# Jordan Peterson **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 8, 2020, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650 "2020-02-08T23:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/161 "2020-02-26T15:24:39Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > I had thought about responding more to other points you made, and I may later, but let’s look at this part. > > Certainly. Here are some of his claims. > > This particular quote shows up a lot, but here is [one cite](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html):Here is [his tweet](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/913533213301182465): I think he’s fucking nuts. Your thoughts on this? What do you think about feminists and their unconscious wish for brutal male domination? I’d like to see a source for Peterson’s actual words in context and not someone else’s interpretation before I comment. Similarly, I’ll reserve comment on a tweet that begins with “#2” without some additional context. Seems like a fair standard and, dare I say it, really the one everyone should be using. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > andy posted a few of his other claims. We can start there. > > Other people have posted this > > Please connect the missing dots between using “zhe” and then killing at least 100 million people. > > You claim everyone is avoiding actual discussion of this thoughts so here is an opportunity to discuss. Because the control of speech is one of the hallmarks of authoritarian governments. Peterson is correct when he asserts that the criminalization of speech is one of the lines that the Common Law (at least in recent history and especially in the US) was traditionally loathe to cross, and then only in the narrowest of circumstances. That principle exists exactly because of that link between the control of speech and authoritarianism, whether actual or percieved. Peterson characterized it as “frighteningly similar” not identical. As in “evocative of” or “of the same kind if not the same degree.” And if you can’t imagine how someone could at least make a surface connection between an ever-growing and shifting set of compelled pronouns and the works of, say Orwell, and his connection to criticisms of Communist Russia, then I don’t know what to tell you. He never said they were remotely identical, but the fact remains that Gulags and the pronoun issue both potentially share at least the connection of criminalized speech. If people can directly compare ICE facilities to “concentration camps” then indirectly comparing criminalizing speech to what eventually resulted in the creation of the Gulags is no more extreme a comparison. ---
**Author:** ![str8cashhomie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7cd45c/32.png) [@str8cashhomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/str8cashhomie)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/162 "2020-02-26T15:27:22Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > I’d like to see a source for Peterson’s actual words in context and not someone else’s interpretation before I comment. Similarly, I’ll reserve comment on a tweet that begins with “#2” without some additional context. Seems like a fair standard and, dare I say it, really the one everyone should be using. Full context has already been cited here: > [@Miller](#): > > He didn’t say it in that Tweet, he said it [in this podcast.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV4iXfjonqI&t=6m20s) ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/163 "2020-02-26T16:26:29Z")
I skew conservative (socially libertarian, non-PC, fiscal conservative, non-religious). Try as I might, I can’t for the life of me see the appeal in this guy. He’s a huge bore. Then again, I’ve never been a classic loser. He seems to appeal to classic losers. ---
**Author:** ![Polyester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Polyester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polyester)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/164 "2020-02-26T16:27:58Z")
> [@Dr\_Paprika](#): > > Jordan Peterson is a popular and controversial psychology professor who has gained a degree of Internet fame. He came out with a philosophy invoking historical and religious references that essentially incorporates 1950s pull-yourself-up advice with a distaste for progressive politics. > > His book “12 Rules For Life” is pretty good, for what it is. He has made some comments others dislike about the uselessness of liberal arts and identity politics. > > Apparently he has been ill the last year. I don’t know the details. I had read he switched to an all-meat diet, which seems extreme. He became addicted to benzodiazepines, and suffered from restlessness and tremors during withdrawal. Frustrated with his doctors, he went to Russia to be put into a medical coma for eight days. > > From a medical point of view, benzo withdrawal takes months and can be very difficult. I’ve never heard of being sedated for it, and doubt eight days would do that much given the length of time usual withdrawal takes. His daughter praised this drastic treatment. > > I don’t follow the man closely, nor his Internet stuff at all. **Anyone have opinions on the man** , his philosophy or his problems? He’s brilliant. Thoroughly enjoy when he dresses-down those foolish enough to challenge him. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/165 "2020-02-26T17:16:52Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > I skew conservative (socially libertarian, non-PC, fiscal conservative, non-religious). > > Try as I might, I can’t for the life of me see the appeal in this guy. He’s a huge bore. May I introduce you to…: > [@Polyester](#): > > Thoroughly enjoy when he dresses-down those foolish enough to challenge him. No, no, man, you gotta write “DRESSES DOWN”, in all caps. He serves as a stand in for those who have ever wished they had a good articulate comeback when challenged, to get the last word in. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/166 "2020-02-26T17:17:20Z")
Yeah, he’s the kind of brilliant dude who so thoroughly dresses down those foolish enough to challenge him that after becoming famous talking about how “postmodern” “neomarxists” are ruining the world, and how Marxism is worse than Nazism, and how things like identity politics and white privilege are a bunch of “Marxist lies,” and saying Marxist like 10 times a minute on average, he signed up for a debate about “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism” and then stood up on the stage and said he had never really read any Marx, and that he had tried reading the Manifesto prior to the debate but it had so many errors in it that it was just “weird,” and then made a bunch of inaccurate paraphrases of Marxist ideas that he clearly had just heard for the first time during that preparation. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/167 "2020-02-26T17:21:05Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Yeah, he’s the kind of brilliant dude who so thoroughly dresses down those foolish enough to challenge him that after becoming famous talking about how “postmodern” “neomarxists” are ruining the world, and how Marxism is worse than Nazism, and how things like identity politics and white privilege are a bunch of “Marxist lies,” and saying Marxist like 10 times a minute on average, he signed up for a debate about “Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism” and then stood up on the stage and said he had never really read any Marx, and that he had tried reading the Manifesto prior to the debate but it had so many errors in it that it was just “weird,” and then made a bunch of inaccurate paraphrases of Marxist ideas that he clearly had just heard for the first time during that preparation. So, basically, a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person is? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/168 "2020-02-26T17:24:16Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > An infinite amount of time. There is no expiration date for the existence of an unjust law which could be enforced any time at the whim of some official’s discretion. Would you argue any different? If your argument against adopting a law is that it will have unjust consequences, and the law is adopted anyway, and those consequences never manifest, then I would say that’s powerful evidence that your argument was incorrect. > [@](#): > > Because someone calling a transwoman “him” is expressing the opinion that the person is in fact male and would be prevented from doing so. Or perhaps they’re simply insisting on addressing people by their sex and not their gender. And the opinion that someone is a male is not inherently offensive. > > In the second hypothetical Duke is apparently of the opinion that the student is black/AA, and the student seems to share that opinion. Duke is free to express that opinion through any means other than racial epithets. There is no loss of the ability to express an opinion, only a relatively small limitation on how it may be expressed. The two situations aren’t at all the same thing and the further fact that racial epithets are universally offensive (for this purpose) and gender pronouns are not, only adds to how they are distinguishable. The law does not prevent someone from arguing against any particular facet of gender theory that supports the validity of trans identities. It just mandates that you can’t harass someone because you don’t agree with their concept of gender. One of the most common ways of harassing a trans person is by deliberately using the wrong pronoun, dead naming them, and referring to them as their birth gender. Do you think that trans people should not be protected from harassment in employment and education? I also question your repeated assertion that racial epithets are “universally” offensive. I’m a very white guy. I’ve also been called a “nigger.” The experience was not remotely offensive - it was mostly hilarious, because I’m literally whiter than snow. Likewise, the word being used between two black people is not necessarily offensive, particularly if the word is used without the hard r. The offensiveness of that word is, in fact, very contextual. On the other hand, misgendering someone is almost always insulting, regardless of whether or not they’re trans. You are, I’m assuming, cisgender and heterosexual, right? If someone at your job started referring to you as a woman, and calling you “Sally,” and otherwise questioning your manhood, would you view that as insulting? Harassment, even? Okay, so why is it different if it’s exactly the same situation, but you’re a transman? > [@](#): > > Because terms which are offensive only in certain contexts might depend entirely on the subjective feelings of the listener. And the law, in multiple contexts, does not particularly care about the subjective feelings of any specific person because that person may be irrational and unreasonable. So it adopts the standard of a fictional reasonable person. And such a person need not be inherently offended by the use of gendered language in and of itself. Also, I would think the intended meaning of the word “fag” would be evident from context. Should a gay person be able to claim a legal offense just because someone used that term to clearly indicate a cigarette in their presence? All terms are only offensive in certain contexts. That’s sort of my point in bringing up the “fag” example. Referring to a cigarette as a fag is not insulting. Referring to a coworker as a fag is. Using masculine pronouns when referring to a man is not insulting. Using masculine pronouns when referring to a woman is. > [@](#): > > No, I characterized your argument properly. Talking generally about how intelligent and educated people can be wrong and stupid, or citing Ben Carson, proves nothing about whether Peterson is wrong or stupid, generally or in any specific instance. And many of Peterson’s points concern human behavior, and since he is a qualified expert (impressively so) in that field then there is no appeal to authority. There is also no appeal to authority for the general argument that Peterson’s academic and professional accomplishments indicate a presumption of intelligence. That would be the common understanding of the significance of such things. Unless you are arguing that the PhD and teaching at Harvard are completely meaningless? If your own resume/CV were put up against Peterson’s who do you think most people would guess was more intelligent and more generally apt to be right? Do you really feel such a determination would be baseless? Sure, absent any other information, “Harvard PhD” would be a strong indication that the person under discussion is pretty smart. But when you start accumulating all these really, really stupid things a person said, its valid to start challenging that assumption. In Petersen’s case, he’s said a lot of really, really stupid things. And he’s repeated a lot of them, as well - “feminists crave male domination” wasn’t a brain fart, it’s a theme he’s returned to repeatedly, and I don’t need a PhD in psychology to recognize that it’s an incredibly faulty argument, from premise straight through to conclusion. Saying, “Well, he’s got a PhD, so what he said must actually be smart,” isn’t an argument, it’s an appeal to authority. If he’s smart, show us the smart things he’s said. > [@](#): > > I’m not here to defend everything Peterson has ever said, and I don’t think he would either. But his credentials are not insignificant and generally speaking create a presumption that can’t easily be dismissed, especially when discussing human behavior. So yes, simply citing those credentials is enough when the majority of his critics, who don’t even possess such credentials, limit their own attacks to things like “he’s stupid/crazy.” Yeah, a presumption. The thing about presumptions is, they only hold in the absence of evidence. There’s been a lot of evident presented in this thread that, despite his pedigree, he’s not actually got a ton on the ball. You’ve failed to rebut any of this evidence. Pointing out that he has an advanced degree isn’t a rebuttal. He’s got a BA in political science, so you think that means that his ideas about communism automatically have merit. Except, I can point out people who have doctorates in political science who are actual, self-identified communists. If we’re weighing arguments purely by the academic credentials of the person making the argument, virtually everything Peterson says on politics can be dismissed, because it’s trivially easy to find someone with more advanced degrees than he has who disagree with him. > [@](#): > > And I think the only link between pronouns and Gulags Peterson would make is that some people on one side of that issue wish to legally enforce their own ideas of acceptable speech on others. Controlling speech in such a manner is a hallmark of authoritarian gov’ts, certainly a valid comparison in kind even if not in degree. The Gulags, of course, are one historical example of what happens when a gov’t can criminalize broad categories of speech. That’s a stunningly facile comparison, on the order of, “They’re both things done by humans, therefore they’re similar.” Every government in history has placed restrictions on what is or is not acceptable speech, including the US and Canada. You can’t just say, “The Soviets placed restrictions on speech, therefore this is bad.” Authoritarian regimes punished speech that was perceived as a threat to their hegemony, with a goal of crushing dissent. Liberal governments punish speech that attacks and marginalizes disadvantaged minority groups, with a goal of protecting their ability to live and work in society. Those aren’t remotely comparable situations. You might as well argue that the Nuremberg Trials and the Wannsee Conference were equivalent, because they were both about imprisoning and executing people. > [@](#): > > I will add that the law professor who encouraged me to read, and constantly referenced, \*The Gulag Archipelago \* was as left-wing as they come. Can you explain why this is remotely relevant? Is the idea that, because a leftist liked Solzhenitsyn, Peterson is correct, or what? I genuinely can’t figure out why you felt this was something worth mentioning. ---
**Author:** ![Polyester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Polyester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polyester)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/169 "2020-02-26T18:05:02Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > May I introduce you to…: > > No, no, man, you gotta write “DRESSES DOWN”, in all caps. > He serves as a stand in for those who have ever wished they had a good articulate comeback when challenged, to get the last word in. Not as a “stand-in”, but rather, as the pinnacle of. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/170 "2020-02-26T18:05:04Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > May I introduce you to…: To… who? Not following. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/171 "2020-02-26T18:50:30Z")
> [@Polyester](#): > > He’s brilliant. > > Thoroughly enjoy when he dresses-down those foolish enough to challenge him. He’d be dangerous if he wasn’t such a trite, pedantic bore. I thoroughly enjoyed when Sam Harris had JP screwing himself into the ground while using bigger and bigger words to express smaller and smaller ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2020, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/172 "2020-02-26T19:52:36Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > So, basically, a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person is? Exactly. Comes in two flavors. He’s the vanilla to Ben Shapiro’s other vanilla. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2020, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/173 "2020-02-29T00:53:32Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > Peterson characterized it as “frighteningly similar” not identical. As in “evocative of” or “of the same kind if not the same degree.” And if you can’t imagine how someone could at least make a surface connection between an ever-growing and shifting set of compelled pronouns and the works of, say Orwell, and his connection to criticisms of Communist Russia, then I don’t know what to tell you. Where is it, I wonder, that misuse of pronouns are subject to criminal prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2020, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/174 "2020-02-29T03:54:03Z")
Shhh, **RickJay**! That’s one of those secret implied offences that we have in Soviet Canuckistan! Wé’re not supposed to talk about them. That’s the most serious thing about Professor Peterson - he’s talking about stuff we’re supposed to keep secret. Shhhh! ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2020, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/175 "2020-02-29T04:04:59Z")
> [@Polyester](#): > > Not as a “stand-in”, but rather, as the pinnacle of. The guy got owned by friggin’ Jim Jeffries. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2020, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/176 "2020-02-29T15:05:57Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > I’d like to see a source for Peterson’s actual words in context and not someone else’s interpretation before I comment. Similarly, I’ll reserve comment on a tweet that begins with “#2” without some additional context. Seems like a fair standard and, dare I say it, really the one everyone should be using. As has been noted, Miller posted the link for the video and even linked to the right time. He says > [@](#): > > I think it’s their (radical feminists) unconscious wish for brutal male domination. Don’t take anyone else’s word for this. Listen yourself to Peterson and then come back. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2020, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650/177 "2020-03-11T03:51:02Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > I’d like to see a source for Peterson’s actual words in context and not someone else’s interpretation before I comment. Similarly, I’ll reserve comment on a tweet that begins with “#2” without some additional context. Seems like a fair standard and, dare I say it, really the one everyone should be using. Just by chance, yesterday, my colleague asked me if I knew Jordan Peterson so it was good timing that we this thread had come up so recently. Like DirkHardly, my colleague also wanted to see the source for Peterson’t actual words so I had the link to the video handy. My colleague also gave up the discussion after watching the video. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jordan-peterson/847650.md?page=8)