the world. To say that everything is linguistic seems unlikely. When I was in grad school in English (note: don't do this: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befo... ) and would hear this argument, I liked to observe that everyone, given the choice between getting punched in the face or having someone say something mean to them, chooses the latter. This would seem to me to argue that not everything can be reduced to language, even apart from all the other very good and obvious-seeming arguments along those lines.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#82

Post by stcredzero »

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 espousing a position that calls for the validation of anyone's unjustified projections onto someone else. Should this cause me to question your sincerity?

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#83

Post by jnbiche »

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…

There are some 4 or 5 new pronoun classes, totally over 30+ new gender pronouns recognized by some transgender rights activists. This UW LGBT Resource Center lists an additional 7 pronoun classes, totaling 35 new pronouns [1].

So imagine the typical college professor. They've got what? Three or four classes of up to 50 or 60 students?

So you want them remember not only each student's name, but also which of these new pronoun class they prefer, as well as the proper declination of that pronoun class?

And if someone prefers not to do this, it's because they're an asshole?

My guess is that Peterson would have been happy to try to use preferred pronouns for his students, if only he weren't being forced to do so by some human rights act about pronouns and coerced by various activists groups. He's basically said as much before.

For the record, I'm in favor of most transgender rights issues (re: employment, anti-violence, identity documents, etc). But you can't go passing laws to force changes in attitude. US lawmakers did the right thing by passing civil rights laws in the 1960s, but those lawmakers didn't then go and outlaw the use of the n-word. That would have been a bridge too far. People have to learn from those around them what is and isn't appropriate. You can't just force them to think and speak the way you want by force of law.

Or at least, we don't typically try to do that in free societies.

1. http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#84

Post by beat »

nouveaux wrote: post #73
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…

Jordan Peterson is on record saying he would use preferred pronouns. He is opposed to the law and regulation of these pronouns: https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=21m39s 23m16s is where he states he would use preferred pronouns.

I'm not surprised, because Jordan Peterson is thoughtful.

And yet, a hundred thousand assholes gleefully share the video clip of him getting in the face of someone confronting him about pronouns, him talking about how it's oppressive, and they take it as the intellectual seal of approval for their refusal to use preferred pronouns, based on their contempt for those who ask for it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#85

Post by api »

stcredzero wrote: post #77
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…

1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures...just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less conclusive. Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language and to use metap…

"Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language and to use metaphors. Also, they advise you to throw in sentiments to which your audience will agree."

So intellectual pop chords and power riffs...

As for the quasi-alt-right flirtation a while back I started calling a lot of that stuff "intellectual edgelording." Some on the left are guilty of it too, but the far right has really mastered it.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#86

Post by jrs95 »

notconservative wrote: post #68
mcmacintosh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

That was my point actually, I was being sarcastic. We need better treatment for these people, not draconian speech laws.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#88

Post by api »

js8 wrote: post #70
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.

I'm fairly socially liberal too and on the fence about him. He says a lot of interesting things and I've never been a fan of postmodernism which I regard as a form of "pseudo-profound bullshit," but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.

Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#89

Post by upofadown »

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…

He actually wrote a letter to the administration of his university to state that if he had a trans student he would not be compelled to use their gender pronoun of choice. The admin told him, in so many words, to not be an asshole for no reason. He then published to response on the internet and played the victim.

So he more or less had to create a controversy out of nothing. The great majority of people consider the question a matter of courtesy and hold no strong feelings.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#90

Post by dragonwriter »

jseliger wrote: post #81
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.

"Postmodernism" and "deconstructionism" are often used synonymously: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-decons... and like many overarching "isms" they've come to mean such different things that they can be used to mean almost anything. That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common reading of Fouca…

> That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just change the language.

> Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed."

Those aren't really separate stands, the latter is a consequence of the former: if language (or, rather, beliefs which is transmitted between people by language) is the defining factor in reality, then the ultimately meaningful differentiation between people is whether they are influential in shaping belief (powerful) or not (powerless).

It's also directly contrary to the central theme of Marxism, which makes the association of these particular postmodernist viewpoints with Marxism bizarre. (Certainly, there are people who moved from Marxism to this kind of postmodernism, just like there are people who have moved from Marxism to capitalism or from Marxism to democratic socialism or from Trotskyism to neoconservatism.

Post reply on HN