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

141–150 of 172 posts

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#141

Post by mywittyname »

krick wrote: post #137
mywittyname wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was quite surprised to discover that the alt-right venerate him. I got the impression that he was pretty liberal. I mean, I support LGBTQ rights, but don't agree that people should be forced to use appropriate gender pronouns. I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.

It's not as much "alt-right venerate him", as his ("alt-left", I guss?) opponents like to mark him "alt-right" for no reason other than he is not as "left" as they are.

Based on the recent YT comments on his videos (and the titles of clip compilations of his lectures), the alt-right definitely appear to hold him up as some figure head.

I definitely get frustrated when I hear people on the left call him dangerous. I feel like these aren't even "alt" left people either, it sounds like they are largely plain old liberals who never heard of him, and blindly toss him in with the like of Steve Bannon.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#142

Post by ravenstine »

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.

That's the thing... I'm not conservative by any stretch of the imagination, though I am often mistaken for one; I enjoy listening to people like Jordan Peterson and even Ben Shapiro because they are excellent debaters and can make solid arguments. I can't think of anyone on the other side of the political spectrum who can even come close in that regard, although I would love for someone to give me some examples.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#143

Post by stcredzero »

lixtra wrote: post #126
stcredzero wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1. I already agreed that his lectures are appealing. Do you agree that his arguments are not logic and conclusive? 2. Fair enough. I shall try if I ever hear his stuff again. With all the metaphors flying around it shouldn’t be to difficult. But can you point out where he says it’s so great to be alive? 3. If you call „I survived the gulag where thousands perished“ as a silver lining you must have a pretty grim world…

Do you agree that his arguments are not logic and conclusive?

In that they are public speaking and they are not a thesis. They are public speaking, and those aren't logical and conclusive. The point you're trying to make could only stand if all the speakers you like and feel represent your world view have 100% logically rigorous speeches.

But can you point out where he says it’s so great to be alive?

I don't need to, to refute your silly assertion that he's somehow anti-happiness. None of these videos are direct statements about joy, because they are from talks where he is making an entirely differnt point, but it's clear that he's like any human being who thinks children are wonderful, and likes to have fun and laugh.

Talking about the potential of children, and of a pristine relationship with one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg9TY8uwaSY

Humor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyWwuv1UkRg

Stoner Comics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jisfAwMOhrQ

3. If you call „I survived the gulag where thousands perished“ as a silver lining you must have a pretty grim world view.

Again, not what I said. You said that he put forward books to depress his audience. That's obviously not true. The Gulag Archipelago is meant to alarm and meant to make a personal, emotional connection to the magnitude of the possible evil of such flowery sounding utopian ideologies.

If you don’t find it depressing you must have a very strong character

Or, one could be sure that one is in opposition to such ideologies. My father's older brother disappeared due to one regime with a collectivist ideology. My family here in the US is only here because the US military defended their lives from another regime with a collectivist ideology. Why should The Gulag Archipelago make anyone depressed, as opposed to angry? As opposed to resolute in the opposition of disguised evil?

I can only imagine it makes someone depressed if they identify with such an ideology.

What's more, I explicitly cite Dr. Peterson's message, "As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life," as a silver lining. I find it problematic that you ignore that and try to stuff a different position in my mouth above.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#144

Post by stcredzero »

beat wrote: post #136
stcredzero wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter what position you pick, some gaggle of idiots on the Internet are using it as a pretext for being a dick. A lot of the acrimony coming from the Right is a reaction to others doing it using pretexts from the Left. The solution is to have reasoned dialogue. If you follow Peterson's message, he seems to have explicitly decided to minister to lost young clueless right-wing men, by urging them to clean their roo…

Oh, undoubtedly. There's no small amount of tribalism and moral sadism among the SJWs, using these sudden shifts in vocabulary as an excuse to berate people they didn't like in the first place. Which in no way means intersectionality is a Bad Idea. Intersectionality is a major advance in the understanding of oppression. I hope Peterson can actually wake up some of his red-pill followers, and do more harm than good in…

I hope Peterson can actually wake up some of his red-pill followers, and do more harm than good in the long run.

Freudian slip? As George Orwell noted in Road to Wiggan Pier, leftists often don't so much as love the poor, but hate the rich.

But for now, he really needs to apply that intellect to dealing with something he wasn't ever prepared to deal with - being a symbol of intellectual authority to a movement that stands for things he no doubt despises.

For one thing, I can imagine him basically paraphrasing that sentence. How come I don't often hear anything like that kind of introspection coming from the left about the depredations of unbalanced followers? When it does come, why is it that others on the Far Left then try to kick them out of the Left? Then too, I hear and read things like, "It's okay to hate your oppressors." I think I know what it means when people start to say it's okay to hate on a group of people based on outward and inherent characteristics. I grew up being on the receiving end of that.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#145

Post by rocmcd »

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.

It really was. It was two people on entirely different planes of conversation talking right past each other.

One thing I think Peterson could do better (though I imagine he wouldn't do this purely on principle, if he was even capable) is adapting his speech and rhetoric to meet his target audience. He was answering her questions in a calm and well-meaning manner, but just the tone and vocabulary of his explanations was going completely over her head, making her draw the wrong conclusions from what he was saying. That is, assuming that she wasn't trying to be combative on purpose.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#146

Post by [deleted] »

mywittyname wrote: post #141
krick wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as much "alt-right venerate him", as his ("alt-left", I guss?) opponents like to mark him "alt-right" for no reason other than he is not as "left" as they are.

Based on the recent YT comments on his videos (and the titles of clip compilations of his lectures), the alt-right definitely appear to hold him up as some figure head. I definitely get frustrated when I hear people on the left call him dangerous. I feel like these aren't even "alt" left people either, it sounds like they are largely plain old liberals who never heard of him, and blindly toss him in with the like of…

[deleted]

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#147

Post by wumpus »

DanAndersen wrote: post #66
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.…

My "Miss Manners" etiquette book from the 1960s says you should call people by the names they wish to be called. So it's not "modern", it's timeless. She directly addresses the social issues of the day, such as gay couples or couples living in sin; it's clear what she would recommend today.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#148

Post by wumpus »

wumpus wrote: post #147
DanAndersen wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

My "Miss Manners" etiquette book from the 1960s says you should call people by the names they wish to be called. So it's not "modern", it's timeless. She directly addresses the social issues of the day, such as gay couples or couples living in sin; it's clear what she would recommend today.

Radical examples from the 1960s: If Bob and Nancy have been living together for a while, invite "Bob and Nancy", not "Bob and Guest"; and this classic:

Q: WHAT DO I SAY TO MY SON'S GAY FRIEND BOB'S LOVER AT MY SON'S WEDDING???

A: How do you do? My name's Judith.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#149

Post by majormajor »

cholantesh wrote: post #117
majormajor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy in one-on-one conversations with people you know or have a reasonable way of learning about. It's hard for public or mass communications with people who have rapidly-evolving preferences and sets of things that can cause offense. Peterson sounds like a dick in his methods, but there's a dangerous regressive trend picking up in mainstream circles of treating disagreement as heresy. We've picked up the worst…

>It's hard for public or mass communications with people who have rapidly-evolving preferences and sets of things that can cause offense. I'm not convinced of this. "Hi all" works as a salutation, in public speaking, you can substitute ladies and gentlemen with lots of far more engaging variants (eg: "Dear friends", "my fellow students" (a favourite of one of my best instructors in college), "distinguished guests", e…

The outrage is less, but you can still catch flak for little slips like referring to an unknown party as "he" or "she" instead of "they." (A perfectly cromulent third-person-singular pronoun with plenty of history, IMO, but some people dislike it, too.)

But I'm thinking more of things like "creating a gender drop down box for a tool where demographic info was desired." Or do we just drop the idea of even having a meaningful response to such a question? Sometimes it's relevant, though, especially in medical industries.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#150

Post by pjkundert »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #30
pjkundert wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Curious as to why your grandmother was called a Nazi . . .

Disagreement with a proposed belief/behavior system is equated with "hate", and hate-filled "whatever"-phobes are Nazis. My grandmother remains unconvinced that "whatever" is good. Hence she is "hate" filled, and a Nazi. QED.
Post reply on HN