The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson • Hacker News Board

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#11

Post by guitarbill » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:07 PM UTC

Dowwie wrote: post #6

To give someone a better idea who Jordan Peterson is and his experience with those in mass media: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/watch-cathy-newmans-ca... I knew of Peterson but never read his work nor heard him speak. This interview could be an important piece for university level discussion. I think it summarizes problems among the media and intellectuals like Peterson.

BTW, that Spectator article basically just embeds the original interview on Channel 4 uploaded to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

And, wow, I just watched this and it is horrendously cringeworthy. Seems like the presenter was expecting someone soft in the head (like an MP/politician), and approached the interview in that modern British fashion, which didn't work out well at all. It's really awkward to see somebody be that badly intellectually outclassed, but then it was Channel 4...

On the other hand, coming back to OP, there's something encouraging about a critical thinker having "star appeal". I think that's the best way to describe Dr Peterson, as you don't have to agree with him, but it is easy to follow his lucid trains-of-thought, and he is at least consistent.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#12

Post by Radim » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:20 PM UTC

josephg wrote: post #10

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch: Cathy Newman’s catastrophic interview with Jordan Peterson I don't really know who he is other than seeing his name popup on Youtube regularly however I do note that his supporters always use that sort of language, often watch X destroy Y in an interview. There seem to be minorities at the extremes shouting past each other whilst the rest of us get on with our lives and wonder what all the fuss is about.

I think "watch X destroy Y" is just youtube's version of clickbait. I suspect you'll find videos like that tailored to most groups on youtube. I sometimes use them as trailers for longer talks that I might enjoy - although I always feel a little guilty for encouraging this sort of thing. In this case I found their interview to be excellent viewing. She was harsh and honest with him, and hurled most of the standard cr…

"Let me get this straight… you're saying we should organize our societies along the lines of the LOBSTERS?!"

Harsh, perhaps. Honest, not so much. I found most of her ripostes a dishonest caricature of Peterson's position, or downright lies.

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1331

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#13

Post by larrykwg » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:20 PM UTC

sgdesign wrote: post #3

> In 2016 he made a stand against the Canadian government’s introduction of a law that aimed to make it a crime not to address people by their preferred gender pronouns (regardless of chromosomes). I'm pretty sure that's a gross misrepresentation of that law. From the little I know about it, I think it was more about adding "using the wrong pronoun" as a possible aggravating circumstance to consider when somebody is…

No, the widely accepted interpretation of that law is that, if I have a coworker who wants to be called xe/xem/xyr/xyrs/xemself, I have to comply or face punishment, since not be accommodating of this can be construed as harassment. Ideologues want to dismiss everyone who is against this law as transphobic, but this is demonstrably not true, one can be accepting of the human rights of trans people while simultaneously disagreeing with the extend of protections and privileges granted to them. I think what most people ultimately take issue with, is that this law was evidently ideologically motivated and it felt like no logical arguments could ever be discussed.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#14

Post by dogma1138 » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:29 PM UTC

jo909 wrote: post #8

sgdesign wrote: post #3

> In 2016 he made a stand against the Canadian government’s introduction of a law that aimed to make it a crime not to address people by their preferred gender pronouns (regardless of chromosomes). I'm pretty sure that's a gross misrepresentation of that law. From the little I know about it, I think it was more about adding "using the wrong pronoun" as a possible aggravating circumstance to consider when somebody is…

His conflict started with the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy which clearly includes gender pronouns. That is often getting mixed up with when he also spoke out against C 16 later, with different arguments. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-be... I think you are right that just in C 16 there is nothing about compelled speech. My understanding of his position is that it's part of a slipp…

C16 refers to the Ontario human rights commission for interpretation and policy which is a huge problem.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#15

Post by upofadown » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:47 PM UTC

larrykwg wrote: post #13

sgdesign wrote: post #3

> In 2016 he made a stand against the Canadian government’s introduction of a law that aimed to make it a crime not to address people by their preferred gender pronouns (regardless of chromosomes). I'm pretty sure that's a gross misrepresentation of that law. From the little I know about it, I think it was more about adding "using the wrong pronoun" as a possible aggravating circumstance to consider when somebody is…

No, the widely accepted interpretation of that law is that, if I have a coworker who wants to be called xe/xem/xyr/xyrs/xemself, I have to comply or face punishment, since not be accommodating of this can be construed as harassment. Ideologues want to dismiss everyone who is against this law as transphobic, but this is demonstrably not true, one can be accepting of the human rights of trans people while simultaneousl…

The "it is illegal to use the wrong pronoun" interpretation is only widely accepted by those who have trouble with the definition of the word "discrimination". If I use the wrong pronoun when referring to someone it might rise to the level of harassment if I do it deliberately and repeatedly. It can't be a violation of an anti-discrimination law because it isn't discrimination.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#16

Post by naasking » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 12:54 PM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #4

I'm sad that some enthusiastic well meaning lefties often associate Peterson with the extreme right. If anything, this man is radically centrist. It's just that he debunks extreme right wing arguments in 5 sentences instead of the 2 hour long talks he uses to address what he calls neo-marxism. I think people like him might very well help keep disgruntled young men away from the extreme right, by offering a moderate a…

> I think people like him might very well help keep disgruntled young men away from the extreme right, by offering a more moderate alternative.

That's probably exactly right. People gather around ideologies that have advocates. They don't look at two extremes and say, "hm, they each have valid points, maybe I'm somewhere between these two", they say, "hm, this one thing side X says is something I really like so they must think most like me. Even though I don't particularly agree with a lot of the rest of what they say, and even if I disagree with side Y less overall, I belong in tribe X".

Moderation/centrism thus also needs advocates if we want a proper balance.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#17

Post by bitwize » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 1:07 PM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #4

I'm sad that some enthusiastic well meaning lefties often associate Peterson with the extreme right. If anything, this man is radically centrist. It's just that he debunks extreme right wing arguments in 5 sentences instead of the 2 hour long talks he uses to address what he calls neo-marxism. I think people like him might very well help keep disgruntled young men away from the extreme right, by offering a moderate a…

Yeah, he's a celeb on the derp-right because he goes hard on postmodernism and third/fourth wave feminism. That doesn't mean he agrees with the derp-right or the PUA contingent that have latched onto him.

I think he gets postmodernism wrong and frankly, so do a lot of postmodernists. I see postmodernism as "Defense Against the Dark Arts". The postmodernist's tool kit -- the silly word games, denial of reality, and so forth -- are all borrowed from the right, and from capitalist society (in particular advertising and PR). And they play silly word games, talk in circles, and deny reality because they're preparing their students for a world in which the enemy have made that the norm for discourse. So when the postmodernist says "there is no reality" what they're really saying is the reality you know, and the rules for perceiving and inferring that reality, have been compromised. When Foucault says there's really no such thing as science, what he means is that science itself has been compromised, and you can't use science against the enemy because the enemy already controls it and will turn around and use it against you.

But I like Peterson's style -- bombastic without being antagonistic, and highly principled -- and about the psychology bits he has some really interesting things to say.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#18

Post by tomohawk » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 1:09 PM UTC

upofadown wrote: post #15

larrykwg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the widely accepted interpretation of that law is that, if I have a coworker who wants to be called xe/xem/xyr/xyrs/xemself, I have to comply or face punishment, since not be accommodating of this can be construed as harassment. Ideologues want to dismiss everyone who is against this law as transphobic, but this is demonstrably not true, one can be accepting of the human rights of trans people while simultaneousl…

The "it is illegal to use the wrong pronoun" interpretation is only widely accepted by those who have trouble with the definition of the word "discrimination". If I use the wrong pronoun when referring to someone it might rise to the level of harassment if I do it deliberately and repeatedly. It can't be a violation of an anti-discrimination law because it isn't discrimination.

I see. So If I insist that my pronoun is "his majesty" and others don't use it, that would be harassment?

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29230/

For those of us who think that objective reality is more important than what someone's feelings may or may not be, this imposition of a speech code is clearly harassment.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#19

Post by notsrg » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 1:19 PM UTC

larrykwg wrote: post #13

sgdesign wrote: post #3

> In 2016 he made a stand against the Canadian government’s introduction of a law that aimed to make it a crime not to address people by their preferred gender pronouns (regardless of chromosomes). I'm pretty sure that's a gross misrepresentation of that law. From the little I know about it, I think it was more about adding "using the wrong pronoun" as a possible aggravating circumstance to consider when somebody is…

No, the widely accepted interpretation of that law is that, if I have a coworker who wants to be called xe/xem/xyr/xyrs/xemself, I have to comply or face punishment, since not be accommodating of this can be construed as harassment. Ideologues want to dismiss everyone who is against this law as transphobic, but this is demonstrably not true, one can be accepting of the human rights of trans people while simultaneousl…

Widely accepted by who? Not lawyers. Try actually reading the bill: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-as...

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#20

Post by tomohawk » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

sgdesign wrote: post #3

> In 2016 he made a stand against the Canadian government’s introduction of a law that aimed to make it a crime not to address people by their preferred gender pronouns (regardless of chromosomes). I'm pretty sure that's a gross misrepresentation of that law. From the little I know about it, I think it was more about adding "using the wrong pronoun" as a possible aggravating circumstance to consider when somebody is…

This video captures some of his thoughts regarding this. It's the first question he answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F0A4rohauQ