What's new
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.

Jordan Peterson Explains Why (Radical) Leftists Don't Like Facts (5/23/22 14:24 PST) (1 Viewer)

GordonGekko

Footballguy
VIDEO: Why Don't Leftists Like Facts? | With Jordan Peterson May 8, 2022

Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro discuss why leftists do everything they possibly can to avoid facts.

".... if you stand up against the radical left, you’re in a group that also has Nazis in it; because the Nazis also stand up against the radical left. So it’s perfectly reasonable— from a strategic perspective— for the radical leftists to say well you’re against us, how do we know you’re not a Nazi? It’s like well, statistically, I’m probably not. So there’s that. But you could say at least the question is open. But, but then the next part of it comes is that— ..... because if I’m reasonable and I’m standing up against the radical left and they admit that I’m reasonable, then there has to be an admission that reasonable people could stand up against the radical left; which kind of implies that the radical left isn’t that reasonable. And so, well, they’re not going to go there. Of course they’re not that reasonable, they’re unreasonable beyond belief...."

"..... Overwhelmingly. But they’re very well organized, and verbal, and prepared minority. And they’ve occupied powerful positions in many, many institutions. HR— one of the things that I can’t figure out right now is for anybody who’s running a company that’s listening they should think this through, like to let these postmodern neo-Marxists into your company through the guise of human resources is an absolute catastrophe; you’re going to pay for that. It’s the ideology that drives post modern neo-Marxism, this identity politics— what, the identity politics movement and it’s insistence on equality of outcome is a powerfully anti-capitalistic. It’s powerfully anti-Western. Why you would let that into your company is so that you can look good socially that say is beyond me it’s a big mistake...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrqqpUQtFwc

https://erikamentari.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/jre-1070-jordan-peterson-transcript/

VIDEO: Jordan Peterson – Compassion and Envy Drive the Left Aug 8, 2018

Jordan Peterson talks about what drives the left.

"....Equality of outcome. I can’t imagine anything we can possibly strive for in our society that would make it into hell faster than equality of outcome. Like, the historical— the historical evidence for the pathology of that root is so strong, it’s like, you have to be historically ignorant beyond belief, or malevolent, or resentful beyond comprehension in order to think that that’s a good idea or to argue for that....."

"....If we’re going to play this game called capitalism— which we are all agreeing is probably at least in the models that we have right now is the best one that we have— if we’re all going to play this game, if someone decides to be the Michael Jordan of capitalism; you can’t stop them. You can’t say no, no, no, no you’re playing this game too well, you’re playing this game too hard, you’re too obsessed with this game. ....And you know there’s a couple of things that are really worth delving into in regards to that too because there’s this sort of Marxist notion that all of this inequality is generated as a consequence of capitalism. And that’s actually technically false because if you look at— there seems to be something like a law of nature that’s described by this statistical model called the Pareto distribution..... And it basically suggests that in any creative domain there is going to be a small number of people will do almost all of the output but it doesn’t just apply to human beings, it applies to the heights of trees in the Amazon rain forest, it applies to the size of cities, and it applies to the mass of stars; which is— and it’s something like the more you have the more you get...... But this- this- this phenomena where a small number of people end up controlling a tremendous proportion of the resource is not only limited to money; and doesn’t only occur in capitalist societies. It occurs everywhere; it’s like a natural law...."

"....How much tyranny you have to impose in order to produce something like equality of outcome? And Thomas Sowell has talked a little about this too. He said— what the people who are agitating for equality of outcome don’t understand is that you have to cede so much power to the authorities to the government in order to ensure equality of outcome that a tyranny is inevitable. And that’s right. And the other— another problem with equality of outcome, this is also a big technical problem; it’s like, well, what measure of outcome? You know, there’s lots of outcomes; like, how happy are you, how much pain are you in, how healthy are you, how much money do you have, how much opportunity for movement forward do you have, what’s the width of your social connections, like, what’s the quality of your friendships? Do you have exposure to arts and literature, like, you know you can multiply the number of dimensions of evaluations between people, innumerably, right? ...."

"......Because there’s all sorts of ways to classify people. You’re going to get equality of outcome on every one of those measures? It’s like, is everyone going to have to be equally happy in their relationship? And if not, why not? Why stop with economic, why stop with pay? There’s no place to stop. So, and that’s a huge technical problem because there is no place to stop there will be no stopping. It’s like nobody can have anything else— nobody can have anything else that everyone else doesn’t have at the same time. That’s the ultimate outcome of equality of outcome. Well, you think about what that would mean? It’s terrible. Well, instantly you think, oh, well, there’s nothing but a tyrannical system could impose that...."

"....Like, nobody likes the fact that homeless people exist ....and so if you have some compassion, then you think well we got to do more for the poor and dispossessed. It’s like, okay, that’s an understandable sentiment. But the problem is, is that the people....that desire to help is contaminated by resentment and ideological certainty, and then also by something that’s George Orwell pointed out so nicely in his book, Road To Wigan Pier...... It’s like, the typical middle class socialist— this was his diagnosis and he was a socialist, by the way— his diagnosis was, the typical middle-class, intellectual socialist doesn’t like the poor. In fact, they don’t want to have anything to do with the poor, they’re contemptuous of the poor; but they hate the rich. And I think it’s even more devious than that because I think who they hate are the successful. Some of the successful are rich but really who they hate is the successful. It’s like Cain and Abel. It’s the retelling of Cain and Abel.....and the people who are really driven by the radical left ideology, the real radicals, they’re almost all driven by by resentment and hatred, as far as I’m concerned...."

"....Everyone’s a victim. You can tell that story. The problem is, if you tell that story and you start to act it out, you make all of that worse. That’s the problem....It’s a much better game to play individual, it’s like; get your act together, stand up in the world, make something of yourself, stay away from the ideological oversimplifications, set your house order— ... set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world......"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2_ltkEyi0I

https://erikamentari.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/jre-1070-jordan-peterson-transcript/

VIDEO: Jordan Peterson & Ben Shapiro - Why the Left Hates the Hierarchy "Jealous of the Successful" Dec 18, 2018

Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro talk more politics and meaning.

Jordan B. Peterson's taught mythology to lawyers, doctors and business people, consulted for the UN Secretary General, helped his clinical clients manage depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, and schizophrenia, served as an adviser to senior partners of major Canadian law firms, and lectured extensively in North America and Europe. With his students and colleagues at Harvard and the University of Toronto, Dr. Peterson has published over a hundred scientific papers, transforming the modern understanding of personality, while his book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief revolutionized the psychology of religion. His latest book is 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5uE9CbQutE

VIDEO: Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw in leftist American politics | Big Think Apr 12, 2018

What is political extremism? Professor of psychology Jordan Peterson points out that America knows what right-wing radicalism looks like: white nationalism. "What's interesting is that on the conservative side of the spectrum, we've figured out how to box-in the radicals and say, 'No, you're outside the domain of acceptable opinion,'" says Peterson. But where's that line for the Left? There is no universal marker of what extreme liberalism looks like, which is devastating to the ideology itself but also to political discourse as a whole...."

Peterson is happy to suggest such a marker: "The doctrine of equality of outcome. It seems to me that that's where people who are thoughtful on the Left should draw the line, and say no. Equality of opportunity? [That's] not only fair enough, but laudable. But equality of outcome…? It's like: 'No, you've crossed the line. We're not going there with you.....'"

Peterson argues that it's the ethical responsibility of left-leaning people to identify liberal extremism and distinguish themselves from it the same way conservatives distance themselves from the doctrine of racial superiority. Failing to recognize such extremism may be liberalism's fatal flaw....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI

VIDEO: Joe Rogan - Jordan Peterson: Why Identity Politics Lead to Totalitarian Oppression Nov 29, 2018

".....Well, the thing is, like most things, it’s complicated, you know? So, are men and women more similar or more different? Well, it depends on how you define the terms first. But they’re more similar. Well why? Well, they’re the same species. So we could start with that. But the question is what are the differences and how do they manifest themselves and are those manifestations important? ...So, relatively small differences in the average can produce walloping differences at the extremes. People don’t understand that. It’s not surprising because it actually requires a fairly sophisticated grasp of statistics, but when we’re talking about things like differential outcome in the workplace, um, then you have to take a sophisticated statistical approach to it, or you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about..... And that unfortunately many of the people who are talking about gender differences they have no idea what they are talking about, they don’t know the literature, they don’t know there is a literature..... They don’t understand biology, like the social constructionist types, the women’s studies types, the neo-Marxists, they don’t give a damn about biology. It’s like they inhabit some disembodied universe...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtFFlDMnaJs

https://erikamentari.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/jre-1070-jordan-peterson-transcript/

******

Disclaimer: (I paired up the videos above with Joe Rogan/Jordan Peterson transcripts from JRE#1070 to add context to Peterson's viewpoints on equality of outcome and how it's been weaponized without real purpose nor real function by the radical left. Point to note, Peterson is from Canada so some of his perspective is clearly within the lenses of specific politics in his own country. Also Peterson tends to interchange the terms "left" and "radical left" at times. Clearly he's not treating the entire Democratic Party in the United States as a monolith. )

“The world is inexhaustible, we can each have a unique destiny” – Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson points out that the (radical) left don't like facts because it forces them to continue to unpack the entire story while it's the easier and lazier path to only deal with the first half of the narrative - that systems and hierarchies in place are corrupt and move towards greater evil and must be aggressively and even violently opposed.  And thus relying on half the story creates an excuse and moral justification to do anything and everything to broker war against your perceived "enemy"

So what is the rest of the narrative?

Peterson believes that the basis of identity politics is a pathology built upon misguided "compassion" for those who submit completely to their ideology and then pair that with envy, resentment and eventual violence to anyone deemed more "successful" than them. ( He cites the classic religious story of Cain and Abel) And part of the reason that the path to violence is so easy is because there are no guardrails. There is no limit to the the radical leftist ideology. There is no "going too far"

But what is equality of outcome? Peterson argues that it's impossible to achieve and even moreso undesirable to achieve. Impossible because it's there is no equality of outcome in nature, much of that driven by natural selection, which is always on the hunt to weed us out of existence. And that there are too many variables in real day to day life to try to sort out this mythical "equality". Undesirable because the only large scale methodology to even attempt such a massive misguided social "experiment" can only happen with a completely tyrannical authoritarian regime, filled with those who actually hate the successful but secretly despise the downtrodden that their virtue signals claim are their wards and need their constant watchful protection from all "institutions" save their own. And that the real loss of this madness is real individual agency.

Peterson describes the allure of the radical left, particularly on the young, poor and outraged, where any form of success that is paired with relentless spirit, morality, ethics and real virtue will been seen as a "judge" on the inaction of the fully woke to move beyond blame. Which lines up with the standard Gekko-ism that it's very little about you that angers people, it's how what you do and say and what you are makes others feel about themselves in either a positive or negative light. And if it's wholly negative, then they despise you and seek to hunt you down. Your "success" can only be tolerated if it's considered arbitrary, because it would remove the function of merit upon the pathway towards real achievement.

But here's where the cycle gets ugly and stays deadly. Peterson talks about the role of intersectionality within identity politics as the main driver for the radical left. He points out that if you fill the world with victims, and break then down in more and more groups, eventually they will fall into a group that will have to take it's turn as being the "oppressor" of someone else. Exponentially turning everyone into a victim requires exponentially forcing someone to take the role of the "oppressor" Thus the saying, "The Radical Left Eats Itself" and the basic Gekko-ism that everyone is on the cancel culture list, everyone is going to get hunted eventually, some people's names are just written a little further down. Because if the Republicans and Conservatives are eventually wiped out, who becomes the new "right wing"? The moderates won't be seen as in the middle anymore. They'll be the new immediate targets. The undecideds will be seen as not ideologically committed enough and will be hunted down too. And of course, all your children will have to take their turn lined up against that wall. Because cultural and social terrorists are really no different than any other terrorists, to justify their outrage, someone needs to eventually fail the increasing standards of said purity tests and be burned alive to defend the moral justification built around hiding that clear resentment and envy.

Is Jordan Peterson right? Are there no limits in place for the radical left?

*******

Here's my own answer -

VIDEO: 'Do You Believe That Men Can Become Pregnant?': Dan Bishop Questions Pro-Choice House Witnesses May 19, 2022

At yesterday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) questioned pro-choice witnesses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudP6s_Is0k

'Do You Believe That Men Can Become Pregnant?'

"Yes"

*******

^

That's just plain idiotic. If you say that's idiotic, you'll be labeled a bigot and transphobic and any other number of smears. But there is just a level of complete insanity there that goes beyond total comprehension. So yes, I agree with Jordan Peterson, there are clearly no limits on the radical left, no guard rails, no borders, no ceiling to just whatever they want to make up out of thin air whenever it's politically expedient to do so.

Facts don't give one single damn about anyone's feelings, and the radical left is only concerned with feelings because it's the cheapest dirtiest way to manipulate other people. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You are not however entitled to your own personal set of facts because it fits a particular woke agenda.

That's my viewpoint. What is your viewpoint on what Jordan Peterson has to say about all this?

Do you agree? Do you agree that the (radical) left doesn't like facts?

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” -Ayn Rand

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Do You Believe That Men Can Become Pregnant?'

"Yes"

*******

^

That's just plain idiotic. If you say that's idiotic, you'll be labeled a bigot and transphobic and any other number of smears. 
You'll be labeled a bigot and transphobic if you say that men can't pregnant and you're a left-wing progressive.  As you rightly note, those folks eat their own over little deviations from the one true faith. 

Now that this topic seems to be in the mainstream dialog a bit more, I'm not sure that normal people are really at all that much risk here.  It seems to me that the "yes, actually men can become pregnant" folks are just outing themselves as weirdos.  It's an interesting dynamic.  Until fairly recently, "trans women are women" was an article of faith that people had to profess if they wanted to remain woke in good standing.  For cult purposes, that sort of thing is perfect.  You need a way for true believers to signal to one another that they belong to the cult, but the signal has to be costly.  If the signal isn't costly, it doesn't credibly send any information.  "Trans women are women" is costly from a reputational perspective -- you're announcing to the world that you've chosen to set aside thousands of years of very simple human biology in favor of the cult.  It's the equivalent to believing that The Leader is building a spaceship in The Forbidden Barn.  You can easily tell who belongs and who doesn't based on their willingness to sign on to this sort of thing. 

For a political movement that needs to attract non-cult members though, there's obviously a limit as to how far you can push this sort of thing before it becomes counterproductive.  Because when a female supreme court nominee can't say what a woman is because you've turned it into a "gotcha" question, it sort of opens everybody's eyes to the fact that it's just a cult.  And then it loses its power, because really who wants to be a member of cult made up of weirdos.  At least snake-handlers have some cultural cache.  

(Maybe a better analogy would be to young-earth creationists.  Those folks definitely existed in 2000 and they still exist today, but Republicans have enough sense to keep that out of the mainstream discourse.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I don't really keep up with this but I'm just learning.  When people say men can get pregnant...they actually mean someone born as a woman who identifies as a man?  I don't think that counts lol, I feel deceived.

 
Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual who isn't half as smart as he thinks he is. That's my opinion on him. He's relatively quick witted and an above at average debater, but his hubris results in an extreme close mindedness that he is entirely blind to.

No comment on what GG posted because I don't read GG walls of text.

I heard Peterson got banned on Twitter for expressing his opinions, and on that topic, I'll say that's BS and shouldn't happen. Free speech includes speech you might not like.

Oh, also, I wouldn't be at all shocked if GG actually IS Peterson.

 
".... if you stand up against the radical left, you’re in a group that also has Nazis in it; because the Nazis also stand up against the radical left. So it’s perfectly reasonable— from a strategic perspective— for the radical leftists to say well you’re against us, how do we know you’re not a Nazi? It’s like well, statistically, I’m probably not.
Starts with a quote that seems to point out that their "group" has Nazis in it because they stand up to the radical left.  Not my "wall of text" to read because while I am German, I don't identify with Nazis.  Strictly speaking as a radical leftist.  Although according to their way of thinking, I guess that makes us radical leftists "reasonable".  

 
Starts with a quote that seems to point out that their "group" has Nazis in it because they stand up to the radical left.  Not my "wall of text" to read because while I am German, I don't identify with Nazis.  Strictly speaking as a radical leftist.  Although according to their way of thinking, I guess that makes us radical leftists "reasonable".  


Yes, because Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, etc... we're all "reasonable" leftists.  No thanks.  We have history to show that radical leftists are anything but reasonable.

 
Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual who isn't half as smart as he thinks he is. That's my opinion on him. He's relatively quick witted and an above at average debater, but his hubris results in an extreme close mindedness that he is entirely blind to.

No comment on what GG posted because I don't read GG walls of text.

I heard Peterson got banned on Twitter for expressing his opinions, and on that topic, I'll say that's BS and shouldn't happen. Free speech includes speech you might not like.

Oh, also, I wouldn't be at all shocked if GG actually IS Peterson.


I don't know if he should be suspended. I still go back and forth on that. I think social media censorship is a hard question. 

But if nothing else, by deadnaming Elliott Page, Peterson has shown he's just a ####.

 
I don't know if he should be suspended. I still go back and forth on that. I think social media censorship is a hard question. 

But if nothing else, by deadnaming Elliott Page, Peterson has shown he's just a ####.
Is this what he was suspended for, or maybe his views on said topic? 

 
NM, looked it up.  

Yeah, probably shouldn't be suspended, has good points about a lot of things, and is a bit of an #######.  
I generally like Peterson, as he is very wise and says a lot of stuff I agree with (his long-standing point that you have to be willing to risk offending someone if you are going to have a strong opinion, which bothers those nowadays who get upset anytime anyone is offended), but it looked a bit out of character for him to complain like he did about the Twitter thing as he usually stays in the facts part of the swimming pool and doesn't let himself get taken over by emotion.  He was understandably pissed about it, but it just looked weird for him to complain in the tone that he did. 

To the main topic here, I don't think "not liking facts" is exclusive to the left.  That can describe anyone who has planted their flag in the ground about almost anything. Once someone gets emotionally tied to a belief, they do not like, or will conveniently ignore, facts that put that belief in dispute. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't read GG's entire post, of course, but it sure seems like Peterson starts off with a fake premise. He apparently states - 

"...because if I’m reasonable and I’m standing up against the radical left and they admit that I’m reasonable, then there has to be an admission that reasonable people could stand up against the radical left; which kind of implies that the radical left isn’t that reasonable."

--

It doesn't kind of imply that at all. Reasonable people can disagree. They do all the time. So his theory that if I'm reasonable and I disagree with you then you are unreasonable ... well that just doesn't make a lot of sense.

 
Starts with a quote that seems to point out that their "group" has Nazis in it because they stand up to the radical left.  Not my "wall of text" to read because while I am German, I don't identify with Nazis.  Strictly speaking as a radical leftist.  Although according to their way of thinking, I guess that makes us radical leftists "reasonable".  


VIDEO: PICK YOUR DAMN SACRIFICE - Powerful Motivational Video | Jordan Peterson Oct 18, 2018

Dr. Peterson conveys the sacrificial aspect of maturity through the allegorical tragedy of Peter Pan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISZCSikwSlI

***************

“Choose your damn sacrifice. Because sacrifice is inevitable. But at least you get to choose it.”

I suspect Jordan Peterson is referencing two issues here

1) Very few ideologues, especially the very young college aged "Progressives" here in America, rarely understand the historical roots of the causes, tones, themes and tactics of the movements they support. For example, I've seen plenty of radical leftists in the PSF, clearly not college aged, simply repeat canned shock marketing outrage porn that's merely repeated social media click bait. But many of the shock marketing tactics used are the same broadcast by terrorists organizations all over the world when they are recruiting for new cannon fodder. This is part of the reason I often say young kids are sent to American colleges and end up being soaked in ideology that transforms them into "woke shock troopers".  That adults get swept up in it as well is a bonus for those who drive identity politics.

2) Peterson often discusses the impact of current postmodernism in Western society. Which carries a core belief that all reality ultimately is subjective. You cannot create a foundation with a lasting and consistent ideology on the premise that all morality is subjective and even facts can be disposable if they are too inconvenient in how it makes you feel. It's not a viewpoint people can hold and also be tolerant. Eventually someone somewhere will disagree with you, and from that same ideological standpoint, they'll always be just as "right" as you are, because there's no external guide post as a universally accepted standard. In short, if you can't do something like define "What Is A Woman?", then the goal posts can keep moving and you can call everyone a bigot at will and maintain the value of perpetual victim status.

Perpetual victims have not, as Peterson discusses in depth, chosen their sacrifice. As he discusses,  "The penalty accrues, you become an old infant, and that's an ugly thing. The problem with a perpetual child is all you are is potential"

So no, nothing you've just said is reasonable. Other than the declaration that you are clearly a radical leftist. Because only a radical leftist would ignore all other context and try to side swipe Godwin's Law into all this.

 
Can (radical) righties develop their own thoughts and opinions? It seems some are only capable of consuming and distributing the opinions of others. 

 
VIDEO: PICK YOUR DAMN SACRIFICE - Powerful Motivational Video | Jordan Peterson Oct 18, 2018

Dr. Peterson conveys the sacrificial aspect of maturity through the allegorical tragedy of Peter Pan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISZCSikwSlI

***************

“Choose your damn sacrifice. Because sacrifice is inevitable. But at least you get to choose it.”

I suspect Jordan Peterson is referencing two issues here

1) Very few ideologues, especially the very young college aged "Progressives" here in America, rarely understand the historical roots of the causes, tones, themes and tactics of the movements they support. For example, I've seen plenty of radical leftists in the PSF, clearly not college aged, simply repeat canned shock marketing outrage porn that's merely repeated social media click bait. But many of the shock marketing tactics used are the same broadcast by terrorists organizations all over the world when they are recruiting for new cannon fodder. This is part of the reason I often say young kids are sent to American colleges and end up being soaked in ideology that transforms them into "woke shock troopers".  That adults get swept up in it as well is a bonus for those who drive identity politics.

2) Peterson often discusses the impact of current postmodernism in Western society. Which carries a core belief that all reality ultimately is subjective. You cannot create a foundation with a lasting and consistent ideology on the premise that all morality is subjective and even facts can be disposable if they are too inconvenient in how it makes you feel. It's not a viewpoint people can hold and also be tolerant. Eventually someone somewhere will disagree with you, and from that same ideological standpoint, they'll always be just as "right" as you are, because there's no external guide post as a universally accepted standard. In short, if you can't do something like define "What Is A Woman?", then the goal posts can keep moving and you can call everyone a bigot at will and maintain the value of perpetual victim status.

Perpetual victims have not, as Peterson discusses in depth, chosen their sacrifice. As he discusses,  "The penalty accrues, you become an old infant, and that's an ugly thing. The problem with a perpetual child is all you are is potential"

So no, nothing you've just said is reasonable. Other than the declaration that you are clearly a radical leftist. Because only a radical leftist would ignore all other context and try to side swipe Godwin's Law into all this.


Wow.  Check and mate. 

 
(HULK) said:
Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual who isn't half as smart as he thinks he is. That's my opinion on him.
The more I listen to him the more I see the exact opposite.  The guy is brilliant and he expresses himself very clearly.  That's a rare combination and why he has so much name recognition.

 
Ghost Rider said:
I generally like Peterson, as he is very wise and says a lot of stuff I agree with (his long-standing point that you have to be willing to risk offending someone if you are going to have a strong opinion, which bothers those nowadays who get upset anytime anyone is offended), but it looked a bit out of character for him to complain like he did about the Twitter thing as he usually stays in the facts part of the swimming pool and doesn't let himself get taken over by emotion.  He was understandably pissed about it, but it just looked weird for him to complain in the tone that he did. 

To the main topic here, I don't think "not liking facts" is exclusive to the left.  That can describe anyone who has planted their flag in the ground about almost anything. Once someone gets emotionally tied to a belief, they do not like, or will conveniently ignore, facts that put that belief in dispute. 
I agree with him sometimes, disagree with him sometimes.

Him claiming another group is guilty of "not liking facts" is projection though, that guy definitely doesn't like facts that disagree with his world view.

 
The more I listen to him the more I see the exact opposite.  The guy is brilliant and he expresses himself very clearly.  That's a rare combination and why he has so much name recognition.
He does a solid job expressing himself. Not trying to belittle him.

But he's entirely blind to opinions outside of the ones he already holds. Wise people realize that there is always more to learn. He doesn't.

 
I agree with him sometimes, disagree with him sometimes.

Him claiming another group is guilty of "not liking facts" is projection though, that guy definitely doesn't like facts that disagree with his world view.
Not sure that is true.  I admittedly have not watched a ton of Peterson's stuff (maybe 10-15 interviews/panel discussions/etc.), but his world view always seems based on conclusions he draws from data.  People repeatedly try to question why he thinks this or that, and he usually replies that his view is not one he conjured out of thin air, but one he concluded after studying the available data. 

 
You'll be labeled a bigot and transphobic if you say that men can't pregnant and you're a left-wing progressive.  As you rightly note, those folks eat their own over little deviations from the one true faith. 

Now that this topic seems to be in the mainstream dialog a bit more, I'm not sure that normal people are really at all that much risk here.  It seems to me that the "yes, actually men can become pregnant" folks are just outing themselves as weirdos.  It's an interesting dynamic.  Until fairly recently, "trans women are women" was an article of faith that people had to profess if they wanted to remain woke in good standing.  For cult purposes, that sort of thing is perfect.  You need a way for true believers to signal to one another that they belong to the cult, but the signal has to be costly.  If the signal isn't costly, it doesn't credibly send any information.  "Trans women are women" is costly from a reputational perspective -- you're announcing to the world that you've chosen to set aside thousands of years of very simple human biology in favor of the cult.  It's the equivalent to believing that The Leader is building a spaceship in The Forbidden Barn.  You can easily tell who belongs and who doesn't based on their willingness to sign on to this sort of thing. 

For a political movement that needs to attract non-cult members though, there's obviously a limit as to how far you can push this sort of thing before it becomes counterproductive.  Because when a female supreme court nominee can't say what a woman is because you've turned it into a "gotcha" question, it sort of opens everybody's eyes to the fact that it's just a cult.  And then it loses its power, because really who wants to be a member of cult made up of weirdos.  At least snake-handlers have some cultural cache.  

(Maybe a better analogy would be to young-earth creationists.  Those folks definitely existed in 2000 and they still exist today, but Republicans have enough sense to keep that out of the mainstream discourse.)


The movement seems to be pretty mainstrea when we have appointed a Supreme Court Justice who doesn't know what a woman is.  It is pretty mainstream where we have a few states which have passed pronoun laws.  It is pretty mainstream where we have medical associations which have adopted affirmation therapy, where physicians must accept the self-diagnosis of a child and provide treatment and we have clinics cutting off the breasr of healthy children.  I wish this was just a few nutjobs. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure that is true.  I admittedly have not watched a ton of Peterson's stuff (maybe 10-15 interviews/panel discussions/etc.), but his world view always seems based on conclusions he draws from data.  People repeatedly try to question why he thinks this or that, and he usually replies that his view is not one he conjured out of thin air, but one he concluded after studying the available data. 


Accusing Jordan Peterson of ignoring facts is crazy.  The guy is one of the most read people you will ever hear and can quote thousands of studies.  

 
But he's entirely blind to opinions outside of the ones he already holds. Wise people realize that there is always more to learn. He doesn't.


"(The media attacks) are not just directed towards me.....More than directed to me, and more perniciously, is that they are directed to those who are hypothetically "following me".... my typical follower, so goes the story, is a disaffected angry white young male....the right response is 'Why does it disturb you so much, that's there's a group of people, who by your own admission, are disaffected, and angry, and alienated, and young, and I'm helping them, and why is that exactly a problem, and what am I supposed to be doing with them? Just out of curiosity..... If you had your druthers.... Would I ignore them? Would no one talk to them? Is that what you want?'...... The answer is clear, that's exactly what's wanted...there's this implicit assumption, in this aid, that I'm doing something immoral...."   - Jordan Peterson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrqqpUQtFwc

*******

Peterson isn't blind to other opinions ( but if you want to hold that position, that's your right and your free speech), he understands that he's targeted for telling the other half of the story that the radical left and Team Blue won't. That there are more factors than the woke narrative that is the "most convenient"  to understand the "disquiet in their own hearts".

I perceive the matter to more be about Peterson unwilling to play the game of "bad faith" with the radical left. He refuses to let them frame the discussion because the path is always an implicit purity test.

And he's not alone. Many many people feel this way, but the group I suspect harbors the most rage against the radical left are actually, and I've said this before,  traditional liberals. It would be nice to have the viewpoint of more traditional liberals in the PSF. Unfortunately in all the years I was gone, it appears the worst elements of the bad faith actors here and the worst representation of the radical left here drove away so many good posters, that many traditional liberals departed as well. Some of you just want blood shed and an echo chamber.

Let's get real about this, the cancel culture deployed by the radical left is designed to curb stomp dissent. Peterson's disagreement is not proof of life of immorality nor intolerance. That's just another cheap purity test.

Purity test don't work on someone like Jordan Peterson. They damn sure don't work on someone like myself.

This is where the radical left's ideological drive for "purity" creates a gaping weakness. It can only effectively recruit the weak and the enraged and the easily manipulated. You cannot bring down a political high value target with a soft roster of zealots.

"If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death."  -   Major Motoko Kusanagi, Ghost In The Shell

 
Not sure that is true.  I admittedly have not watched a ton of Peterson's stuff (maybe 10-15 interviews/panel discussions/etc.), but his world view always seems based on conclusions he draws from data.  People repeatedly try to question why he thinks this or that, and he usually replies that his view is not one he conjured out of thin air, but one he concluded after studying the available data. 
If you can find an example of him admitting he was wrong about something then I'll admit I'm wrong.

 
Question: why do any of you care that I don't think that highly of the guy? It's weird IMO.

I've watched maybe 20 videos of his on YouTube and that's the only source I have for my opinion of him. I've never once even seen anyone else's opinion piece on him.

If it's because I'm not wowed by him, I'm not wowed by many people. He's clearly intelligent and I'm fairly confident his IQ is less than 1 standard deviation from mine. I just find him dogmatic and think he's too full of himself to actually perceive the world accurately. Maybe because I've been there myself. I grew past it and I can tell that he hasn't.

Anyways, why do any of you care what I think of him?

 
Anyways, why do any of you care what I think of him?
Why post if you're bothered by a response?  

Not to pile on you.  I responded, but certainly in a respectful way.  Not sure why my response would garner this kind of statement.

 
It wasn't that hard.  The hardest part was listen to the pompous jerk doing the video.  
Thanks! I've only seen him lecturing in class rooms. I take back what I said, he definitely did just own an error.

I was wrong. No one tell my wife I said that.

I wonder if my opinion was from only seeing him lecture? People tend to present a bit differently when teaching vs in a conversation.

 
Why post if you're bothered by a response?  

Not to pile on you.  I responded, but certainly in a respectful way.  Not sure why my response would garner this kind of statement.
I had no intentions of sounding disrespectful. Was legit curious why anyone cares if my opinion is right or wrong about a guy who I've watched some YouTube videos of teaching classes.

 
I had no intentions of sounding disrespectful. Was legit curious why anyone cares if my opinion is right or wrong about a guy who I've watched some YouTube videos of teaching classes.
:shrug:

I have interest in the subject and your post seemed a good launching point.  

 
:shrug:

I have interest in the subject and your post seemed a good launching point.  
Cool. 

It's interesting. I had a wrong take (which happens sometimes) and felt like there was significant resistance to my take so I was wondering why.

 
Him claiming another group is guilty of "not liking facts" is projection though, that guy definitely doesn't like facts that disagree with his world view.


VIDEO: Jordan Peterson discusses whether men and women can ever be equal May 18, 2018

Psychologist and author Jordan Peterson discusses notions of gender equality with the Wright Stuff panel including Sophie Walker, leader of the Women's Equality Party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy4vq8RdPGU

*********

"Fine, let's equalize choice, but we won't get equal outcome that way"

Peterson goes to multiple interviews where the intent is to use him as controlled opposition, like the above, but it rarely works out as intended.

He embraces disagreement, he doesn't however validate someone's feelings over practicality or failure to explore the greater context.

 
whoknew said:
But if nothing else, by deadnaming Elliott Page, Peterson has shown he's just a ####.
What was the context of the deadnaming? I personally find nothing wrong with deadnaming somebody when referring to somebody who made a name for themselves as a public celebrity under their famous name so that people might understand who I'm talking about. 

"Who the #### is Elliott Page? Oh, you mean the person who used to be Ellen Page? Oh ####, did I just deadname?" 

I mean, buck up little camper/camperette, that's how you made your money and fortune. By having a famous brand or name that stuck in the public consciousness. Now you're whining that what is stuck in the public consciousness really isn't you and you deserve to have everybody refer to you by the new one because you want to change sexes?  

Makes no ####in' sense, that Twitter policy. It's definitely a value judgment on free speech. It's bull#### loony left garbage. 

Bruce Jenner. Ellen Page. People can respect their adopted names, but when trying to communicate to an audience who one is referring to, perhaps deadnaming shouldn't be so verboten. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What was the context of the deadnaming? I personally find nothing wrong with deadnaming somebody when referring to somebody who made a name for themselves as a public celebrity under their famous name so that people might understand who I'm talking about. 

"Who the #### is Elliott Page? Oh, you mean the person who used to be Ellen Page? Oh ####, did I just deadname?" 

I mean, buck up little camper/camperette, that's how you made your money and fortune. By having a famous brand or name that stuck in the public consciousness. Now you're whining that what is stuck in the public consciousness really isn't you and you deserve to have everybody refer to you by the new one because you want to change sexes?  

Makes no ####in' sense, that Twitter policy. It's definitely a value judgment on free speech. It's bull#### loony left garbage. 

Bruce Jenner. Ellen Page. People can respect their adopted names, but when trying to communicate to an audience who one is referring to, perhaps deadnaming shouldn't be so verboten. 


Here's the tweet. You can decide whether you agree with me that he is a ####.

“Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.”

 
Here's the tweet. You can decide whether you agree with me that he is a ####.

“Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.”
Yeah, probably poor form. He should have ended the Tweet with a question mark. I kid. 

My question, I guess, is what the #### point is he even trying to make? Is that the whole Tweet or Tweet thread? That makes no sense. I get the "pride" part, because it's the first of the seven deadly sins and therefore ironic when people celebrate it, but what does Ellen Page have to do with pride or it? That takes a leap of logic there that I'm not sure I get. 

Maybe getting your breasts removed is a form of anti-pride or prudery or humility or something? But it's not that. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks! I've only seen him lecturing in class rooms. I take back what I said, he definitely did just own an error.

I was wrong. No one tell my wife I said that.

I wonder if my opinion was from only seeing him lecture? People tend to present a bit differently when teaching vs in a conversation.
All good.  I don't see anything wrong in admitting you (the general "you") are wrong. We are all wrong sometimes, but too many people in the current climate will never admit when they are wrong.  

Yeah, probably poor form. He should have ended the Tweet with a question mark. I kid. 

My question, I guess, is what the #### point is he even trying to make? Is that the whole Tweet or Tweet thread? That makes no sense. I get the "pride" part, because it's the first of the seven deadly sins and therefore ironic when people celebrate it, but what does Ellen Page have to do with pride or it? That takes a leap of logic there that I'm not sure I get. 

Maybe getting your breasts removed is a form of anti-pride or prudery or humility or something? But it's not that. 
My guess is that Peterson is a little defensive about this particular topic because of the heat he has taken for the pronoun silliness, and yes, it is silliness.   The idea that we have 1,944 pronouns now for men and women is just so stupid, and it's stuff like that why they are losing support from people who would be otherwise on their side.  

 
What was the context of the deadnaming? I personally find nothing wrong with deadnaming somebody when referring to somebody who made a name for themselves as a public celebrity under their famous name so that people might understand who I'm talking about. 

"Who the #### is Elliott Page? Oh, you mean the person who used to be Ellen Page? Oh ####, did I just deadname?" 

I mean, buck up little camper/camperette, that's how you made your money and fortune. By having a famous brand or name that stuck in the public consciousness. Now you're whining that what is stuck in the public consciousness really isn't you and you deserve to have everybody refer to you by the new one because you want to change sexes?  

Makes no ####in' sense, that Twitter policy. It's definitely a value judgment on free speech. It's bull#### loony left garbage. 

Bruce Jenner. Ellen Page. People can respect their adopted names, but when trying to communicate to an audience who one is referring to, perhaps deadnaming shouldn't be so verboten. 
To make this less controversial with current topics, let's pretend we're talking about Lew Alcindor / Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  I would say it's fine to write something like "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, known as Lew Alcindor at the time, still holds the record for [most something or other] at UCLA", but not "Can you believe what Lew Alcindor just said yesterday!"  One is explanatory, one is intentionally disrespectful.

 
what defines "radical leftist"?  I hear that tossed around a lot by our friends on the right, and i'm not sure what that means or who that represents. 

Of course there are people on the far left who push for crazy ideas, just as there people on the far right.  however, it seems that people on the far right accuse anyone left of center of being "radical".  I've been seeing this more and more all the time.

Where is the line between "liberal" and "radical leftist" drawn?

 
what defines "radical leftist"?  I hear that tossed around a lot by our friends on the right, and i'm not sure what that means or who that represents. 

Of course there are people on the far left who push for crazy ideas, just as there people on the far right.  however, it seems that people on the far right accuse anyone left of center of being "radical".  I've been seeing this more and more all the time.

Where is the line between "liberal" and "radical leftist" drawn?
Did you vote for Trump?

No?

Boom. You’re a radical leftist.

 
what defines "radical leftist"?  I hear that tossed around a lot by our friends on the right, and i'm not sure what that means or who that represents. 

Of course there are people on the far left who push for crazy ideas, just as there people on the far right.  however, it seems that people on the far right accuse anyone left of center of being "radical".  I've been seeing this more and more all the time.

Where is the line between "liberal" and "radical leftist" drawn?
I don't like the term "radical leftist," but people who lie to left of liberals do often self-identify as "radicals."  In that community, "radical" means someone on the hard economic left who is actively opposed to capitalism.  Think of someone like Bernie Sanders, only more Marxist.  These people tend to not care much about culture war issues -- they see identity politics as a distraction from the more important issue of class conflict.

The other main flavor of more-left-than-liberal is the ideology that we refer to as "woke" because the people who hold this ideology refuse to give it a name.  This is the camp that gave us "pronouns in bio," DEI trainings, cancel culture, "anti-racism," and so on.

Ordinary "liberals" tend to look more like Mitt Romney or GHWB than either of these camps.  Liberals typically support free markets and free trade, support free speech, support the rule of law, and so on.  They typically wouldn't support banning books or interfering with peoples' freedom of thought, and they hold generally positive views toward the US.  Woke progressives are somewhere between indifferent to those norms and openly hostile to them.    

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top