Jordan Peterson

[brenthutch 383]

Does anyone disagree with any of his points?

[jakee 1,254]

Yes, some people disagree with some of his points.

[brenthutch 383]

Sorry, I should have been more specific.  Who on this forum disagrees with him and on what point/s.

[Stumpy 256]

To which commentary are you referring? Sorry not being awkward - a quick search hasn't turned up anything obvious.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Sorry, I should have been more specific.  Who on this forum disagrees with him and on what point/s.

I disagree with him on feminism and gender identity politics.

[theplummeter 14]

I agree with some of what he says, but can’t stand when he tries to pigeonhole every non religious person into a Tolstoy character.  He has the same problem that so many pundits do, claiming to put facts before feelings until his underlying irrational base is exposed and then backpedaling into vagueness before the subject gets changed.  

You can find a video on YouTube where he has a discussion with Matt Dillahunty.  Pay attention to the black and white facts he pushes about curing smoking and atheism.  He makes broad claims and then backs away from talking about his personal beliefs and carries his conclusions too far without backing up the arguments.

[sundevil777 93]

On 7/1/2019 at 9:01 AM, jakee said:

I disagree with him on feminism and gender identity politics.

Please elaborate, it should be easy to point out what is so awful since he’s being called a nazi by the left.

 

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, sundevil777 said:

Please elaborate, it should be easy to point out what is so awful 

He says that any woman whose primary concern in life by the age of 30 isn't having kids has something wrong with her, has a disagreeable temperament and is incompassionate. 

 

He says the idea that women have been discriminated against throughout history is appalling. I didn't say he's awful, but I think that statement is awful.

 

He's so obsessed with transgender people that he directly compares pressure to call them by their chosen pronouns with the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist state policies of the Soviet Union that killed tens of millions of people. Like... really?

 

Quote

since he’s being called a nazi by the left.

I have no interest in calling him a nazi. That kind of hyperbole is more his style.

[sundevil777 93]

17 minutes ago, jakee said:

He says that any woman whose primary concern in life by the age of 30 isn't having kids has something wrong with her, has a disagreeable temperament and is incompassionate. 

 

He says the idea that women have been discriminated against throughout history is appalling. I didn't say he's awful, but I think that statement is awful.

 

He's so obsessed with transgender people that he directly compares pressure to call them by their chosen pronouns with the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist state policies of the Soviet Union that killed tens of millions of people. Like... really?

 

I have no interest in calling him a nazi. That kind of hyperbole is more his style.

That sounds like paraphrasing that is not an accurate representation of his statements. Many people will only be exposed to what others summarize about such statements. He is quite careful with his wording and explaining his reasoning. For instance, it wasn’t just “pressure” to use chosen pronouns. He made it clear he would call someone by their chosen pronoun, but not when forced to at the point of a gun (which is what laws do). I’m paraphrasing also. When the government tells you what you must say, the comparison is reasonable.

Edited August 7, 2019 by sundevil777

[yobnoc 142]

4 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

That sounds like paraphrasing that is not an accurate representation of his statements. Many people will only be exposed to what others summarize about such statements. He is quite careful with his wording and explaining his reasoning. For instance, it wasn’t just “pressure” to use chosen pronouns. He made it clear he would call someone by their chosen pronoun, but not when forced to at the point of a gun (which is what laws do). I’m paraphrasing also. When the government tells you what you must say, the comparison is reasonable.

Yeah, I'm going to agree that I can't get on the Peterson Express because his standpoints (many of them) are coming from a bias that Atheists are vanishingly rare (Hey, over here! *hand waving excitedly*).  I've listened to some of his material, and after watching his exchange with Matt Dillahunty, I'm pretty sure he's not the guy I want to be taking life advice from.

[jakee 1,254]

40 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

That sounds like paraphrasing that is not an accurate representation of his statements. 

You just quoted my entire post containing multiple points. So what exactly sounds like paraphrasing? If you're going to hang your hat on specific wording, be specific.

 

Quote

He made it clear he would call someone by their chosen pronoun, but not when forced to at the point of a gun (which is what laws do). I’m paraphrasing also. When the government tells you what you must say, the comparison is reasonable.

Do they? From a BBC article;

""I don't think any legal expert would say using an inappropriate pronoun, while not something that respects the human rights of trans people, would ever result in a criminal conviction," said Kyle Kirkup, a law professor with the University of Ottawa who specialises in gender identity and sexuality law."

 

Quote

When the government tells you what you must say, the comparison is reasonable.

No, even if you could be prosecuted the comparison with killing tens of millions of people is not reasonable. It's a stretch that Mister Fantastic would be proud of.

[jakee 1,254]

On 8/7/2019 at 11:25 PM, sundevil777 said:

That sounds like paraphrasing that is not an accurate representation of his statements. 

Nothing on this? Ok then.

[Coreece 189]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

On 8/7/2019 at 10:25 PM, sundevil777 said:

That sounds like paraphrasing that is not an accurate representation of his statements. 

Nothing on this? Ok then.

Whose burden is it to backup your claims?

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Whose burden is it to backup your claims?

You saw where I asked him to clarify his issues with my claims, right? Again, if absolute accuracy is the issue, I want to know exactly which parts of my post he thinks do not reflect what the guy said.

 

But you know that already, so stop stirring the pot for no reason.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

But you know that already, so stop stirring the pot for no reason.

Oh please.

That's ALL he does. 

[billvon 2,384]

On 8/7/2019 at 3:25 PM, sundevil777 said:

That sounds like paraphrasing that is not an accurate representation of his statements. Many people will only be exposed to what others summarize about such statements. He is quite careful with his wording and explaining his reasoning. For instance, it wasn’t just “pressure” to use chosen pronouns. He made it clear he would call someone by their chosen pronoun, but not when forced to at the point of a gun (which is what laws do). 

But that's a silly statement.  That's like saying a professor has to get a recently married student's last name right or he will be forced to do so "at the point of a gun."  That's just as true, and apparently hasn't been a problem for the last, oh, few centuries or so.

And he's also said that he will NOT use people's preferred pronouns; he will use what pronouns HE decides are appropriate.  "If the standard transsexual person wants to be regarded as he or she, my sense is I'll address you according to the part that you appear to be playing."

Imagine if someone's daughter was at school, and she was a tomboy - short hair, no jewelry etc.  And her history professor was a very traditional woman, and insisted on calling her "mister" even though she knew full well what sex she was, because she was offended by women who did "not bother to take the time to make themselves attractive."  That OK?

[NewGuy2005 51]

I've heard him say that he will call them by any pronoun they prefer, if he thinks they are being sincere and just trying to create controversy.  He just says he won't be forced to do it.

[billvon 2,384]

13 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

I've heard him say that he will call them by any pronoun they prefer, if he thinks they are being sincere and just trying to create controversy.  

That sounds like an easy way to act like a jerk and have an excuse for it.

"Good morning Mr. Smith."
"I've asked you to call me Mrs. Smith twice now, Professor Peterson."
"Oh, well, if you just want controversy, I will oblige and call you Mr. Smith!"

(The evil part of me would want to start calling him "Elder Peterson" or something.  But only if he doesn't like it and therefore wants controversy.)

BTW where did you see him say that?  Be curious to see the original.

[jakee 1,254]

10 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

I've heard him say that he will call them by any pronoun they prefer, if he thinks they are being sincere and just trying to create controversy.  He just says he won't be forced to do it.

And then compares it to the murder of tens of millions of people.

Because obviously.

 

Edited August 11, 2019 by jakee

[Coreece 189]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

9 hours ago, jakee said:

But you know that already, so stop stirring the pot for no reason.

Oh please.

That's ALL he does.  

Bullshit, he said stirring, not smoking.

[gowlerk 1,903]

I’m not sure who he is or what his aims are. But a paid advertisement linking to something or other of his just appeared on my FB feed. With a stirring 3/4 view head shot of his pretty white male entitled face.

[Coreece 189]

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I’m not sure who he is or what his aims are. But a paid advertisement linking to something or other of his just appeared on my FB feed.

These aren't the days of old where you can just go running around searching for any link to click, you need to protect yourself.

 

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

a stirring 3/4 view head shot of his pretty white male entitled face.

Sounds like your type of lot lizard, eh?

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by Coreece

[NewGuy2005 51]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

 

BTW where did you see him say that?  Be curious to see the original.

It was a podcast.  That was definitely a paraphrase of what I heard.  Not a quote.

[NewGuy2005 51]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

That sounds like an easy way to act like a jerk and have an excuse for it.

"Good morning Mr. Smith."
"I've asked you to call me Mrs. Smith twice now, Professor Peterson."
"Oh, well, if you just want controversy, I will oblige and call you Mr. Smith!"

 

The impression I got was that he would not oblige the request to be called by alternate pronouns in cases where he thought the person was not actually trans, but just trying to be obstinate.  Such a situation is not that difficult to imagine, is it?

I'm not carrying water for the guy, believe me.  I no longer listen to him due to another, unrelated, issue that I don't agree with.

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, NewGuy2005 said:

That was definitely a paraphrase of what I heard.  Not a quote.

Yep, that pretty much sums up this thread.  All these paraphrases but no one can be bothered to post at least one link to any sources to back up anything they've said.

I still have no idea who the fuck this guy is.  I guess we're just left here blue-balled and have to figure it out for ourselves, thanks.