That doesn’t even remotely address my comment.
The alt-right is not a monolithic group. They disagree all the time. It part of their strength, as it allows any part to deny they are connected with any other part. What you have to do is look at their audience, and how well respected they are in the alt-right community.
Peterson has a huge alt-right audience, and is highly respected in the alt-right community. He is part of what is commonly called the “Intellectual Dark Web,” which is where people spreading hateful ideologies claim that they are being censored. Any time you encounter someone on the right who talks about how “They don’t want you to know this,” they’re generally part of the IDW.
The IDW and other “alt-lite” setups may not be as explicitly alt-right, but they do have a tunneling effect. The fandom is largely alt-right, and simply watching content that promotes these guys will mean that you will get more alt-right stuff recommended to you, and not the stuff that debunks them. So you get pulled further in.
The above isn’t idle speculation. This effect has been studied by sociologists, because the way it is growing is not as expected. Unfortunately, the best summary I know is in the form of a video presentation to academics, and the best layman’s summary is by the same guy in a formatted video.
The fact is, Peterson has a high alt-right fanbase who interpret what he says in alt-right ways, and he does not actually disavow them. He’ll disavow “white nationalism,” but the alt-right did the whole renaming thing so that white nationalism isn’t what they claim to be.
And, given how NP has shown that his whole initial rise was predicated on a falsehood, it’s pretty easy to believe that he’s aware and knowingly doing this. When he pretends that he’s being forced to use specific pronouns for trans people or lose his job, he’s already lying to find a sympathetic audience.
And this is a perfect encapsulation of why his arguments are bad. First off, it’s self-defeating:** if the pronoun thing is no big deal, then why does it offend him so much**? A rational person says “This is not a big deal to me, but it’s a big deal to them, so I will do what they want.” The irrational person says “This shouldn’t be a big deal to them because it isn’t a big deal to me, so I won’t do what they want.”
Of course, the claim that it’s not a big deal is false–that is just what he thinks. But he’s not transgender. To a trans person, using the wrong pronoun is misgendering, and causes dysphoria. The whole reason a trans person transitions is because it allows them to stop being misgendered, which helps with their dysphoria.
And, well, if you want to use the wrong pronouns, it’s an indication of something deeper. It’s not just that you used the wrong pronoun–it’s that you reject that trans people even exist. And, if they don’t actually exist, then they don’t need rights.
I ultimately don’t call a trans woman “she” because she wants me to, but because I accept that she is female, as all the science on gender and sex shows. The “basic politeness” is the argument you tell bigots to get them started, because, once they use the right language, they tend to also start being open to new ideas. Get Uncle Bob to stop saying the n-word, and it becomes easier for him to accept black people.
And, finally, any argument based on “There are worse things in the world” is a bad argument. There are always worse things in the world. That doesn’t mean that you can’t deal with less bad things. The answer is not “don’t do anything about it,” as that just keeps us stuck where we are.
He clearly believes in fighting oppression, as he styles himself as being oppressed because trans people want him to use the correct pronouns and accept that they are real. And he fights that “oppression.” But he doesn’t afford that right to others. Others should just shut up and “stop whining.”
I may have sympathy over the benzo thing, but none of that means I give a pass for shitty logic that occurred before all that. Bully logic isn’t good logic. Good logic ironically results in people caring about the feelings of others. It’s rational.
I remember the time he wanted to dedicate a website to the curating of lists of courses and professors that he believed contributed to the downfall of society (Black/Gender/Women’s studies, English lit., Antro, philosophy, etc.).
U of T prof’s proposed website would target professors teaching women’s and ethnic studies
Get it? He’s asking his followers to report local “SJW” academics to him so that he can gather and publish their names/info. Free speech Peterson. He ultimately had to nix the idea due to the clear harassing nature of it.
He instead started his own unaccredited “online university” from which he continues to bilk cash from his followers today (one of his many grifting scams).
Just curious about how far you take this.
Suppose a university professor habitually addresses black students in his class as “n________s”, Jewish students as “k_____s”, East Asian students as “ch______s”, and gay students as “f___s.”
And suppose the university starts professional discipline proceedings against the professor.
Would that be the “language fascism” which you detest?
Or is it only when “gender confused” people (your phrase, not mine) ask that certain terms not be used that they should just shut up and deal with it?
In the linked article they show a screen shot of his Patreon account with $56,000 a month income. Hate speech sells – or wins you presidencies.
More curiosity on my part : puddleglum, who are the"most evil people in the world" who are ganging up on Dr Peterson?
By way of comparison, here’s one web-site’s take on the 10 most evil people in world history: The 10 Most Evil People in History (Updated 2024) | Wealthy Gorilla
All but one are dead, but they all racked up scary kill lists. So I’m wondering who is the modern day, living equivalents, the “most evil people” who are threatening Dr Peterson?
Is it that or because it sells with the angry white men?
I hadn’t paid that much attention to him before. One Canadian guy (of a similar age as him) in one of my real life groups had linked a post to a YouTube video of him and I only watched enough to get turned off.
After reading this thread, I looked a bit online and watched a bit more of him, including the clip a linked to previously about Hitler and how the crowd and Hitler feed off of each other, making the progression to gas chambers sound like natural progression.
I don’t see Peterson as the next Hitler or as a neo-Nazi, but he is far too much of an expert for him to not be aware of the dynamics at play.
It seems to me that JP has managed to monetize and exploit the white nationalists, misogynists, incels and various other dregs of society. All with a, “Gosh, who me? Don’t get me wrong!..” act that gives those who support him the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability.
Given the news of his seriously declining health, I’m guessing his 15 minutes of infamy are coming to an end. May his contributions be relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas throughout history.
Voices like his that argue dishonestly from false premises complete the picture? I guess they do complete a picture.
When I listen to Jordan Peterson, I am strongly reminded of another moralizing grifter who liked to pound the table about the primacy of male personal responsibility, except Peterson has adjusted his pitch for the self-congratulating “facts and logic” crowd. People went nuts over him as a male role model until he ended up convicted of drugging and raping a number of women.
I am of course talking about Bill Cosby here. That’s who Jordan Peterson reminds me of. Sit up straight, eat your vegetables, and what is “rape”, really?
I resent that framing. Like most Dopers I’m a facts and logic evangelist and I think JP makes trivially debunkable claims when he speaks factually, and just plain old shite the rest of the time (eg fluffy talk about archetypes that’s rarely linked to concrete claims).
Its more like the “tell it like it is” crowd; where telling it like it is is of course a good thing in the abstract, but we can all appreciate how that notion now seems to mean “say the offensive, bigoted thing out loud” to a large segment of the population.
Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
Are you honestly, earnestly unaware that right-wing pseudo-intellectuals have abused the “facts and logic” trope so severely that it’s become a punchline meaning “sophistry and bullshit”? Go forth and resent Ben Shapiro; I didn’t do it.
you might get that impression if you do not actually watch one of his interviews and lectures and decide for yourself. or check *12 Rules For Life *out of the library.
(bolding added.) provide a source for this statement.
Actually, yes. I don’t live in the US, and while I am familiar with Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and… <swallows vomit from mouth>…Stephen Crowder, et al, I hadn’t heard the expression “facts and logic” used this way before.
On googling, I see several results of the format “Ben Shapiro humiliates liberal with facts and logic!”.
This is a terrible development. It’s one thing for people unfamiliar with formal logic, skeptical thinking and what a “gish gallop” is, to not appreciate the flaws in Shapiro’s arguments. But to have such a warped idea that you think what he does constitutes “facts and logic”…geez.
What? I mean, I do see a difference between a university professor openly insulting black people as n_____s, which is an offense punishable under law (at least where I live, as a derogatory term) and someone refusing to go through he/she/it or whatever prior to even knowing if there is anything the other side is valuing as their favorite form of address.
My point is that people are too eager to fall into preemptive self-censoring in order to be as correct as possible, and my impression is that this is at least partially so because of fear of being immediately shitstormed. That is the problem. And if I say I wouldn’t preemptively use the “correct” form of address (note, I wouldn’t do so if I learn from a specific person how to be addressed), well, someone further up already called me shithead which proves my point to a certain extent.
His 12 Rules For Life are trite and somewhat dated, but not objectionable. They are also not (typically) what earns JP his criticism. Thus, asking, ‘What’s wrong with JP telling kids and parents to first clean their room?’, is entirely missing the point.
How can you have a double standard when the two situations aren’t even remotely the same and only one party is subject to potential legal compulsion? That’s not a double standard, those are two very different things. I wouldn’t misuse “fascism” here but it certainly is authoritarian. There is no right to not be offended and that is the only inherent harm alleged from a legal standpoint by someone who is misgendered. Also, I’ve always found the argument that someone has the right to co-opt another person’s freedom of action or speech to fulfill some claimed right of their own, whether a general “right” to be addressed as they prefer or a “right” to be sold birth control, to be incredibly narcissistic and unsupportable logically, morally, or legally.
Once again, and I believe it was you that raised a similar argument in the GQ Canada Hate Speech thread, you are trying to compare epithets and slurs which are inherently inappropriate in virtually every social or professional context with terms (gender terms) which are offensive only in the subjective opinion of the listener and perfectly appropriate in other contexts. Those are in no way legally or logically comparable.
And the problem has nothing to do with the particulars of addressing transgender persons and everything to do with Compelled Speech, which is exactly how Peterson characterized it. He made it quite clear in numerous interviews that he had no problem addressing people by their requested gender language but objected to a legal compulsion to do so as well as potentially being obligated to use pronouns beyond the binary.
The fact is, he was correct that because C-16 added gender identity and orientation to the CHRA and because the Ontario Human Rights Commission considers misgendering to be a form of discrimination and harassment, then it was entirely possible that Peterson or someone similarly situated could find themselves bearing the costs of defending themselves in front of the Tribunal and facing a financial penalty for failing to address someone by their preferred gender pronouns. And he was also correct that the University that employed him could also face legal penalties due to vicarious liability.
Peterson’s critics not only admit that this is the case regarding the Tribunal but then disingenuously attempt to downplay the implications, and all while accusing Peterson of misunderstanding the legal issues at hand. For instance, they counter that if he was found guilty by that body then his actions would be found to be “illegal” but not “criminal” and thus he would face only financial penalties (and of course the cost of his defense) rather than imprisonment. As if those distinctions, while accurate, in any way render Peterson’s claims false or inconsequential.
So he was absolutely correct that this has the potential to become an instance of Compelled Speech and he was correct that such a thing is unheard of in the history of the Common Law (or at least the modern history). And because it could involve an illegal act consisting solely of speech (opinion no less, an important legal distinction) and where the harm alleged consists solely of the offense (in this case, subjective offense) felt by the object of the speech, then it would tick all the boxes and be a Hate Speech Law in everything but name.
So let me ask you some questions which, in all honesty, are much more legally relevant than yours (no offense intended, but c’mon, that was bush league). If someone referred to another person as a “midget” or “dwarf” when they prefer to be referred to as a “little person” should that be legally actionable in your opinion? What if someone was referred to as “black” when they prefer “African-American”? Or what if someone was referred to as “African-American” and they prefer “black” because they are from the Caribbean? If any or all of these should not be legally actionable then what legal principle compels that different outcome?
Lastly, such laws are also worrying because they to some extent replace the objective standard of the reasonable person with the subjective offense of the person who is the object of the speech in question. That is also a significant departure from Common Law norms and principles.