• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Can someone explain to me what Jordan Peterson's beliefs?

Mister Apoc

Demigod of Troll Threads
jordan-smaller-1024x683.jpg


This guy has been talked about on the web, he seems to be a new "hero" of the right

I know many on the left hate him, but he never really strikes me as being a rightist

I have heard him talk vehemontly against Fascism and White Supremacy as much as he does the far left (although I admit that he tends to use "postmodernism/marxism" in inappropriate times)

but he never strikes me as someone that the left would hate, because his views don't seem extreme. If anything he strikes me more as a libertarian/individualist

am I missing something why he gets brought up alot now a days and why the left dislikes him and the right loves him?
 

IaN_GAF

Member
I think part of the problem may be the obscene obsession on social media nowadays to immediately clasify anyone as either completely left or completely right, refusing to re-evaluate that judgement afterwards.
 

Kule

Member
He became popular for his on campus debate videos with students. He seems to be pretty knowledgeable but recently he's also kind of fallen into becoming an eceleb so take what he says with a grain of salt.
 

llien

Member
I've watch him talk, found it interesting (although, it apparently isn't a debate when one's opponents are missing and he simply states why they are mistaken).

The "anti-transgender" blame on him, for not using made up words that even trans community find controversial, doesn't look justified.

As most scientists with no roots in humanities or gender studies, he is very critical of post-modernism.

(interesting read: Criticism of postmodernism (wiki) and you absolutely should not skip Sokal affair (wiki))

There is nothing "rightist" in his views. Alt-rights might like him for criticizing american left, but just criticizing left doesn't make one alt-right. (alt-left have a different opinion)

Most of the content on his site isn't related to controversies:
www.jordanbpeterson.com
 

Harlock

Member
Simple answers would be: he is an anti-whining. If you feel oppressed, if you feel online people are mean to you, so go to do something productive with your life.

The h3h3 podcast with him was so good because did not focused so much in politics, but rather in day to day issues.
 
I've watch him talk, found it interesting (although, it apparently isn't a debate when one's opponents are missing and he simply states why they are mistaken).

The "anti-transgender" blame on him, for not using made up words that even trans community find controversial, doesn't look justified.

As most scientists with no roots in humanities or gender studies, he is very critical of post-modernism.

(interesting read: Criticism of postmodernism (wiki) and you absolutely should not skip Sokal affair (wiki))

There is nothing "rightist" in his views. Alt-rights might like him for criticizing american left, but just criticizing left doesn't make one alt-right. (alt-left have a different opinion)

Most of the content on his site isn't related to controversies:
www.jordanbpeterson.com

The criticism of postmodernism article is rather poor. A criticism article that serves as an infodump without examination by notable postmodernists. Otherwise the criticisms mean nothing, and the implication created for the reader is that the criticism is considered to be valid, which goes against Wikipedia's policy on neutral points of view being presented. I doubt very much that no such responses from noteworthy figures exist, so why are they not present?
 

Dude Abides

Banned
I've watch him talk, found it interesting (although, it apparently isn't a debate when one's opponents are missing and he simply states why they are mistaken).

The "anti-transgender" blame on him, for not using made up words that even trans community find controversial, doesn't look justified.

As most scientists with no roots in humanities or gender studies, he is very critical of post-modernism.

(interesting read: Criticism of postmodernism (wiki) and you absolutely should not skip Sokal affair (wiki))

There is nothing "rightist" in his views. Alt-rights might like him for criticizing american left, but just criticizing left doesn't make one alt-right. (alt-left have a different opinion)

Most of the content on his site isn't related to controversies:
www.jordanbpeterson.com

He's not a scientist. He's a psychologist. He has no idea what postmodernism or Marxism mean, but since those are trigger words for the people who give him money, he uses them a lot.
 
The criticism of postmodernism article is rather poor. A criticism article that serves as an infodump without examination by notable postmodernists. Otherwise the criticisms mean nothing, and the implication created for the reader is that the criticism is considered to be valid, which goes against Wikipedia's policy on neutral points of view being presented. I doubt very much that no such responses from noteworthy figures exist, so why are they not present?

I think the element that makes it acceptable is it's extremely upfront over just how meaningless the concept is as an umbrella term (because postmodernism means so many different things, for starters). It's just an extremely general overview of a few arguments against certain, diverse postmodern ideas.

Which also makes it completely useless as a general critique of postmodernism, of course. But as a starting point to very broad questions ("why do religious conservatives dislike postmodernism?") it's not too bad, and I'm not sure if it was ever intended to be actual criticism. It's definitely a weak tool to bring to this 'debate'.

I know very little about Jordan Peterson, but if he actually is a libertarian as the OP states then of course he's unpopular with the left. (I'm not sure if even libertarians like libertarians.)
 
I think the element that makes it acceptable is it's extremely upfront over just how meaningless the concept is as an umbrella term (because postmodernism means so many different things, for starters). It's just an extremely general overview of a few arguments against certain, diverse postmodern ideas.

Which also makes it completely useless as a general critique of postmodernism, of course. But as a starting point to very broad questions ("why do religious conservatives dislike postmodernism?") it's not too bad, and I'm not sure if it was ever intended to be actual criticism. It's definitely a weak tool to bring to this 'debate'.

I know very little about Jordan Peterson, but if he actually is a libertarian as the OP states then of course he's unpopular with the left. (I'm not sure if even libertarians like libertarians.)

To be clear, articles on Wikipedia should not have a point of view, so if it seems like the article is making a statement, then the article has problems. The presentation of criticisms alongside, say, Richard Dawkins' comments allows for them to be properly contextualized.
 

Lupingosei

Banned
He's not a scientist. He's a psychologist.

Psychology is science for quite long time already.

He has no idea what postmodernism or Marxism mean,

He explains it pretty well for that is getting the right theories and the right authors. And his critic on Foucault and Derrida are valid.

am I missing something why he gets brought up alot now a days and why the left dislikes him and the right loves him?

A lot of people on the left like him as well. A lot of his points are valid, but because everything is now black and white it is getting reduced to left vs. right.
 

DevilFox

Member
He's a psychologist who got famous (I guess) by analyzing the cultural changes of our times.
You don't have to label him as left or right wing critic. He's only offering a point of view (not necessarily the one he agrees with), based on his klowledge. Of course no human can ever be 100% unbiased, but the idea with these figures is to listen to what they have to say, to fact check when needed and challenge your beliefs. You're free to call him stupid but it's very likely that he has more knowledge than you do, that he spent more time than you thinking about some topics and that he had his beliefs challenged and crushed quite often. That's why it's worth a listen.
 

Sapiens

Member
He’s your typical narcissistic boomer Canadian conservative. Nothing more.

He’s not the boogie man.
 

entremet

Member
I liked his Maps and Meaning Carl Jung stuff, being a Jung nerd myself.

His other stuff, (politics, etc.) just isn't that interesting to me, although it seems that's what gets the views for him. But I just don't care about it.
 
He thinks identity politics are incredibly dangerous and publicly fought against Canadian bill C-16. He associates with other people the left hates and has become an internet celebrity of sorts for (mostly) the center and right. It’s not surprising the left hates him.

I like him a lot. I’m at least center left, but I’m anti-authoritarian and have always been just on the outside of multiple groups. He appeals to me in multiple ways, not the least of which is the self-help side. I’m married, in my late 30’s, and we’re (almost very) successful, but I still needed the kind of relationship and future-authoring insights he offers.
 
To be clear, articles on Wikipedia should not have a point of view, so if it seems like the article is making a statement, then the article has problems. The presentation of criticisms alongside, say, Richard Dawkins' comments allows for them to be properly contextualized.
That's fair. I felt the article was just (very briefly) summarizing various criticisms of several types of postmodernism, so I personally didn't pick up much of any statement-making. Wikipedia itself notes that article needs a lot of work, so maybe I'm giving it too much slack.

But I don't think its style is that different from what we see in other criticism sections (example).
 
That's fair. I felt the article was just (very briefly) summarizing various criticisms of several types of postmodernism, so I personally didn't pick up much of any statement-making. Wikipedia itself notes that article needs a lot of work, so maybe I'm giving it too much slack.

But I don't think its style is that different from what we see in other criticism sections (example).

TBH that one is not great either, a lot of unverified content in the section. That said, where the criticism of postmodernism appears to be more a collection of things notable (and sometimes non-notable, as may be the case with Sherry Wolf) people have said on postmodernism that are critical, whereas criticism of modernism examined the nature of the criticism more and the history thereof.
 

Blood Borne

Member
In Geography, when you go so far and you reach the north pole, from that point, any direction you move to is south. This is how far the left has gone.

The left believes that there are only two political stances, left and far right. They don't believe in individualism or being a centrist. You're either left or far right.

You can be for socialised healthcare, higher minimum wage, be a member of lgbt, support antifa, support high taxes, etc. You can support all these things but if you don't support e.g. open borders, the left immediately brands you as racist xenophobe. You must support EVERYTHING they stand for. Strict group think.

Anyone who has a bit of common sense can see that Jordan Peterson is a libertarian. A classic liberal. He believes in individualism. Doesn't believe in force or coercion. But to the left, he's an alt right transphobic fascist.
 
In Geography, when you go so far and you reach the north pole, from that point, any direction you move to is south. This is how far the left has gone.

The left believes that there are only two political stances, left and far right. They don't believe in individualism or being a centrist. You're either left or far right.

You can be for socialised healthcare, higher minimum wage, be a member of lgbt, support antifa, support high taxes, etc. You can support all these things but if you don't support e.g. open borders, the left immediately brands you as racist xenophobe. You must support EVERYTHING they stand for. Strict group think.

Anyone who has a bit of common sense can see that Jordan Peterson is a libertarian. A classic liberal. He believes in individualism. Doesn't believe in force or coercion. But to the left, he's an alt right transphobic fascist.

He certainly is transphobic, yes.
 

DevilFox

Member
He's not smart. You can tell because the right clings to him.

We get it, Rasta, everyone who disagrees with you is not smart. It must be awesome to be you, always so righteous and enlightened. :')
What about his talks outside politics, does he make any sense there at least or what?
 
We get it, Rasta, everyone who disagrees with you is not smart. It must be awesome to be you, always so righteous and enlightened. :')
What about his talks outside politics, does he make any sense there at least or what?

Considering that he doesn't seem to understand Bill C-16, I do not think his fandom is well earned.
 

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
He certainly is transphobic, yes.

Peterson is not transphobic, he's against the mandatory use of made-up gender-neutral personal pronouns like these:

Pronoun-cards-2016-02-1024x585.png


He has actually gotten support from transsexuals on this stance, which isn't really that surprising because M-F and F-M transsexuals aren't inbetweenies, they want to belong to a specific gender.

Here's a Youtube video of a 40 minute discussion between Jordan Peterson and a transwoman who supports Peterson's views.
 
Peterson is not transphobic, he's against the mandatory use of made-up gender-neutral personal pronouns like these:

Pronoun-cards-2016-02-1024x585.png


He has actually gotten support from transsexuals on this stance, which isn't really that surprising because M-F and F-M transsexuals aren't inbetweenies, they want to belong to a specific gender.

Here's a Youtube video of a 40 minute discussion between Jordan Peterson and a transwoman who supports Peterson's views.

Yes, there are a lot of trans people who hate nonbinary people. This is not a new thing. and that it's trans people who hate them does not lend credence to them supporting Peterson.

Secondly, no such mandate exists. Bill C-16 does not offer any ability for anyone to be charged with a crime or fined simply for using the wrong pronouns.

I believe that game is The Last Night. Yeah, they were (or still are!) up in arms about it.

If not that, I remember A Hat in Time received similar eer because Jontron was in it.

Oh, that. Yeah, I would absolutely agree with the boycott there. The creator not only has some pretty abhorrent views, but has also made clear that these views influenced the product.
 

Darryl

Banned
He's well-spoken, he fully articulates his views with references to past experiences and plenty of elaboration. He's got a pretty great library of personal anecdotes from his time working as a clinical psychologist that he uses to help explain his thoughts. It's clear by the way he talks that he has come to grow into his view points, rather than simply having them because they sound appropriate. It gives the way he talks a lot of conviction. I would bet he has shifted where he falls on political issues multiple times as he has gotten older. On top of that, he's fairly religious. He likes religion and religious allegories. He uses a lot of references to ancient biblical stories to help explain his thinking, which is pretty great. I think saying that there is ancient wisdom in religious works is obvious so his desire to explain them secularly is interesting.

He irritates a lot of people on the left because of the gender pronoun issue. He takes a hard stance on it but he does show nuance with the issue ("i would use your pronouns if I thought you were being sincere and not trying to police me"). His problems with gender pronouns are more-so about intentions than anything. He also doesn't have any large skeleton viewpoints in his closet. He has the one issue and that's basically the only thing offensive about him, and his viewpoints around that issue are measured itself.

To chase all of this, he has masterfully channeled his cultural phenom into becoming something resembling a modern, secular Pastor. He preaches responsibility and work ethic. He is rarely having a talk where he doesn't say things meant to inspire. If you actually like the guy, listening to him talk is enjoyable. I usually feel inspired listening to him talk. He has convinced me to take more responsibility for myself and the things that happen in my life.

The gender pronoun crowd intersects nearly 1:1 on it's hatred of religion, religious authority figures, and also he is a white male. At that point, there are an ocean of reasons to hate him on principle.
 
Do you have evidence of his transphobia?

Content such as this:

Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.”

It is argued on the free speech angle, but so is it argued as free speech when people refuse to use she/her pronouns to refer to trans women. Also, Jordan Peterson has used rather ridiculous rhetoric as criticism of the current nb movement:

"I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are 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."

Whether a comparison can be drawn between postmodern "radical leftist" ideology and Marxist societies which perpetuated horrible atrocities is neither here nor there, but bringing it up in this context is disingenuous.

He irritates a lot of people on the left because of the gender pronoun issue. He takes a hard stance on it but he does show nuance with the issue ("i would use your pronouns if I thought you were being sincere and not trying to police me"). His problems with gender pronouns are more-so about intentions than anything. He also doesn't have any large skeleton viewpoints in his closet. He has the one issue and that's basically the only thing offensive about him, and his viewpoints around that issue are measured itself.

Inherently, his misunderstanding of Bill C-16 makes his nuance rather weak. That said, in response to the notion that Peterson is merely criticized for his opinion on Bill C-16 and gender neutral pronouns:

"He emphasized the state should halt funding neo-Marxist faculties and courses, while students should avoid neo-Marxist disciplines like women's studies, ethnic studies and racial studies, as well other courses "corrupted" by the ideology such as sociology, anthropology and English literature."

Peterson's a weird guy.
 

finowns

Member
Content such as this:

Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: ”I don't recognize another person's right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won't do it."

It is argued on the free speech angle, but so is it argued as free speech when people refuse to use she/her pronouns to refer to trans women. Also, Jordan Peterson has used rather ridiculous rhetoric as criticism of the current nb movement:

"I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are 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."

Whether a comparison can be drawn between postmodern "radical leftist" ideology and Marxist societies which perpetuated horrible atrocities is neither here nor there, but bringing it up in this context is disingenuous.

If this is the best evidence of his intense dislike of trans people I would be very wary of labeling him transphobic.
 
He's a human being just like everyone else with varying opinions on a wide range of topics.

Hard liners that don't like having a real discussions will find ways to stick him in a box, so they can disregard anything he says on any topic.

He’s not smart. You can tell because the right clings to him.

Case in point.
 
If this is the best evidence of his intense dislike of trans people I would be very wary of labeling him transphobic.

Actually, connecting trans people wanting different pronouns with political movements that killed 100+ million people makes it kind of hard to argue otherwise. That's probably comparatively worse than the homophobic arguments saying gay marriage would lead to legal bestiality.
 
There's definitely a segment on the left, particularly those who have dedicated much of their life to academia, that don't blindly follow the more emotionally-driven liberal ideologies. Like Sam Harris with religion, or Alice Dreger with gender issues.
 

finowns

Member
Actually, connecting trans people wanting different pronouns with political movements that killed 100+ million people makes it kind of hard to argue otherwise. That's probably comparatively worse than the homophobic arguments saying gay marriage would lead to legal bestiality.

That’s a stretch he was being more specific in that quote, assuming the quote in this thread is the one you’re talking about.
 
That’s a stretch he was being more specific in that quote, assuming the quote in this thread is the one you’re talking about.

It is not a direct comparison, but the fact that he brought it up in the context of that does make it a comparison, as behavior of a group he compares to deaths under Marxist regimes.
 

finowns

Member
Attitudes that undermine the humanity of transgender individuals, however severe, regardless of intent.

This concept applies to racism, misogyny, and homophobia too by the way

That is a very broad and vague definition for a word. Where are you getting it?
 

finowns

Member
It is not a direct comparison, but the fact that he brought it up in the context of that does make it a comparison, as behavior of a group he compares to deaths under Marxist regimes.

I disagree, unless there is a larger context to the quote.

Double post on my phone
 
That is a very broad and vague definition for a word. Where are you getting it?

It's not really vague at all. Some definitions identify prejudice as opposed to dislike, which adequately identifies Peterson's views. He holds a prejudice against nb people, and this prejudice can be seen in:

1. Despite being a smart enough person, Peterson has done inadequate research into Bill C-16 and its applicability in the way he claims, as the courts ruled that such a scenario would require active hatred in order to be relevant.

2. Creating an association between deaths of hundreds of millions of people and people working to instill things like Bill C-16 and gender-neutral pronouns.

3. Refusing to honor people's personal pronouns and in doing so denying the validity of their gender (an act which is demonstrated in psychology to have a potential harmful effect).

4. As someone pointed out earlier, Peterson claimed that he would use such pronouns if the person's gender seemed authentic - essentially holding the proper gendering of someone for ransom, rather than just using the proper pronouns.

We can also look into some further examples, such as characterizing the issues that trans people experience with misgendering as being hurt feelings, which is very reductive of the actual impact.

I disagree, unless there is a larger context to the quote.

Double post on my phone

The comment mentioned gender neutral pronouns as a sole example of comparison between violent Marxist nations and modern "radical" leftists.
 
Top Bottom