Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I'm a huge fan of Jordan Peterson (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chet
- Start date
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Certainly an interesting voice, though I’m still not totally what I think. He makes a lot of legit points, but skews a little too much toward traditionalism for me.
Smoo
Fear the Beaver
chet
Footballguy
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Not a big fan of tennis, but that's cool. 
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Wait - is that Riversco?
comfortably numb
Footballguy
Buy him?
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Join the PSF. He's now a poltical figure in Canada and America.
Love him, too.
eta* That he has to debate is sad. The West will eat itself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
His gender stance a lone is enough for me to dislike him. As I’ve posted here before, my young niece is transgendered and man is it tough on her and the family. Just yesterday, her mom was at an exercise group that she’s been in for awhile. The instructor is also a flight attendant and was telling the group that her employer is now allowing men to wear the women’s uniform and vice-versa. She then said “so now there will be trannies on the planes. It’s ebough to make me want to puke.” Someone else chimed in that these people should fired and institutionalized. My sister in law feels totally bestrayed and is furious she has spent all that time and money there.
So the Jordan Peterson’s of the world who seem to cloak hate and bigotry in science, liberty and some fake idea of traditionalisn can piss off.
So the Jordan Peterson’s of the world who seem to cloak hate and bigotry in science, liberty and some fake idea of traditionalisn can piss off.
rockaction
Footballguy
An awesome place for this, from Freddy DeBoer. leftist, on the settled nature of right and wrong:
This is the form of argument, and of comedy, that takes as its presumption that all good and decent people are already agreed on the issue in question. In fact, We Are All Already Decided presumes that the offense is not just in thinking the wrong thing you think but in not realizing that We Are All Already Decided that the thing you think is deeply ridiculous. And the embedded argument, such as it is, is not on the merits of whatever issue people are disagreeing about, but on the assumed social costs of being wrong about an issue on which We Are All Already Decided. Which is great, provided everybody you need to convince cares about being part of your little koffee klatsch. If not, well….
All of this, frankly, is politically ruinous. I meet and interact with a lot of young lefties who are just stunning rhetorically weak; they feel all of their politics very intensely but can’t articulate them to anyone who doesn’t share the same vocabulary, the same set of cultural and social signifiers that are used to demonstrate you’re one of the “right sort of people.” These kids are often great, they’re smart and passionate, I agree with them on most things, but they have no ability at all to express themselves to those who are not already in their tribe. They say terms like “privilege” or “mansplain” or “tone policing” and expect the conversation to somehow just stop, that if you say the magic words, you have won that round and the world is supposed to roll over to what you want.
This is the form of argument, and of comedy, that takes as its presumption that all good and decent people are already agreed on the issue in question. In fact, We Are All Already Decided presumes that the offense is not just in thinking the wrong thing you think but in not realizing that We Are All Already Decided that the thing you think is deeply ridiculous. And the embedded argument, such as it is, is not on the merits of whatever issue people are disagreeing about, but on the assumed social costs of being wrong about an issue on which We Are All Already Decided. Which is great, provided everybody you need to convince cares about being part of your little koffee klatsch. If not, well….
All of this, frankly, is politically ruinous. I meet and interact with a lot of young lefties who are just stunning rhetorically weak; they feel all of their politics very intensely but can’t articulate them to anyone who doesn’t share the same vocabulary, the same set of cultural and social signifiers that are used to demonstrate you’re one of the “right sort of people.” These kids are often great, they’re smart and passionate, I agree with them on most things, but they have no ability at all to express themselves to those who are not already in their tribe. They say terms like “privilege” or “mansplain” or “tone policing” and expect the conversation to somehow just stop, that if you say the magic words, you have won that round and the world is supposed to roll over to what you want.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Are identity politics really new? That’s what confuses me. When has politics not been deeply connected to one’s identity?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
That’s true of the majority of all people of all beliefs. Most people just think how they think and struggle to support it. They just fall back on the same canned arguments and buzzwords. For the right it’s SJW, snowflake, PC, etc. It’s lazy and annoying from all sides, but using it as a means to tout “your side” over another side is live with blinders.
Thomas The Skank Engine
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
No. But I believe he was opposed to legislation guaranteeing them protected rights in Canada.
Thomas The Skank Engine
Footballguy
Maybe you should find out for sure if he was, in fact, opposed to legislation, and why, before you decide to dislike him.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
It seems like it’s not always easy to understand what he really believes. He is a self described Christian but he won’t say if he actually is a believer. He’s not against transgendered people, he just doesn’t support legal protection for them and doesn’t believe that gender is separate from sex. He seems to have some positions that intentionally muddy the waters and it does seem like he offend makes arguments for the sake of taking a stand against certain movements.
On a positive note,I think it’s important to have dissenting voices and I agree with him on things like equality between male and female is more complicated than just sexism.
On a positive note,I think it’s important to have dissenting voices and I agree with him on things like equality between male and female is more complicated than just sexism.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
This is my take as well. I haven’t watched all of his videos, but his specious takes on the Canadian legislation that spurred his fame is enough for me to discount his takes. He’s brilliantly monetized the aggrieved, white-males-are-the-real-victims crowd, so I give him credit for that.
JuniorGong
Footballguy
Political sub-forum down?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
It’s awfully rude to have a student or coworker ask to be referred to by X and not only refuse but publicly complain about it as some incredible injustice. And then turn around and claim you are a Christian who supports loving thy neighbor. At least that is how I see it.
Thomas The Skank Engine
Footballguy
Just because he didn't support this particular bill, which he believed had free speech implications, doesn't mean that the above is true.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
That’s true. But the fact that he ignored all the lawyers who explained that his take on the free speech aspect was unfounded and misguided, suggests he’s either ignorant on the issue or perhaps has an issue with equal rights for transgenders, IMO.
Thomas The Skank Engine
Footballguy
And you think Peterson supports rudeness? My understanding is that he very much doesn’t.
He opposes laws requiring that people say some words instead of others.
I’m no expert on Peterson. I heard him on Sam Harris’s podcast, I read a review of his book, and I’ve seen a bunch of crazy people try to lump him in with the alt-right, which he is very clearly not a part of.
Based on my very limited exposure to him, my assessment of him is that I disagree with him about a bunch of things, but he seems thoughtful, well-intentioned, and generally a force for good in the public discourse.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bonzai
Footballguy
I agree that it's a real #### move. However, I don't think people should be sanctioned for being rude ########.
But his take turned out to be correct, didn’t it? The law was actually used the way he said it would be, contra the lawyers who assured him that it wouldn’t be.
At least that’s what I saw someone post on Twitter this one time, so it’s probably true.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
God bless the First Amendment. Canada doesn't have one. This is nice.
No forced pronouns for aggrieved identity politics.
No forced pronouns for aggrieved identity politics.
rockaction
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I’m not aware of someone being criminally charged for misusing pronouns, which was Peterson’s central complaint. Perhaps I missed it?
I’m not sure about criminal charges and I don’t feel like Googling, but at the very least, see the whole Lindsay Shepherd fiasco at Wilfred Laurier. I believe those laws were cited by the university, and I believe that’s not the only case like it.
mr roboto
Footballguy
Maybe not new but far more emphasized. I can’t really understand anyone who doesn’t see that. Your identity is often taken into consideration before the validity of your argument.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The classical liberal tradition that includes both American liberals and conservatives argued that people should actively try to transcend their own lot in life. "Identity politics" has existed for a long time -- think white racists in the south -- but it's generally been understood to be bad. It's only a fairly recent development that people have started to embrace identity politics as a good thing. Seeing as how Trump is the embodiment of white identity politics, I'd say this has been a bad turn of events.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
In what way? Can you give me some examples. I’m not trying to be obtuse, just trying to understand.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Wilfred Laurier apologized and admitted they erred in reprimanding Lindsay Shepherd. I don’t think that Peterson’s point was that a Univeristy may misinterpret the legislation and mistakenly reprimand a TA - I haven’t listened in awhile but I am pretty sure Peterson’s hypotheticals w/re to C-16 we’re far more alarming and referenced being criminally prosecuted for simply using the wrong pronouns. Which I think we can all agree is a gross mischaracterization of the legislation that just so happens to feed into the aggrieved anti-PC narrative he’s famous for.
chet
Footballguy
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
I think that "identity politics movement" today encompasses 2 things:
1) a perceived emphasis by Democrats over the past couple of decades to focus on various minority groups and give them a major platform
2) the seeming placement of identity the mot important (or even only) consideration when it comes to policy and exercising freedom.
this is more what peterson is focused on, as far as i can tell, in the sense that some people seem to think individual identities and sensitivities trump all else. that the individual's right to be who he or she is should be permitted and embraced by everyone, even if others disagree with it. so while politics has always been personal in some sense, it has probably been less about the individual's "identity" and more about the practical things that people need. and this exercise of individual identities is going to lead to some people bristling at the idea that they have to accept and embrace others' identities when they don't like or agree with them. and peterson seems to be concerned that these folks who don't like everyone else's identities and don't want to be forced to say and do things that they don't agree with are potentially getting their own rights trampled, which could lead to a backlash. this is probably at the heart of things like the gay wedding cake case, the military transgender ban, the transgender bathroom issues, etc.
in some ways, perhaps the schizm parallels one of the classical problems of pure libertarianism wherein it can be difficult to reconcile one person's right to exercise his liberty if it conflicts with another person's right to exercise his own liberty.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
I think that I agree with these. I usually find him compelling for a certain period of time, but at the end, still am not 100% sure what I just heard and usually get annoyed when I listen to him for too long.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I thought he just refused to use the dozens of pronouns that his school was making them use for all the different sexual orientations and transgendered people, not against them having rights.
Honestly can't remember specifics, just vague memories of his reasons from his interviews on the Rogan podcast.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
