The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

I can think of perhaps no better example than this interview of why I like Peterson.

He's criticized as "on the right" because he disagrees with feminism, neoliberalism, and marxism (it's more cultural marxism, which he calls neomarxism). That is a reactionary label, and it doesn't fit, which is precisely the problem with modern politics.

A decade, maybe 15 years ago, Peterson would've been right in the middle of the liberal camp. So would people like Dave Rubin. Today though, the modern left is falling in line with these feminist and marxist ideas even though they fundamentally contradict his long held liberal principles. People like me who aren't in some extreme position are described as malicious by these ideologies. I know it's nonsense because I can actually see what's in my head, and what they claim is true about me and about an entire class of people based on gender or race, is utterly false. The obvious response is "that's nonsense", but of course we're talking about people who are throwing labels of "racist" and "sexist" at anyone who dares disagree, so that's not a good enough response. We must be defensive, yet the irony of saying someone is bad because they're male or because they're white and then using those labels seems to be a little out of reach.

Watch this interview. Nearly every response she makes to him "so you're saying" is trying to ascribe some feminist or marxist ideal of how the world works to what he's said, and he simply repeats what he says. He goes to great lengths to explain his issues with these ideologies in various lectures, but you can see it here as a prime example, condensed into a comical and pathetic 30 minute interview. Everything wrong with today's left. It's not liberal anymore, she tried so hard to make him look like the bad guy, like he has bad evil wrong thoughts.

It's no wonder the situation regarding diversity at Google is so precarious, and this Damore lawsuit is just one of many to come if this mentality continues. I like Peterson because he opposes it and for good reason, not just in such as simplistic manner as ridicule and memes as you see from the right.

And then we'll start letting people get married to animals!

Aren't you doing the same thing by applying "feminist" and "marxist" labels to the people you disagree with?

You're equally attempting to define my opinions and positions for me. So many of these arguments revolve around strawmen, on both sides.

Also, a person's biases are not something that they're self-aware of by default. No one has a perfect handle on their own brain.

Having been raised in fundamentalist Christianity, Peterson always sets off preliminary warning bells for me:

The enemy is all around you.

Access to secret "true" knowledge.

The world is corrupt.

A plan that if you follow correctly will lead to good things.

An enemy that alternates between specific and generalistic states.

Everything has to be framed through a set of ideological points at all times, which are reiterated in the otherwise minorist points of life.

That is not to say that he definitively is something of that kith or kin to that, necessarily. Just that I see several public figures these days that come out of one branch of science, platforming their knowledge of one field to the world of knowledge at large, and espousing thinking --- right down to phraseology, at times --- I have heard too often from sources these same individuals would claim to violently disagree with. Taking on Peterson's own postulations related to the co-evolution of the biological and memetic aspects of humanity (which in general I would agree with): I think the push to a what would otherwise be called a 'religious sensibility' can be --- and often is --- clothed in scientific language.

I don't know how it happens but Peterson seems to always be engaged by the most logically challenged and intellectually dishonest individuals society has to offer. The recent channel 4 interview is the prime example of this. Now maybe it was all for show but the interviewer was utterly incapable of stringing even a few ideas together and at one point in the interview her mind visibly began to short circuit attempting to do so.