JP's specific appeal to the alt-right has been boasted by none other than JP himself, who has rationalised that appeal as him actively reaching out to that audience in particular in an effort to make them less racist, misogynistic, etc. Utter bullshit, of course. — Kenosha Kid

Ok so JBP's goal is actually to make everybody more racist and sexist, ok got it. Life must be so easy when the opposition are all Nazis and racists. Never any ambiguity.

Had I encountered him at their age, I might have been drawn to him. I don't think he's terrible, which apparently I'm supposed to do. — Wayfarer

Heresy. Why can't kids listen to serious philosophers instead of this pop psychology/religion mumbo-jumbo? How dare a thinker's target audience be the general public and not the academic world. Anyway, just show those kids some Hegel or Kant to get them on the right track. Maybe go through Metaphysics of Morals with them. Hopefully Peterson hasn't poisoned their minds too much at this point.

Ok so JBP's goal is actually to make everybody more racist and sexist, ok got it. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, that isn't in anything I said.

Earlier, I wrote:

JP is probably responsible for a lot of the extremely low-quality political raving you see on here — Kenosha Kid

Since then, one JP disciple has interpreted my statement that Peterson recycles anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as an accusation that he's anti-Semitic, and now you're interpreting my mention of the fact that JP himself said he is reaching out to white supremacists and misogynists as him trying to make people racist and misogynist.

It's very difficult for me not to say, 'I told you so.' Oh look, I said it.

If you want to see why JP is looked down on, it's because he argues like this and appeals to people who argue like this.

It doesn't matter that you "specifically" explained your narrative, I asked for any evidence — Judaka

You asked for evidence of a claim that I didn't make. In my view, the alt-right was still coalescing, and really began to take off around the time of the video clip/Holodomor question (the boiling point). Given that they abandoned Peterson as a matter of course, I can't very well give you evidence that his base was "alt-right" before it really existed, nor did I aver anything about a "large percentage" of his base. I'm well aware that neo-nazis and white supremacists have existed for decades, including Spencer, but they were stuck far on the fringe until the alt-right got going (in recent American history).

He specifically, repeatedly and consistently said the major problem was that the law policed language by forcing people to speak in the mandated way as opposed to forbidding them from speaking in a certain way. The slew of new pronouns was not the main issue he had but what makes you think it was? Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I know I can find a lot to back up mine if I need to. — Judaka

Skip to 32:00.

You can see throughout the video how reliant Peterson is on his views as a "personality psychologist". He talks about language use from that perspective, and likes to draw distinctions between singular pronouns and "linguistic control" he says is found in dictatorships like the Soviet Union.

Here's another, skip to 25:20

From Wiki:

The series of videos drew criticism from transgender activists, faculty, and labour unions; critics accused Peterson of "helping to foster a climate for hate to thrive" and of "fundamentally mischaracterising" the law.[103][8] Protests erupted on campus, some including violence, and the controversy attracted international media attention.[104][105][106] When asked in September 2016 if he would comply with the request of a student to use a preferred pronoun, Peterson said "it would depend on how they asked me.… If I could detect that there was a chip on their shoulder, or that they were [asking me] with political motives, then I would probably say no.… If I could have a conversation like the one we're having now, I could probably meet them on an equal level."[106] Two months later, the National Post published an op-ed by Peterson in which he elaborated on his opposition to the bill, saying that gender-neutral singular pronouns were "at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."[107] — wiki

It's not strictly the invented pronouns that he was objecting to, it was the compelled use of language to begin with (which he sees as a psychological intrusion). The singular pronouns were just at the center of it all. In two of the three sources I gave Peterson clarifies that he is not averse to using preferred standard pronouns, and in one he states that he normally uses the pronoun that people present as.

I would consider myself anti-SJW though I think what people mean by SJW is generally intersectional feminism. I also actually know enough about the alt-right to say that their ideology is NOT based on anti-SJW ideas. I automatically assume anyone talking about the alt-right has no idea what the alt-right is, nothing personal but it's become a term for "something I don't like" for too many. We're talking about anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, white nationalism, white supremacy. — Judaka

You do realize that the alt-right is largely a reactionary movement against SJW/intersectional feminist woke-ism right? The right flank of the SJW crowd broke off and veered far right. Being opposed to intersectional feminism myself, I don't think I'm accusing the entire SJW crowd of habouring alt-right ideas. But how can you deny that the alt-right is a reactionary movement against their extreme portrayal of social justice movements?

What a fucking surprise. — Kenosha Kid

You, and your comments - are nasty and meaningless!

To hear such criticism of this argument format from you of all people... I assume you are just rephrasing the comments about Marxism. As I already indicated, that was unfortunate, because I really have no idea what he was on about. I thought saying that would be enough for you but no, you are just repeating the same thing I already gave you. Peterson did not just say that intersectional feminism is bad because "Marxism" but I do think it's fair to say that he did use Marxism as a boogeyman, however, I'm not going to say he has nothing of value to say just because he did.

That you're far left, I'm certain, that you're an ideologue following intersectional feminism, I mean, it wouldn't be too hard to make a case for it but it's rarely easy to ever know 100%. I don't disagree with intersectional feminism as a piece of truth, what I dislike its appropriation as a political ideology. Hearing you go on about fascism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism and racism, white privilege are red flags and they're near omnipresent with you. You support BLM, you appear to be mostly in agreement with other feminists here. You talk about ethnic histories, you commentate on social issues by breaking things down into social/political groups. I'm pretty much past the point of being unwilling to call you an intersectional feminist even if you won't say it yourself. I'm not calling you that because I think I no longer have to contend with anything you say by doing so but really, give me something else if you want, I won't persist in being wrong just for the sake of it.

That you're far left, I'm certain, that you're an ideologue following intersectional feminism, I mean, it wouldn't be too hard to make a case for it but it's rarely easy to ever know 100%. — Judaka

You don't need to. Simply quote an example of my suspected intersectional feminism so that I and others understand what you're talking about.

As for the rest, this seems to conform to the "if you oppose the alt-right, you must be hard left" argumentation. I'll not bother to dissuade you of it; there are more thoughtful people here to have those conversations with.

Thanks for clarifying, anyway.

Peterson did not just say that intersectional feminism is bad because "Marxism" but I do think it's fair to say that he did use Marxism as a boogeyman — Judaka

Actually he did (e.g. "Radical feminism [is] Marxism in another guide"), but if you agree with the gist, there's probably not much point arguing the details.

It's not strictly the invented pronouns that he was objecting to, it was the compelled use of language to begin with (which he sees as a psychological intrusion). The singular pronouns were just at the center of it all. In two of the three sources I gave Peterson clarifies that he is not averse to using preferred standard pronouns, and in one he states that he normally uses the pronoun that people present as. — VagabondSpectre

I don't know if I've been misunderstood or what but I felt that this was the point I was arguing, I agree with your conclusions.

Free speech was included in his initial argument/protest, but what made him fervent was, as he explained, the fact that being forced to memorize a slew of new pronouns and to tip-toe around them was too much of a cognitive burden to expect anyone to endure. — VagabondSpectre

You just argued that what made him fervent was being forced to memorise new pronouns and this is what I disagreed with. I do agree that his main problem was the use of compelled language.

You do realize that the alt-right is largely a reactionary movement against SJW/intersectional feminist woke-ism right? The right flank of the SJW crowd broke off and veered far right. Being opposed to intersectional feminism myself, I don't think I'm accusing the entire SJW crowd of habouring alt-right ideas. But how can you deny that the alt-right is a reactionary movement against their extreme portrayal of social justice movements? — VagabondSpectre

I realise that's your view but let's return to what I said about proving that JP had a large alt-right basis. If you are not arguing that a large percentage of JP's base is alt-right then why does your "long take on JP" focus almost entirely on the alt-right?

While Peterson thought he was exporting his clinical talk-therapy ideas to a culture that needed them, his "followers" were actually festering in darkened internet-corners, fuelling and reinforcing their shared delusions. They parlayed their starting nest-egg of sexism/racism/transphobia/anti-semitism/xenoiphobia into full blown Nazi ideology. — VagabondSpectre

There is actually a specific moment that in my opinion marked the official beginning of the alt-right (but at the very least it marks the point when Peterson was confronted with the reality of his followers' agendas, — VagabondSpectre

He was completely unaware how thoroughly he was being misunderstood by his followers and detractors alike, and he was therefore unable to navigate the landscape. (Ben Shapiro is an example of a similar early alt-right rally-point, but because he actually understood what was happening, he was able to successfully dissociate himself from it). — VagabondSpectre

If JP had a relatively small and misguided alt-right following which has absolutely nothing to do with him then why is your entire "take on JP" focused on his relationship with them? Why did you give a history of the alt-right and label it as your take on JP? Combined with your other insults towards him, what is supposed to be made of this?

He was abandoned by the now minted "alt-right" overnight. The clip itself was a kind of formative signal that in my opinion formally launched the alt-right as a movement and unified its direction. — VagabondSpectre

As I said, the term alt-right existed before 2016, let alone 2018. It cannot be a reactionary movement to anything Peterson was involved in, at best, the anti-SJW movement pushed certain people towards the alt-right but I don't know anything about that. What I do know is that the alt-right were very much alive before Peterson, mainly because Milo Yianoppolis was accused of being alt-right well before 2018.

https://www.npr.org/2016/08/26/491452721/the-history-of-the-alt-right

This is an article talking about "the history of the alt-right"... in 2016! Can you clarify for me whether you dispute this?

As for the rest, this seems to conform to the "if you oppose the alt-right, you must be hard left" argumentation. I'll not bother to dissuade you of it; there are more thoughtful people here to have those conversations with. — Kenosha Kid

I don't like the alt-right, I really despise their ideology and reject it as strongly as you do — Judaka

Umm, are you kidding me? If I can't avoid this comment when I literally condemn the alt-right in the last comment, then it's a lost cause. You really are hopeless.

You don't need to. Simply quote an example of my suspected intersectional feminism so that I and others understand what you're talking about. — Kenosha Kid

I'm sure they can get the idea by what I listed.

Again, that isn't in anything I said. — Kenosha Kid

Here you heavily imply that he reaches out to the alt-right for nefarious reasons.

JP's specific appeal to the alt-right has been boasted by none other than JP himself, who has rationalised that appeal as him actively reaching out to that audience in particular in an effort to make them less racist, misogynistic, etc. Utter bullshit, of course. — Kenosha Kid

So you're saying he's not reaching out to them from an intellectual/philosophical angle to make them less racist or misogynistic, so you are effectively calling him a racist or indifferent to racism.

I don't like the alt-right, I really despise their ideology and reject it as strongly as you do
— Judaka

Umm, are you kidding me? If I can't avoid this comment when I literally condemn the alt-right in the last comment, then it's a lost cause. You really are hopeless. — Judaka

Given that your entire appraisal is based not on any affirmation of my ideals but on what I stand against -- racism, fascism, etc. -- seems pretty on-the-nose to me.

You don't need to. Simply quote an example of my suspected intersectional feminism so that I and others understand what you're talking about.
— Kenosha Kid

I'm sure they can get the idea by what I listed. — Judaka

So you're making it up. Obviously I knew that, since I haven't posted on intersectional feminism once on this site. Just wanted you to be explicit that your proof that I have posted such comments is your assertion that I have done so.

So you're saying he's not reaching out to them from an intellectual/philosophical angle to make them less racist or misogynistic, so you are effectively calling him a racist or indifferent to racism. — BitconnectCarlos

Do you need clarity on what I meant, or is the point to wilfully misrepresent? I suspect the latter.

No, in my opinion JP rationalised his appeal to the alt-right post hoc. That is what I said. That is what I meant. No dishonest layer of interpretation needed.

This is an article talking about "the history of the alt-right"... in 2016! Can you clarify for me whether you dispute this? — Judaka

You have repeatedly stated that you don't know about the relationship between Peterson and the alt-right, but are you at least aware that there is some sort of connection? (It's the answer to why Peterson is associated with the alt-right in the first place, while himself disavowing it).

My post chronicled the rise of the alt right as it intersected Peterson's claim and rise to fame. I thought I explained fairly clearly how once the proto alt-right elements of the SJW crowd (which was large and diverse) evolved toward ethnocentric ideology, before ultimately signalling their abandonment of Peterson.

Yes the alt-right as a term existed prior to Peterson's emergence on the scene, but he himself was an unwitting pivot point for the sudden rise of the alt-right in 2016-2017 and onward.

No, in my opinion JP rationalised his appeal to the alt-right post hoc. That is what I said. That is what I meant. No dishonest layer of interpretation needed. — Kenosha Kid

This is a stupid conversation so I'm going to drop it. Just try to be mindful of what you're implying when you write. I'm not the only poster on this thread who has commented on it.

Anyway.

If you think that pointing to anything you don't like and hissing "Marxism" is smart, he's the guy for you. — Kenosha Kid

A lot of his points aren't actually about Marxism. His core philosophy is actually individualism and Christianity, but it's actually pretty deeply introspective. A main point of his is that one should try to fix themselves before and attain some degree of self-mastery before going out and trying to change the world. This is actually a pretty radical point that a lot of leftists hate and it has nothing to do with Marxism. Leftists only pay lip service to self-mastery or self-improvement; what's ultimately important to them is immediate socio-economic change. They don't see the link between the quality of change and the individuals behind it.

Just try to be mindful of what you're implying when you write. — BitconnectCarlos

I am. I'm not responsible for disingenuous and unjustifiable interpretations of bad faith contributors. I am typically explicit and happy to clarify any point if you're interested, which you're not.

A lot of his points aren't actually about Marxism. — BitconnectCarlos

A lot of them are. At least, they are to him. Your example is not exempt. I would agree that a lot of the things he criticises as being covert Marxism are nothing to do with Marxism.

Your example is not exempt. I would agree that a lot of the things he criticises as being covert Marxism are nothing to do with Marxism. — Kenosha Kid

The aforementioned point about self-mastery can viewed as an attack or Marxism or not. I don't really care. It can be viewed on its own too, and I think it's good advice regardless of whether it's "really" an attack on Marxism or not. You have to admit there's a lot of extremely non-self reflective people out there pushing for vast social changes when they're essentially incapable of doing basic life tasks or establishing an inkling of self-mastery. This isn't me calling them poor; regardless of money some people are just complete messes and if they ever were in a position to make that change I think it would be insane to trust them to do a good job at it when everything else in their life is a complete mess. I don't care how well they understand Marx or various left-wing thinkers. That doesn't translate to performance/implementation.

The aforementioned point about self-mastery can viewed as an attack or Marxism or not. I don't really care. It can be viewed on its own too, and I think it's good advice regardless of whether it's "really" an attack on Marxism or not. — BitconnectCarlos

As I said earlier, my issue with JP is less the targets of his criticism and more his argumentation. I agree, one can have self-mastery and not accuse those who wish to be sensitive to others of being commies. To my mind, being a self for one's self, a self for others, and an agent of change for others are part of the ongoing project of life. The idea that we have to focus on one is wrong. One can agree with self-improvement and still disagree with JP.

(To counter my accusation of intersectional feminism -- although I have no real problem with it as a project -- an analogy might be made with the feminism argument that society should not change to benefit a single man while a single woman is oppressed. There, I can't be a feminist and be a man who criticises feminism, and I know this because feminists keep telling me! :rofl: )

You have to admit there's a lot of extremely non-self reflective people out there pushing for vast social changes when they're essentially incapable of doing basic life tasks or establishing an inkling of self-mastery — BitconnectCarlos

I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility. However that includes a responsibility toward others and, as I said above, one can help others without having finished the unending project of helping oneself.

This isn't me calling them poor; regardless of money some people are just complete messes and if they ever were in a position to make that change I think it would be insane to trust them to do a good job at it when everything else in their life is a complete mess. I don't care how well they understand Marx or various left-wing thinkers. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It seems like you're suggesting that Marxists are fuck-ups who can't sort themselves out so want to change the world for their benefit instead. I am sure there's people just like that but it's probably not generally true. I don't think Marxism would be very attractive to such people. Capitalism with a strong welfare system would be more beneficial.

My fault with him is far less about his conclusions than his arguments. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. I began watching a debate between him and Žižek, but I stopped because I couldn't stomach the way JP was misrepresenting Žižek's position. It was lame. If a student did that on a test, he wouldn't pass.

But then again, perhaps that's the whole point, and JP and right-wingers know that they are misrepresenting the other side, but they do so deliberately, as a debate tactic, a la Die Kunst, immer Recht zu behalten.

But then again, perhaps that's the whole point, and JP and right-wingers know that they are misrepresenting the other side, but they do so deliberately, as a debate tactic, a la Die Kunst, immer Recht zu behalten. — baker

I'd go further and say it is partly because this is his MO that they find him so attractive.

Yeah, prevail at all costs, by any means necessary.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It seems like you're suggesting that Marxists are fuck-ups who can't sort themselves out so want to change the world for their benefit instead. I am sure there's people just like that but it's probably not generally true. I don't think Marxism would be very attractive to such people. Capitalism with a strong welfare system would be more beneficial. — Kenosha Kid

Peterson is talking to young revolutionaries who have accomplished nothing notable and are yet intent on deconstructing the entire system and re-building in accordance with the vision of some author/authors that they like.

I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility. However that includes a responsibility toward others and, as I said above, one can help others without having finished the unending project of helping oneself. — Kenosha Kid

Of course there's a responsibility to others. But how does it work, exactly? Are you responsible for a child in sub-saharan African? How about responsibility for the homeless in your town or region? Or are you more responsible for, say, a family member or a friend than a distant stranger? There's circles of responsibility, do you agree? Or are we equally responsible for everyone?

Is there an option to block threads akin to the one in which you can block members? @baden @Michael @Benkei @StreetlightX

Peterson is talking to young revolutionaries — BitconnectCarlos

I stopped here, for the record. Whatever this paragraph is, it is propaganda, not discussion.

Of course there's a responsibility to others. But how does it work, exactly? Are you responsible for a child in sub-saharan African? How about responsibility for the homeless in your town or region? Or are you more responsible for, say, a family member or a friend than a distant stranger? There's circles of responsibility, do you agree? Or are we equally responsible for everyone? — BitconnectCarlos

After a breakup of a long-term relationship, I was feeling sorry for myself and decided I needed to get out of my own head for a few months, so I went and volunteered in Tanzania. Pretty selfish reasons, you might say, and you'd be right. What seems less selfish is the sentiment expressed around the table of volunteers at our first meeting: "I want to make a difference." This is the romantic idea of volunteering: *I* can do something.

That motivation would lead to disillusionment. It isn't generally possible to do enough as one person to help so many who have so little. This is why communities like the volunteer community actually work: you help the community to help those who need it. You are a wheel in a bigger machine, nothing more, and while that dashes any romantic notions you might have, it works. It doesn't matter who you help, because you're part of a greater community that helps far more people than you ever could.

So the first part of my answer is that you don't need to do things alone, and that alleviates the need to choose to some extent.

The second part is that when you have systematic inequalities, oppression, injustice, etc. you have an opportunity to help not by focusing on individuals but by focusing on systems. This is why people seek reforms.

Closer to home, there are some great platforms to get involved with, such as putting people in touch with lonely elderly people (something my partner and I are looking into for after lockdown), or you can raise money for charity (I run marathons for Women's Aid which provides shelter and safety for women and their children fleeing domestic violence situations). There's tons to do. It doesn't matter so much what it is, so long as it helps. You're just a cog.

Or you can do nothing, that's valid too. Just focus on doing others no harm.

[Wheel in a cog? FFS KK!]

Thanks for the anecdote, and I don't mean that sarcastically, but I am actually curious to your answer here when it comes to responsibility. Do you consider yourself more responsible for people/problems in your own community as opposed to ones half way around the world? Do you owe more to your family or friends than complete strangers? I'm talking about Peter Singer's idea here of the "circle" or "expanding circle" of responsibility. I think if we take this to its logical beginning then responsibility starts or has its prime responsibility in the home.

People on the right align themselves with Jordan Peterson because he is very very nuanced and moderate in his political opinions. For instance, Peterson is able to recognize both the greatness and the flaws of Donald J. Trump. What makes Trump flawed is his provocativeness and intemperate progressivism. He's just not conservative enough... borderline postmodern cultural Marxist, even.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7EaCVnw5n4

On the other hand, Peterson recognizes that what makes Trump great is the fact that he refrained from nuking Mexico (and hurricanes), his formidable business acumen, and the remarkable power of his intellect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EebRtIK4o7c

Do you consider yourself more responsible for people/problems in your own community as opposed to ones half way around the world? Do you owe more to your family or friends than complete strangers? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm a global villager. I guess I base it first and foremost on the cause, maybe secondarily on proximity as a pragmatism. So yeah I'm planning on helping out elderly in my area, but not because I care about them more, rather under the assumption that other people in other areas will help there. From an organisation standpoint, that's what makes sense. But in terms of helping the poor, it makes sense to go to where the poorest are. And I wouldn't hold the loneliness of old people in my area above the poverty of children far away on the basis of proximity.

But what you're getting at is would I help kin first, friends second, neighbours third, etc. I'd say yes and no. Obviously I could help my family a bit: there's poor people with mental health issues in it, but I don't imagine I could do much long-term good. If you mean, would I help my father move a wardrobe even though there's starving Africans, obviously yes. But generally, no, I don't think that priority scales with proximity.

JP is what he is, a guy with a lot of opinions. You people are brutal. Agree with what you like and disagree with what you don't but at least show some respect for the depth of his academic commitment.

One message I can appreciate is when he speaks to young men and tells them that it is the taking of responsibility that gives meaning to adult life. This is an incredibly powerful message and runs counter to corporate and other nonsensical memes concerning the pursuit of self- (fill in the blank) as the end-all and be-all that predominate our culture.

One message I can appreciate is when he speaks to young men and tells them that it is the taking of responsibility that gives meaning to adult life. This is an incredibly powerful message and runs counter to corporate and other nonsensical memes concerning the pursuit of self- (fill in the blank) as the end-all and be-all that predominate our culture. — synthesis

Why is that relevant just to men, out of interest?

Why is that relevant just to men, out of interest? — Kenosha Kid

There seems to be an inordinate number of young men in their 20's doing little to nothing. Young women, OTOH, appear to have their act together more so, although (anecdotally) adolescence seems to be never-ending for many.

I know that whatever factors coalesced to retard the maturation of this last generation is of great interest to many of the social sciences.

Young women, OTOH, appear to have their act together more so — synthesis

The advice market for young(ish) women has been filled to the brim with self-help magazines and self-help books for a long time. But there is no similar parallel for young men.

No doubt, most guys seem to suffer in silence. The good news is that you learn to be independent because in America, your are on your own.