Omg, Jordan Peterson PWNS pearl-clutching reporter trying to play gotcha

[lisa needs braces]

Literally the exact same Current Affairs author has a takedown of Peterson that is so enjoyable that last week I reread it for sheer pleasure over lunch. Of course, truth is, Peterson is such a contemptible, loathsome ass that even a takedown is too good for him.

The anti-Ben Shapiro article was better than the anti-Jordan Peterson article. 

[Brian]

What has he said that is contemptible and loathsome?

It's not so much the contents of a single remark as the overall pattern and nature of his speech. As an academic, Peterson is contemptible whenever he knowingly speaks a falsehood or manipulates statistics to prove his personal cause; he is contemptible when he freely promotes and welcomes his status as the center of a cult of attention and adoration.

Also - and most academics will of course disagree with me on this because agreeing with me would put their entire livelihoods in danger! - he is contemptible for presenting himself as a brilliant new thinker when much of his "thought" is incoherent gibberish.

The anti-Ben Shapiro article was better than the anti-Jordan Peterson article. 

Perhaps you are only saying that because you like JP better than BS. (BS does have handy initials.)

For those who don't know or might enjoy the read, here's a long but entertaining takedown of Peterson:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

And here is an anti-Peterson article written by the professor who championed him and hired him:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

"I am alarmed by his now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He can be very persuasive, and toys with facts and with people's emotions. I believe he is a man with a mission. It is less clear what that mission is."

Interestingly, although the first link is a lengthy discussion of the contents of Peterson's writings, it is in the second link that I have found the only clear expression of the man's actual views that I have seen:

"He is a biological and Darwinian determinist. Gender, gender roles, dominance hierarchies, parenthood, all firmly entrenched in our biological heritage and not to be toyed with. Years ago when he was living in my house, he said children are little monkeys trying to clamber up the dominance hierarchy and need to be kept in their place. I thought he was being ironic."

amw - the first link here has a fun story about Peterson lying about reading Orwell.

[Florestan]

presenting himself as a brilliant new thinker when much of his "thought" is incoherent gibberish.

This probably applies to ninety percent of the social scientists. Peterson is really a drop in the ocean.. 

[Brian]

This probably applies to ninety percent of the social scientists. Peterson is really a drop in the ocean.. 

In that particular sense, yes. As I said, no fellow academic will critique him for his opacity!

[Florestan]

no fellow academic will critique him for his opacity!

Why, of course not! Opacity has no political color. 

[Mahlerian]

And here is an anti-Peterson article written by the professor who championed him and hired him:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

"I am alarmed by his now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He can be very persuasive, and toys with facts and with people's emotions. I believe he is a man with a mission. It is less clear what that mission is."

A good article, and one that presents an articulate argument for many of the feelings I had about Peterson from when I first became aware of him.  Thanks for the link.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

You might have noticed --- if you haven't, please do --- that I wrote "liberals", not liberals.

Yes, I did notice. Part of the issue is that "liberal" is one of those words with a variety of meanings. On reflection, the trends I was talking about are largely a result of the Clintonization of the Democratic Party (i.e., its merger with corporate power and embrace of neo-liberal economics). But it's a complex issue.

And anyway, this:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/

is a typically leftist piece of garbage.

And you may be right about that. However, as I understand it, Peterson is promoting Stoicism and general grown-upness. His reaction to the article is way out of line with these ideals.

[Florestan]

it's a complex issue.

Agreed.

And you may be right about that. However, as I understand it, Peterson is promoting Stoicism and general grown-upness. His reaction to the article is way out of line with these ideals.

And agreed again.

[zamyrabyrd]

What has he said that is contemptible and loathsome?

Jordan Peterson has been challenging the sacred cows of the left like fake victimhood. He says that we should not be defined by membership in a group and demand equality of outcome since groups anyway intersect. In particular he is calling attention to the damage that characterizing Western Civilization as an oppressive patriarchy by militant feminism has done. Across the board, Judeo-Christian values have had the best record in honoring and elevating the status of women than most other world cultures.

Women are more than represented in universities and in the work force. He calls attention to them dropping out of professions like medicine and law when in many cases they outnumbered men in medical school, so as to recoup their biological destinies. The equality of outcome that the BBC interviewer was goading him with had to do with a boiled down statistic that women earn less than men. However, in context, for the work they actually do, this is not true.

He calls attention that women give themselves the right to provoke as in Cathy Newman's case, but cry foul when they are cornered. He says that education is a form of male castration. I don't find his comments on wanting to slap down the person who called him a fascist off the top. He never said that we should, male or female, stoically absorb attacks and insults. He does preach self-control which is counter-intuitive to the culture of indulgence.

Surprisingly, going against this aspect of the culture has endeared him to young people who have never been exposed to values of sobriety and integrity. This has made him an overnight success with his bestseller book, "12 Rules for Life". Its modern language may be more accessible than Epicetus or Marcus Aurelius. In any case, he has been more surprised by his sudden popularity which came as a result of challenging the compelled speech law in Canada. This is a perfect example by a perceived oppressed minority together with virtue signalers to use force to promote their agenda.

For those who are not aware of what Peterson was up against and could have cost him his job in the University of Toronto where he still has to walk on eggs, here are the draconian implications of Bill C-16. Though other academics can benefit by his having spoken out and continuing to do so, they would not have had the gumption to raise a peep:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-meet-the-new-human-rights-where-you-are-forced-by-law-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-like-ze-and-zer

Few Canadians realize how seriously these statutes infringe upon freedom of speech. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has stated, in the context of equivalent provisions in the Ontario Human Rights Code, that "refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity ... will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education."

Human rights were conceived to liberate. They protected people from an oppressive state. But freedom from interference is so 20th century. Modern human rights entitle.

In other words, failure to use a person's pronoun of choice — "ze," "zir," "they" or any one of a multitude of other potential non-words — will land you in hot water with the commission. That, in turn, can lead to orders for correction, apology, Soviet-like "re-education," fines and, in cases of continued non-compliance, incarceration for contempt of court. This peril is exactly what Peterson warned of in his video, for which he was mocked for scaremongering.

[amw]

I betcha he read plenty of Marx, also Solzhenitsyn.

Peterson and Solzhenitsyn seem like natural allies.

http://gammacloud.org/2013/01/11/solzhenitsyn-reconsidered/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books