Criticism of the political left

No. No. No.

I'm not going to let this stand any longer.

I will also not tell everyone how to think.

But Pinker, in my estimation, is the exact thing he rails against. I can't think of too many people with their heads up their own asses further than this "I teach at Harvard" POS. He only thinks he doesn't engage in identity politics because his assumption is that White, Christian and male is the norm. Clearly, our world is a meritocracy, right? Complete BS.

BTW, I am White, Male, and raised Christian.

I certainly hope so.

Peterson is thinly-veiled eugenics. I find it odd that these people who are so pissed off at having to "lightly dance around" their verbiage are so dismissal of the fact that the 2-genders world-view is myopic and that THEY are the ones creating a safe space for their own entitled, privileged, exclusionary world-view that disallows others to fully express themselves.

 

I think you may misunderstand Peterson on that issue quite specifically. He's talked to a lot of people about the pronoun thing and his treatment because of his position. To characterize him as any sort of eugenicist is asinine and betrays a studied lack of understanding where he's coming from.

All you need to do is listen to his talks with Joe Rogan or Dave Rubin, two people I think are probably among the farthest from eugenicists. Or either of those two hosts' conversations with self-described super-left Weinstein brothers, when the subject of Peterson comes up. He stakes out a rather reasonable position.

Promise? Cuz that's sort of one of the main objections he has to how the Canadian university system tried to treat him.

 

I almost got kicked out of a master's program for being culturally insensitive.

However, unlike Peterson, I decided to look at how what I did and said may have been interpreted differently than I had meant it, and I accepted responsibility for that, and have tried to be more aware of how my action and behaviors affect others.

This has greatly helped me in my marriage and life in general.

I still feel that the professor who took issue with my statements and conduct was out of line. I was inarticulate and condescending in making my point that lowering the bar for students in difficult circumstances was actually doing them a disservice. My opinion hasn't changed. My delivery has.

Pinker and Peterson criticize those who criticize their method of delivery. I wish they would at least try, as messengers of "truth," to make their message clearer instead of insisting everyone meet them on their own terms. Isn't that the essence of arrogance? The same thing they blame SJW's of? It is, on it's face, audaciously hypocritical.

They defend the status quo while blaming those that challenge the status quo of their own tactics. Sound familiar? Play the victim much?

Peterson doesn't know shit about biology. The whole lobster/hierarchy thing is absolutely ridiculous. Lobsters ≠ Humans. We split off 700million years ago in evolutionary history, not 350 million, like he states. Saying that any behavior we share is inherited.... well, how about the trilobytes? This coming from a guy who says that evolution and science back him up. ********ing bullshit.

Peterson is nothing more than yet ANOTHER psychologist (like Pinker) who has decided to reach beyond his realm of expertise, because, you know, being smart in one area means you're smart in ALL areas of human knowledge.

My wife is a educational phsycologist PhD too, btw. We talk about this shit all the time.

I don't look to Einstein or Archimedes for enlightenment on social behavior. Pinker and Peterson would like you to think that they know more than they know. Really, their peers just think they are full of shit because there is no scientific evidence (and all that means is robust and reproducible studies) for their claims. They live in the realm of theoretical physicists who argue over how many dimensions exist. This isn't anything to hang your hat on until we have more evidence. And the current evidence, and at least my life's experience, points to them being wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. And not only wrong, but wrong in the way that gives others license to perpetuate hatred, misogyny, and racism.

They should just continue their research (which is valuable) and STFU about the things they have no business delving into. That's just vanity.

 

So, yes, you misunderstand, and at quite a bit of length.

It is the insistence on pain of career ruination and legal action (because Canada is farther along in insanity and they have laws) of conforming to a particular point of view that Peterson finds objectionable. Rather than cower and bow and scrape he has decided to simply not fall into line and present his arguments.

That's different from "being entitled". I don't know enough about Pinker to comment.

 

Okay. If your comments are about USA 1st Amendment protection vs. Canadia's freedom of speech protections, fine.

However, I've followed Peterson plenty. You are dismissing what he is saying vs. his fight for free speech within the academic world. You are trying to define my criticism within the realm of what you are willing to consider. I say, expand your thinking on this, or maybe listen to the message he is offering that is receiving such censure. And maybe don't listen to his recaps, but just listen to the actual lectures he's given without comment or reading the comments below.

Peterson does not exist in a bubble. I can criticize the content of his speech while you can criticize the censure of his speech, and we are not necessarily at odds.

Fine.

I'm discussing the merits of the content of his speech and you are discussing the merits of him being able to say such things and remain within the academic community.

I say: Let him say whatever the hell he wants (as long as it isn't a threat, yelling "Fire" in a theater, or explicit "hate-speech"), but only give it the merit it deserves. If his academic research, or his tale of academic immolation isn't up to snuff, then let him get canned and pushed to the fringes of the academic community.

In my opinion, he isn't being brave at all. He's merely quixotically standing up for the status quo. Tilting at windmills and such.

 

My question is, why is his opinion being criminalized, both literally and figuratively?

You appear to be telling me what I think and how to think quite a bit in that post. I thought you were going to refrain from that.

 

If he was in the US, would his speech be legally criminalized?

If his speech is really criminal, why isn't he in jail right now?

Even then, does the content of his speech have merit, apart from the legal implications?

I think Canadia is on the wrong side of this argument myself, but that doesn't mean that I think Peterson's actual thoughts and opinions for which he is being criticized have merit. I think he's full of shit and should be relegated to obscurity on the basis of his "research." Just like HerbaLife, LifeVantage, Tahitian Noni, or Xango, or DoTerra, or......... But if people are stupid enough to fall into his "freedom of speech" Crusade for ignorance and intolerance, who am I to judge?

 

I knew nothing of Jordan Peterson but he appears to be the latest men's rights pop psychologist who appeals to the Bros out there. Do I have this right? Wrote a best-seller and is critical of post-modernism in universities.

Listen to the weird shit he says about men & women working together. "How about no makeup in the workplace? Isn't that sexually provocative?"

 

Please elucidate what is intolerant.

 

And you accuse me of not paying attention.

Good day.

 

What's he getting at in the clip above about women not wearing makeup at work? Sounds a lot like "if you don't want men harassing you, don't dress like a 'ho"

 

I asked you a question to get YOUR actual view so there is no ambiguity. Taking your ball and going home is weak.

 

Greatest toy ever.

Oh, and "Johnny Switchblade (Adventure Punk)"

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/irwin-mainway/n8641?snl=1

 

I've made my view clear.
You haven't answered any of my questions.
I don't care that you think I'm "weak."

 

You've asserted that he's intolerant without being specific, and you've questioned his credentials as a scientist somewhat more specifically.

Would you be surprised if I said I was significantly more convinced by super-post-modernist Thaddeus Russell on a breadth of issues, yet found that Peterson had interesting insights also? The two have not as yet, to my knowledge, appeared on the same show at the same time to go at one another, but I think it would be quite illuminating. They've both appeared separately on the same podcasts and generally are both well regarded by their interviewers.

I can link you an interview in which Thad specifically talks about Peterson, if you like. I largely agree with the criticisms that appear in that article.

I guess you're stepping back from the eugenicsist characterization.

BTW, I did not say YOU were weak, but that your behavior was. That's a distinction and it matters.

 

They are? That's not what I heard when Mitt was running.

 

I still remember the time Nye went on a show featuring 2 libertarians and an an-cap and started answering questions he wasn't asked and assumed a set of positions that no one expressed and started tearing down the strawmen. I was embarrassed for him, but I'm pretty sure he didn't have the first clue. Sounded like a doddering old ideologue fighting battles in his mind. It was very awkward.

 

Maybe you should just be happy that two Libertarians made it to television

 

They co-hosted the show. One of them hosts her own now.

 

A libertarian female? She must do quite well at the conventions. Like this lady at the Star Wars convention.

 

See below.

These weren't from RSL, but they answered your request.

 

Just because she's libertarian herself doesn't mean she ********s Libertarian men. Women go to sci-fi cons to avoid real men, and be "friends" with unfortunate looking engineer mofos like this. Probably similar with Libertarian causes.