Comments

116
Yes, hit piece. Writing untruthful things about someone to make them look bad in my estimation could be called a hit piece. That's just me.
117
Yes, hit piece. Writing untruthful things about someone to make them look bad could be called a hit piece. That's just me.
119
As with any opinion piece... Make sure you read opposite views as well. Do your own research. Make up your own mind. Here is a good place to start.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1…
120
I'd second all the recommendations on your reading list, Rich. Rather than chastising people for their interest, why not also encourage them to expose themselves to Peterson's ideas so they can make up their own minds about him?
121
This is fascinating. The repetitive criticisms and recurring grammatical troubles here suggest that a few people are writing multiple posts with different handles, or else they're all working from the same blueprint.

I'm particularly intrigued by 'emotional' used as an insult -- if anything tips off the shallowness of Peterson's writing, it's the idea that 'emotional' is bad.
122
I'd second all of the recommendations on your reading list, Rich, though I can't say I agree with every view espoused by every one of those authors. Similarly, rather than chastising people for their interest in Peterson, why not encourage them to expose themselves to his ideas firsthand so they can make up their own minds?
123

Holy Moly! Well this post certainly hit a nerve didn't it? If y'all enjoy or feel the need for a self help guide then by all means knock yourselves out.

124

His articulation on a meaningful life is in part why he resonates so deeply with so many.

125

I never heard anything about this guy until I started seeing all these think-pieces popping up everywhere about how very dangerous his ideas are.

126

Uh...the people who intellectually disagree with Peterson aren't AGAINST "self-reliance and maturity". Nobody actually is against those things, anywhere.
It's just that
A) The system and historic racism don't always ALLOW people to BE self-reliant,
B) There's nothing particulary "mature" in simply dismissing the continuing effects of historic oppression, or in refusing to follow the basic human obligation we all have-the obligation to not be an arrogant, insensitive jerk.
C) It was always silly for Peterson to act as though he was being oppressed by simply being expected to show basic human respect for his students by using their pronouns. That simply isn't much to ask-if you're a decent human being, it's just something you would automatically agree to do, and no one loses anything in going along with it.
No one needs to have the right to deny another person's truth, to refuse to respect another person's reality, just to have "freedom of expression";

Also, as to "Cultural Marxism"...it isn't a thing. It has never been a thing. Nothing any of the people Peterson smears as "Cultural Marxists" support would ever have the effect of turning the US into the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao or even Cuba under Fidel, and probably not even into Bernie Sanders-style social democracy. There isn't even any significant number of people on the North American, British, or European Left who would even want to bring any of that back. That shit is extinct.

Finally, I'm a man...a grandfather getting closer to 60 each day...and Jordan Peterson has no claim to speak for all men, or even MOST men, or even most white men. He simply speaks for his own ego, and for a rigid, uptight notion of manhood that's becoming part of the dead past and deserves to.

And it wouldn't surprise me if Rightmaster Jordy P. himself wrote about 80% of the pro-Jordy comments in this thread, with thirty or forty different laptops and a case of Molson sitting all around him.

127

Jordan Peterson's ideas aren't dangerous, they're just either retreads or plain wrong. Seriously, watch many of his videos. Many of his arguments are appeals to authority - his own. He puts himself out as some sort of ĂĽber-expert on post-modernism, despite not having published anything of substance on it and if his videos represents his views accurately, not understanding it either. He then proceeds to build a fantasy world in which laws to recognize gender-nonconforming people as humans with intrinsic value and such will somehow lead to a totalitarian state run by jackbooted SJWs with the blood of patriots flowing through the streets (relax, I know he didn't say this, it's hyperbole to match his own argument which he's sited at the top of Harakiri).

He's also an authority on evo-psych, but frequently represents conjecture as fact in the service of advancing his argument. For example, do you know why women wear makeup, particularly red makeup? It's to mimic blushing, which reminds men of ripe fruit, or reminds them of swollen vulvas (he's actually claimed both to be true) but that's the kind of nonsense you spout when you don't have any black friends. He (ab)uses Biology to make inferences about human behavior (Lobsters? Really?) that are easily shown to not be true, while ignoring contemporary evidence that could have helped him avoid his errors. Intentional or not, his retrograde ideas about gender, race, and class give him the appearance of hoisting the standard of the beleaguered white male.

The most apt parallel I can draw to him is Ayn Rand. When your first introduction to moral philosophy is Jordan B Peterson everything he says sounds like it makes perfect sense. Of course the rest of the world wants to shut him up because his ideas are so dangerous. And they are a bit dangerous, precisely because they appear to make sense. The world is a complex place and Peterson offers a simplistic world view that papers over the messiness. We crave simple solutions to complex problems (Exhibit 1: the buffoon currently occupying the White House) because we struggle with ambiguity and dissonance, and can't seem to avoid confirmation bias even when aware of it. We tell ourselves stories that enables us to ignore our own complicity in supporting an unjust system - and that's not including his supporters who are avowed white nationalists and gender essentialists. Go see Peterson if you've got extra cash lying around and think there's no higher use for it other than to fork it over to him, but also expose yourself to ideas that run counter to his. The more educated you are, the less likely you are to be fooled by his increasingly profitable schtick.

128

LOL, Peterson really did trigger the staff at The Stranger. Probably because his ideas and calls to action run counter to the usual soy-boy whining that stands for discourse there. As someone already said, if I wasn't a fan of Peterson before this article, I am now.

129

@128: Uh huh. It's the Stranger staff that's "triggered is it? Judging from 128 comments, the bulk of which are from outraged Peterson fans, it rather looks more likely that it is they that have their underpants, or pantaloons if you will, in a twist than the Stranger Staff.
But again! If you feel the need for self help guides, please do avail yourself of them.

130

@129 doubles down on condescending comment(s).

131

@130: Because I love a hat trick, I'll give you a little virtual pat on the head and send you on your way. ;)

132

People are interested in his work because modernity has indeed led to chaos. Liberal democracy just doesn't have the ability to satisfy man and actually makes him less happy, less fulfilled, adrift; the uprooted and cosmopolitan nature of modernity is simply not a system we evolved for and cannot live in forever.

People are looking for an alternative world-view(an alternative world actually) which might bring order and happiness to their lives among all the vapid decadence and irony and sarcasm of a sick culture-- a culture the left has been slowly shaping for many decades. But don't take my word for it. Go read his work and make up your own mind.

134

It's very clear you know nothing about Jordan Peterson or actually listened to his talk/lectures. In the future it would be be best if you did your research before writing an article about a person, unless your just wanted to write a biased article decrying the person simply because you think he has different views than you.

135

Jordan Peterson is not a centrist. There is no center. Anymore. Sorry. He is far right.

He is an apologist for the racist, sexist, classist, homophobic status quo. And for a cruel, ruthless economic system that mows most people down and is going down. He adores the elite. The swill he writes or talks on women is insulting and I say that as a woman struggling to survive.
I call it bull shit. Absolute garbage. Period. Of course white nationalists love him he is one.

136

In contrast there is a self help book called RECOVERY by Russell Brand.

137

I love Jordan Peterson. As you so humorously noted: The Ontario Human Rights Commission, however, does (sort of) do what Peterson thought C-16 did. According to the Torontoist, in 2012 the provincial commission amended its code to say that failing to use a person's preferred gender pronouns in an illegal way (i.e. in a way that amounts to harassment) could result in a fine or an order to attend anti-discrimination training. Peterson likes to conflate the OHRC code with C-16 and say that it "compels" people to use particular gender neutral pronouns, but it doesn't. It simply allows for the idea that deliberate misgendering can be a form of discrimination”. So the question is what constitutes “deliberate misgendering”? Simply being not familiar with some new weird liberal language could be construed as “deliberate misgendering” and get you fined or sent to a “training” simply because of an innocent error. Next up: “social retraining on how to be a good citizen for the state and its agenda”. I think I know why he is so popular.

138

137:

"Deliberate misgendering" is what Peterson does when he announces to his students that he will NOT use the pronouns they identify with, but will instead simply refer to them by the pronouns they were assigned at birth. "Deliberate misgendering" is a brutal thing-it's about refusing to recognize another person's lived truth, about denying their reality. There's no difference between deliberate misgendering and racial slurs.

All using people's pronouns is about is respect. We are all entitled to some BASIC level of respect simply for because we are human beings and as such have at least some intrinsic worth.

How can anybody possibly by restricted in freedom of expression by the expectation that they will treat everybody with a basic level of respect?

139

In Toronto last week a man used a van to kill ten people and seriously injure 13 more. The media has reported that the perpetrator identified as an “Incel” and that identity may have driven his actions. In the wake of that revelation, while looking deeper at “Incels” and toxic masculinity, I saw a link I should have made before but hadn’t: many members of these groups follow, are informed by and identify with Jordan Peterson’s thinking about masculinity. I am not saying that Jordan Peterson is an Incel or is in any way trying to incite violence or hate, but it is clear to me how some of his work could be used (and, sometimes, distorted) to give a sense of legitimacy to dangerous misogyny. It makes me more concerned about the influence his thinking seems to be achieving, especially among his followers including the thousands who support him to the tune of $60,000.00 per month on Patreon.

140

139: Good catch there, Kboa.

141

Another fucking rant from the Stranger about someone it's politically expedient to hate.

Thanks for telling me--a long-time feminist progressive "tree-hugging hippie type"-- that Jordan Peterson is my enemy because he has the audacity to talk about issues that might make me uncomfortable or I might not agree about. And for reducing Jordan's character/persona/message/intellectual standing to a ridiculous polarizing misogynistic racist right-wing caricature.

Pretty much doubt you and most of his snarky self-satisfied critics have read his books, watched his videos, studied Jung, mythology, psychology, philosophy, religious history, the Holocaust, the Soviet Gulag, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, etc.--so it's pretty fucking absurd that you have a knee-jerk reaction to the things he supposedly believes and says so virulent that you think people should boycott his lectures.

I don't know if I'm going to hear Jordan speak but I do know that he damn well has the right to. He's not an alt-right spokesperson--he's a philosopher. And we damn well need some serious thought and discussion about values/ethics/morals right now.

142

141: It's absurd to bring "the Soviet Gulag" into this, because despite Peterson's paranoia, nobody on the Left today supports anything even remotely similar to Stalinism, and there's no way that asking people to respect other people's pronouns could possibly turn us into a the USSR in the Thirties. It's ridiculous to imply that the only way to avoid totalitarianism is to refuse to respect the lived truth of others.

143

JBP understands that Identity Politics + Group Think + Legislating Speech = part of the Path to Potential Totalitarianism equation. He's informing and cautioning people. Perhaps the most meaningful endeavor being undertaken by any individual today.

144

"Group Think"? It's not "group think" to simply expect people to do the decent thing and respect other people's pronouns. Nobody needs to question anyone's reality to have free speech.

The Gulag(which actually already existed under the tsars prior to 1917) became what it was, and the USSR became what it became, for three reasons and three reasons alone:

1) The Revolution didn't spread to the rest of Europe, leaving the USSR isolated, thus creating a siege mentality;
2) The "vanguard party" structure was undemocratic-which is why almost none of the Left in the North America, Europe and the UK use it anymore;
3) Stalin, a man who most likely never held genuinely socialist or small-c communist convictions, and was probably always a right-wing Great Slavic Nationalist instead, was able to take advantage of those conditions to consolidate absolute power.

What Stalin(and Mao, who modeled his approach on Stalin with modifications to adjust to working in a much more rural society) did was horrific. Virtually EVERYONE on the Left in the European and English-speaking world(and in many places outside of it, such as among the Zapatistas in Mexico and among those fighting to establish and defend an autonomous libertarian socialist autonomous zone in Rojava(an area within Turkey and Syria, to name only two) utterly rejects his methods and his analysis.

And there is no possible that we need to let people in historically oppressed communities take the lead in deciding what is and is not oppression could possibly replicate Stalinism. To believe that it would means to believe that the nightclub heckler is now "the defender of our liberties", and that the only way to be free is to be obnoxious to people.

The way to prevent tyranny is to guarantee that no one is oppressed, no one is subjugated, no one is disregarded, disrespected, and cast aside-and that everyone is valued and treated with at least some basic level of respect. It's the kindest society, the most accepting society, the most inclusive society that will be the freest society.

145

The first line of the second-to-last paragraph should read: "And there is no way that recognizing and accepting the fact that we need to let people in historically oppressed communities take the lead in deciding what is and what is not oppression could possibly replicate Stalinism". Realized I'd left a couple of words out as I wrote.

146

Rich Smith's screed is such a misleading piece of crap. He shows no knowledge of Peterson beyond surface level pablum and cliches. Peterson's ideas are well researched and grounded and have a lot to offer anyone. Of course I don't agree with everything he says but he has opened my eyes to some of my 'lived experiences' in trying to avoid the group-think I see in some 'social justice' groups in Seattle. (Zarna Joshi comes to mind.) And I am far-left atheist liberal as they come. Peterson's points about a certain, and unfortunately growing, segment of the left on totalitarian thinking, language/thought policing, free-speech suppressing, man-hating, white-hating, are right on. This is why he has garnered such a following. And he has agreed to call individuals in his classes by their preferred pronoun so you who are mischaracterizing his position on this simply do not know what you are talking about. His points on is are about free speech, which unfornately some on the left seem willing to give up in the name of political correctness.

147

146: You don't need to be able to refuse to use people's pronouns to be safe from groupthink. And the only things "social justice" groups you are insulting are rigid about are things that nobody should HAVE to debate.

Non-binary people shouldn't have to PROVE that additional genders exist.
People who are not heterosexual should not have to PROVE that they can't become heterosexual.
People of color shouldn't have to PROVE they deserved to be admitted to the college they are attending.
Women shouldn't have to PROVE that "rape culture" is a thing. It is. We all know it, and we all need to work to challenge and get rid of it.
The poor shouldn't have to PROVE that their poverty isn't their own fault and that it's not their own fault that they don't have jobs.

There's simply no reason that anybody should have to debate the legitimacy of their own lived experience. We all know who we are and we all know what we can and can't change in ourselves.

148

That should read "People of color shouldn't have to PROVE they deserved to be admitted to the college they are attending, OR that they got their jobs on their own merits, OR that they actually own the nice car they happen to be driving when the police pull them over."

149

Wow. I wonder if this guy has even listened to Jordan Peterson? He didn’t bring up a single new talking point about him that I haven’t read in other bash pieces. I’m surprised he didn’t bring up the old saw “stupid persons intellectual” I don’t know if that’s poor plageristic journalism or the barest shred of moral integrity.


    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.