The Jordan Peterson Thread


My perception of JBP is that he’s using book learning language to say what the vast majority of people outside of academia believe. It’s often times the case where the people who have the spare time and are more adept at linguistic shell games are the loudest squawkers telling us what we’re supposed to be thinking. If you talk to average Joe on the street I’m sure he/she/pick one will be saying what Peterson does with less eloquence.
No truly compassionate person believes any other person should be seconded to themselves at the cost of group harmony. Why is every sociology 101 student trying to tell me that I’m putting ‘I’s’ in team?

His speaking to the deity worship issue is more of a rejection of the shifting sands of clinical psychology than a charge toward asses in pews. Organized religion adds consistency and community that support family values, though there are ugly examples of it’s flaws. Clinical psychology is adding to a narcissistic society by encouraging individuals to view themselves as unique thus, separating themselves from the group. In a church based community, individuals realize they are not special and they learn through local examples to get on with it. There is far too much wallowing in bathtubs filled with bullshit. Every new theory of “why?” looks to me like another scumbag attempting his/her/pickone’s own creative tenure justification. Universities are trying to trim the fat of late methinks. Peterson falls into this category by the way.

I’ve been non-religion since before it was cool.


That was a long read, certainly the writer is not at all fond of JP, to an extent the reader is left wondering why. However, and despite the author invoking all sorts of psychobabble, with regards the distinction between men and women, JP’s message is quite simple, one Im sure even toddlers can understand.

Men have a penis, woman have a vagina.


That was such an odd article to read. I had the feeling the writer agrees with most of what JP says but he has some kind of beef with him maybe because of his success.


The writer appeared to me to be gently criticizing JP’s behavior, while clarifying his position. I think it was a good analysis, but could have avoided the academic language. Having said that, this is the language JP uses and there is no reason why he should dumb down.

For me it summed JP up pretty well.


In the past year I have developed a new rule. I don’t read stories with a headline that begins “The Shocking …” Without fail such articles are a partisan attack on some politician (usually Trump) or an attempt to rally the spirits of some tribe aggrieved by circumstances.

“The Real Reason …”, “The Most Disturbing …”, and “Trump Thinks …” are other examples (listicles, too).

Gonna make an exception here, though. I have no experience with, so who knows.

ETA: and the writer gets it right, whoda thunk it. His second-to-last paragraph presents the point I’m trying to make far more elegantly than I. I also agree that the left has become inoculated against Peterson in part by his personality. I’ve seen that a lot in US Democrats who purport to speak for their tribe, they watch like 5 minutes of him on yt and dismiss everything he said or ever will say.


Peterson is smart enough not to give a yes-or-no answer to a poorly defined or leading question. Instead, he starts a Socratic dialogue, looking to define the terms that are just trigger words or bright shiny words to all the idiots out there who think only in words and not in concepts.

He’s smart enough to troll people, but without the external self awareness to do it on purpose. Again, like Socrates. You can’t have a rational discussion with irrational and/or stupid people. Peterson isn’t really talking to stupid people, but he talks publicly and the stupid people all overhear. It’s not really practical to go on TV or Youtube and say “oh, I wasn’t talking to you.”

He’ll end up drinking hemlock if he’s not careful.

Trump, by contrast, trolls people on purpose, having internalized the fact that they’re idiots. He seems to be having fun at it too. And he speaks in covfefese. That’s like a dog whistle, only for real.


I have officially fallen into the Jordan Peterson rabbit hole. I’m very much on the left-wing of the political spectrum, meaning that any time I see Jordan Peterson’s name in my social media filter bubbles, it’s usually linked to some pretty hostile voices. If it wasn’t for the fact that in my early-20s, I went through a Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell phase which lead me to some of Peterson’s YouTube lectures, I may very well have seen all the “alt-right spokesman” and “Nazi fanbase” labels, internalised them, and not bothered digging any deeper (such is the nature of our social media filters). However, remembering that I found Jordan Peterson to be a deeply intelligent and thoughtful thinker in those old lecture videos, I just couldn’t square what I was seeing in my filter with the Jordan Peterson I was familiar with, and so I dug further. I started off, like many, with the infamous Cathy Newman interview, which I thought he handled brilliantly, and I took it from there. I’ve just finished his latest book.

As a left-winger, I fundamentally disagree with his views on socialism, though I’m appreciative that he’s able to challenge my beliefs. However, as a traditional left-winger, I completely agree with his views on what he calls “cultural Marxists” - those who preach “identity politics”, which I think is the single most damaging movement to have ever happened to the left (even more damaging than Soviet-style communism and the emergence of neoliberalism). However, based on my experiences at university (which weren’t that long ago), I’m inclined to think that he might be exaggerating the extent to which this ideology has taken hold of academia, though it’s possible that the situation may be different in Canada and the US to where I’m from, the UK.

I find it fascinating, and deeply frustrating, that virtually none of my left-wing friends are willing to read or watch Peterson for themselves. Every now and then, one of them posts an anti-Peterson article, to which I’ll urge them to see what he has to say for themselves, but they never do. It seems that once the label “alt-right” is attached to somebody by the self-declared bastions of liberalism, like The Guardian and The New York Times, that person is toxic among certain “well-educated” sections of the left. It’s really telling that so many people who pride themselves on their willingness to engage with differing viewpoints are so reluctant to do so when the other viewpoints might actually challenge their entire outlook on life (which is what Peterson has done with mine). But, sadly, this seems to be the case among much of the left these days, and not only within the “identity politics” circles. :disappointed:


I’m reading his new book. I like it.


I think you have pretty much summarised the crux of the issue. I hold a slightly right of centre viewpoint, but I understand that without meaningful dialogue and an attempt to engage opposing views, it seems impossible to ever reach a compromise or agree on any decisions in Government.
I seem to have been portrayed as much further to the “Right”, than I feel I am. The polarisation and venom appears to be increasing exponentially.
The pendulum of political views swung so far one way, there is now a knee-jerk opposing reaction, which may result in a much less desirable finale.


Those must be some pretty massive mass graves waiting to be discovered in Identistan. :tumble:


Just saw this yesterday.

I’m not a fan of Jordan Peterson by a long stretch but I do think he both has the right to say what he says and he does have some very valid points to make. That being said, some of them are silly. But I give him great props for both going onto this show (Jim Jefferies is known for being a shit stirrer) and admitting… well, what he admits at the end.

There’s also a part at the end that cracks me up.


JP actually says this himself: he has a slightly bizarre story about walking along a clifftop, but his point is that you need both views so that you can pick apart what’s wrong with them (in any given situation) and hopefully come up with the right answer … which might draw from both or from neither. He thinks it’s amazingly dangerous that the right and the left aren’t even interested in talking to each other.

I’ve noticed he’s a bit more arrogant than he used to be. Fame has gone to his head slightly. He’s less ready to listen politely and more likely to tell people ‘I know more about this than you do’.


My point isn’t about which was worse per se, but which I feel has caused more damaging purely to the left-wing movement. Identity politics has caused enormous divisions within the left, driven away the left’s traditional working-class base, in many cases turning them to right-wing populism (this is more of an issue in Europe than the U.S., where the working class were never really much of a “traditional base” for the left), and needlessly distracting people from what I think are the important issues the left is supposed to tackle. Soviet-style communism, for all its problems, didn’t damage the left-wing movement to the same extent.


Is it acceptable in Leafland to use secretly recorded conversations as proof?


Depends if they were in a one or two party consent state.


You don’t see that too often. It would have been interesting to hear him a bit more in depth on it.

Yes that was amusing :slight_smile: The look was pretty priceless

JP does manage to make sense of it by fitting it into an overarching scenario. When I went to school, leftist activists were reasonably organized and focused on cold war issues. It’s an interesting viewpoint and worth thinking about, I think.


Personally I think this is an awesome illustration of my comments elsewhere about how talk of “rights” can get you tied up in logical knots. In particular, the argument about free speech and whose right of free speech trumps the other’s.

I would have answered that yes, anyone should have the “right” to not bake a cake for a black couple. Why? Because it’s very hard to argue that a baker, who is simply doing something he enjoys to get the bills paid, has a responsibility to do what he does under all circumstances. He can refuse custom to the black couple for the same reason he can deny custom to a Nazi: he just doesn’t want to. The argument that he “should treat everyone equally” falls down as soon as you introduce objectively despicable customers.

The civil rights movement, on the other side, could have argued their case with “Am I Not a Man And a Brother?”, with no reference to rights. Black people were denied rights by the simple expedient of defining them as not entirely human, therefore human rights (or more accurately, our inclination to brotherhood) didn’t apply to them. Pull away that particular rug, and you’ve got people’s natural sympathy with the human race back on your side. The Nazi, on the other hand, would have a lot more trouble recruiting that argument in his favour precisely because he doesn’t hold that view himself.

The (hypothetical) baker denying the black couple a cake is an asshole, but karma would get him in the end when news about his views got around: he’d likely lose a lot of business. Denying a cake to Nazis would likely have the opposite effect. So no need to make a legal song and dance about these things, or even a political one.


One out of two parties’ consent is all that’s required to make it non-criminal (last time I checked).


Really? Working class Britons are no longer voting Labour because they can’t stand Jerry preaching to them about pronouns and all the letters in the LG-somethingorother soup? I missed that. :idunno:

If the idea is that they vote Tory or UKIP because of immigration, isn’t that also the rightist version of identity politics? I.e. they don’t just dislike leftist identitarianism, but they also like rightist identitarianism (“protect our Christian heritage” etc.), St. George’s foreign passport notwithstanding. That seems to be more of a thing for the older generations.

Soviet-style communism, for all its problems, didn’t damage the left-wing movement to the same extent.

Sovietism can’t take 100% of the blame for the situation that currently exists i.e. as soon as anyone suggests European style health care (or basically Euro-style anything), American rightists scream Russia! Cuba! Venezuela! Run for your lives! :runaway: But I believe it was and still is a major factor. Pronoun wars and so on are a thing now, but they haven’t reached the same scale of significance (and won’t).

If by identity politics you specifically mean immigration, then I agree that’s a major issue that people need to consider very carefully, but I think most people who are leftish but disagree with mainstream leftist immigration policy would still be happy to vote left if that one area of policy were revised accordingly. (I don’t follow European news as much as I’d like to, so I welcome enlightenment on this topic.)


Ah, yes…

The Civil Responsibilities Movement! :upside_down_face:

An important source for the CRM is the Responsible Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Responsibilities, that among these are not to kill, not to oppress and not to rain on the parades of others. That to secure these responsibilities, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their non-endangerment of others and non-pooping on the parties of others.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their responsibility, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future non-endangerment of others.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the responsibility of representation in the legislature; a responsibility inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the responsibilities of the people.

A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a responsible people.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of responsibility ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as Responsible and Independent States, they have full responsibility to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of responsibility do.

(One instance of “responsibility” was from “power”, not “right”.)

Stay tuned for part II… :popcorn: