21–30 of 172 posts
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.
In an environment where non-progressives are shunned, he refrains from shunning them. Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non-progressives deserve to be demonized. And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason. We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cow…
progressives have been shunned and demonized for so much longer. What did you expect would happen?
Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his most vocal enemies.
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 thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
In an environment where non-progressives are shunned, he refrains from shunning them. Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non-progressives deserve to be demonized. And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason. We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cow…
progressives have been shunned and demonized for so much longer. What did you expect would happen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
progressives have been shunned and demonized for so much longer. What did you expect would happen?
Without my agreeing or disagreeing, does that make the above posted ideas incorrect? If not, why are they downvoted?
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…
I've never had to think about how my outlook might change if all of that got a lot more inconvenient though (if more people start requiring ever more varied pronouns, or if so many words get soft-banned as being offensive that it's difficult to communicate with clarity). Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along. I can understand and be sympathetic to Peterson's position in that sense, although I'm not sure if I agree.
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…
Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)
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…
I'm perfectly able to be understanding in these cases, but I'm not capable to be psychic.
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...