With that said, I still don't recall any instances where Matt Christiansen trashed gay marriage, used anti-gay insults, or supported hate speech. That statement is actually pretty frustrating because I'd consider Christiansen to be fairly moderate, fair, and constructive. When somebody like him is given those labels, it's difficult for reasonable discussion to follow.
He’s used the word pansy, joked about (and used) the word “f**” and has a steady stream of liked tweets that use the same types of language (and racist language, as a lot of his followers seem to get like from him even when using “chimp” references and the N word).
He’s also said hate speech laws shouldn’t exist. And “trashed” may be strong, but he has said that people shouldnt have to make the same accommodations for gay marriage that they do for straight marriage, and liked content that is 100% anti-gay marriage.
He does know how to construct an argument though, so I’m certainly not blaming you for posting the video, just more-so lamenting the fact that guys like him have constructed a platform similar to the “I’m not touching you” game you used to annoy your sibling when you were little. Rarely produces shareable content that would get him banned, but he’s incredibly happy to entertain it with his followers.
This, in three posts, demonstrates what someone captive to their own ideology looks like. First make an over the top, morally charged statement about someone whose views are anathema, declaring them to be evil. When someone points out that you're not being reasonable, don't for a moment question yourself; simply double down on what you have already pre-decided is automatically true.
It's what the conservative right did when I was young. Which is why I spent my youth fighting against them. And now the far left use the same tactics, the same line of attack. And that's why I fight them now. They've become a mirror image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Oh nice, now we’re posting videos of guys who trash gay marriage, use anti-gay insults, and don’t believe in any laws against hate speech.
It's remarkable how many on the identarian left carry a map of the battlefield around in the minds - all the blogs and websites and Youtube channels of their enemies. But they can't form a coherent argument that doesn't resort to ad hominem or poisoning the well. The fact X is said by Y, who posts on Z site is no substitute for a genuine argument.
As I said in my original post, and as the Channel 4 video illustrates so well, for many on the left their beliefs have become such unchallenged dogma that they genuinely don't know how to support and defend it from reasoned criticism. Their beliefs have become, as Haidt calls them, sacred values. By quashing all dissent and delegitimizing any criticism of their agenda in the institutions that have come under their sway, they've actually lost their own ability to employ reason and persuasive argument in support of that agenda.
I want an intellectual heavyweight from the identarian left to step up and debate Peterson. These contests are how we discern the truth from wishful thinking, empirically-supported facts from sentiment. Peterson should have his assertions and simplifications challenged. But you do it with reasons and facts, not name-calling and insults. What are his detractors so afraid of?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 01-23-2018 at 06:49 AM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
It's what the conservative right did when I was young. Which is why I spent my youth fighting against them. And now the far left use the same tactics, the same line of attack. And that's why I fight them now. They've become a mirror image.
This is the thing I find most obnoxious and simultaneously depressing about the political landscape right now. When I was arguing with bible thumpers and "it's just not natural" conservatives in the early 2000's about gay rights, I always thought to myself, "if only these people weren't so confident that they had the weight of the moral majority behind them. If we can just get enough people to recognize that we're right about this, or enough of these self-righteous jerks to die off, they'll lose that smugness, and we'll enter an age where we can talk about these issues with the measured reason the left always uses to stake out a position on important issues, in place of just trying to paint the other guys as immoral." Call me naive, but in my life experience, there was never any way to know that this behaviour wasn't just a product of right wing Christian piety.
Given how quickly the tables have turned, it now seems clear that whoever holds the upper hand in terms of culture's dominant mores, that side will act in precisely the same way. It's depressing both because it suggests that human beings are fundamentally broken, and because it feels like such a betrayal by people whose basic goals we supported before they entered the fray. We spent so much effort and emotional energy trying to get society to this place, where it's recognized by anyone worth listening to that you're not "less than" for being "different from". Oppressive religious fundamentalism isn't gone, but its yoke has been removed in most places. We've gotten to a better place than where we started. How can you treat it this way?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I want an intellectual heavyweight from the identarian left to step up and debate Peterson. These contests are how we discern the truth from wishful thinking, empirically-supported facts from sentiment. Peterson should have his assertions and simplifications challenged. But you do it with reasons and facts, not name-calling and insults. What are his detractors so afraid of?
I don’t know why you need an intellectual heavyweight to debate Peterson, considering he’s not one himself (at least in the realms of philosophy, culture, history, and politics, all of which he spends the majority of his time talking about).
But, given that we have what we have, you’re free to read the following. There are no shortage of people who, regardless of their ideological position, think his philosophy, methodology, and general understanding of a lot of what he talks about is outright poor:
Quote:
In addition to his vague reference to neo-Marxist thought, Peterson neither analyzes the concept of “political correctness” (PC) nor defines it to any degree in his reflections on the topic. Perhaps what he means is that to be PC is to be authoritarian: that is, maybe he thinks political correctness is reducible to authoritarianism. But if we follow this line of thought, and use the California F Scale to measure authoritarianism, Peterson’s own views on gender appear to indicate that even he is authoritarian to some degree. First, he holds traditional views on gender, in the sense that he assumes that there can be only two categories of gender, every person must fall into one of these two categories, and both categories are reducible to biological traits. Second, his opinion appears to demonstrate resistance to new ideas or concepts that challenge his own: the very idea of preemptive refusal seems to be an indication of this. On the California F Scale of authoritarian personalities, both features are prominent.
I don’t know why you need an intellectual heavyweight to debate Peterson, considering he’s not one himself (at least in the realms of philosophy, culture, history, and politics, all of which he spends the majority of his time talking about).
Yet again, Pepsifree tries to take it upon himself to declare outright, as if it were self-evident, who the intellectual heavyweights are and aren't, in a variety of areas on which he himself has no expertise. When is it going to get through to you that you're not competent to make these types of claims?
As for this...
Quote:
In addition to his vague reference to neo-Marxist thought, Peterson neither analyzes the concept of “political correctness” (PC) nor defines it to any degree in his reflections on the topic. Perhaps what he means is that to be PC is to be authoritarian: that is, maybe he thinks political correctness is reducible to authoritarianism.
I mean, seriously? The below video, and extracts thereof, and memes with quotes, have been all over the place on social media and especially political twitter for about a year. Whether you agree with him or not, you'd have to be either utterly disinterested in these topics (for which I couldn't blame anyone), living in an ideological bubble, or dishonest, to take the position that he doesn't explain what he's criticizing in this area:
He's perfectly clear. Why not take his actual position and point out the flaws in it and the scholarship he doesn't acknowledge? They're there. Why not explain how he's attacking an oversimplification with an oversimplification? It's possible to do. Just laziness, borne of the comfort that intellectually mediocre people who already agree with you (and either can't or don't want to think very hard) will read what you're saying and nod along.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
If those are the *best* refutations of Peterson's positions he must be nearly perfect in his thinking. Only one article really even tries to even form a counterargument, and it's spurious at best. I'll have to listen to even more of Peterson if he's this influential.
I want an intellectual heavyweight from the identarian left to step up and debate Peterson.
But if they start thinking, they will join the other side
I took my grandmother to the emergency room. The doctor said that she was on an artificial life support system, and that although her brain was dead her heart was still beating. I thought, “We’ve never had a democrat in the family before.” ~ Emo Philips
Given how quickly the tables have turned, it now seems clear that whoever holds the upper hand in terms of culture's dominant mores, that side will act in precisely the same way. It's depressing both because it suggests that human beings are fundamentally broken, and because it feels like such a betrayal by people whose basic goals we supported before they entered the fray.
These are my feelings exactly. The most disturbing thing about the Culture Warz isn't the particulars of what the dogmatic right or left are arguing. It's the realization that so many people cannot handle genuine liberalism and tolerance, and are susceptible to shaming, conformity, and group-think. The left turned out to be no more liberal than the right.
The reason I wrote articles in the Mount Royal student newspaper in the early 90s arguing for gay rights was because I didn't think behaviour should be suppressed just because it was unpopular. I felt everyone who had some aspect of their lives that defied social norms had a duty to protect the rights of other individuals who defied social norms. And that speaking the truth was to be applauded no matter who it made uncomfortable.
So yeah, it feels like a betrayal that the identarian left are now using the same tactics, the same conformist shaming, the same vilification of uncomfortable truths, to assert their own orthodoxies wherever they've gained the upper hand.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Yet again, Pepsifree tries to take it upon himself to declare outright, as if it were self-evident, who the intellectual heavyweights are and aren't, in a variety of areas on which he himself has no expertise. When is it going to get through to you that you're not competent to make these types of claims?
Why not take his actual position and point out the flaws in it and the scholarship he doesn't acknowledge?
For one, the hypocrisy of your declaration on who is and who is not competent enough to make claims on the competence of other is not lost on anybody. How does one gain competence? By educating themselves and listening to the teachings of educated others.
Please, engage in a modicum of self-awareness before engaging in another childish authoritarian rant about who is competent enough to make judgements on the competence of others. Not only is it hypocritical, but it treads dangerously close to an ad hominem that’s simply meant to shut down free speech.
Further, if you read the rest of the articles (including the article that quote was pulled from) you’ll see they do just what you request. Enjoy it, or don’t, nobody is making you be here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
If those are the *best* refutations of Peterson's positions he must be nearly perfect in his thinking. Only one article really even tries to even form a counterargument, and it's spurious at best. I'll have to listen to even more of Peterson if he's this influential.
Knock your socks off. If you only saw one counterargument in all of those articles, you either didn’t read them, or, well, I don’t know. Either way I’m not concerned about you consuming loads of Peterson based on how much you got from those articles.
Steven Pinker explains how the orthodoxies enforced by the social justice left are fuelling the alt-right.
It turns out if you suppress ideas that are factually correct but ideologically unorthodox, then when people of an analytical turn of mind learn the truth they react with resentment and anger at the people who enforced those orthodoxies.
It goes without saying that Pinker has been vilified for pointing this out.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Please, engage in a modicum of self-awareness before engaging in another childish authoritarian rant about who is competent enough to make judgements on the competence of others. Not only is it hypocritical, but it treads dangerously close to an ad hominem that’s simply meant to shut down free speech.
I disagree. It could be argued that if you find the CBC is no longer a custodian of of our public forum, that the issues you believe worthy of address are no longer of value to the public at large.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I find this sentiment incredibly naïve, and terrifying if kids actually believe it, so I'm hoping you can clarify. Are you arguing that if an issue isn't being covered by the CBC that issue isn't of value to the public at large?
You're a smart enough guy, so I'm probably reading this wrong. Just hoping for some clarification.
Please, engage in a modicum of self-awareness before engaging in another childish authoritarian rant about who is competent enough to make judgements on the competence of others. Not only is it hypocritical, but it treads dangerously close to an ad hominem that’s simply meant to shut down free speech.
Another classic Pepsifree strategy: "No, you! You're the problem you just described with my postings! It can't be something wrong with me!" The lengths people will go to avoid self-examination...
Newsflash: all you have done in this thread, despite having posted in it more than anyone, is to make bald assertions about Peterson not being worth listening to, not being worth public attention, being an intellectual lightweight, having poorly thought out views, and is unimportant. You have essentially appointed yourself arbiter of who's worth the time to engage with, without any substance to back it up.
In contrast, I pointed out my biggest philosophical problem with Peterson: his epistemology. I described it. Enoch Root suggested that I was mischaracterizing him, so I posted an interview - two full hours of an interview, not a hit piece with a bunch of two line quotes taken out of context - that demonstrated that I wasn't mischaracterizing him. I explained that I don't think that "how you arrive at truth" is determined by figuring out what's evolutionarily viable, you do it by performing experiments and developing hypothyses. Thus my position that his whole world view is insane, and that the only way to take him seriously on any topic is to ignore it and treat him like a broken clock. In other words, if he makes a good point, it's essentially by accident - bad math that produces what seems to be the right answer - or he's not following his own rules.
So, what's the distinction here? Simple. People can either agree or disagree with my criticism, based on my reasons for it. In contrast, the only way to agree with your criticism is either:
1) To cede the authority to you to decide which public intellectuals are worth listening to, or;
2) To come to the same conclusion independently.
The first, no one should be willing to do, because frankly we've read your posts and you don't seem like you have any basis for that sort of authority, because this is more or less your whole modus operandi. The second is fine, but if people are coming to the same conclusion independently of your declarations, then you've added nothing to the conversation whatsoever.
As an aside, I actually have a second main problem with Peterson that's been bothering me, which is sort of hinted at in this tweet from the twitter thread I posted on the first page of this thread:
Quote:
James Lindsay@GodDoesnt
Undoubtedly, Peterson is aware of the ways in which fainting-couch feminism manufactures, exaggerates, and exploits the vulnerabilities of young women, and he seems quite savvy at doing the same thing (ironically?) w/ adrift young men. He knows his audience. Responsibility needed.
...But I don't want to get into it in any detail because I'm waiting for Lindsay to write an article about it, and suspect he'll have more interesting things to say on the subject.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I find this sentiment incredibly naïve, and terrifying if kids actually believe it, so I'm hoping you can clarify. Are you arguing that if an issue isn't being covered by the CBC that issue isn't of value to the public at large?
You're a smart enough guy, so I'm probably reading this wrong. Just hoping for some clarification.
Not exactly.
To clarify, I think the issues are worthy, I simply think that Peterson’s value amongst his circle of followers in the issues which he is not an authority about are likely higher than to the general public. CBC has covered many of the issues Peterson brings up in fairly balanced ways and, I think, have done so with people who bring more intellectual value than someone who is simply very loud.
Simply not having Peterson is not the same as not talking about an issue, even if those who like him like him a LOT.
There are also many ways, especially to those young people who he attracts so often, to get that experience without the CBC. They simply do what they can with what they can, and I just think if it’s not a priority for them, it’s not a priority for them.
I’d be interested to see, though, how mentions and appearances by Peterson in he last two years ranks against some other talking heads. That could be interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Another classic Pepsifree strategy: "No, you! You're the problem you just described with my postings! It can't be something wrong with me!" The lengths people will go to avoid self-examination...
I just think you’re mischaracterising my presence in this thread. It should be implied that my opinions are opinions, and if nobody takes them as an authority opinion I simply wouldn’t know the difference. Nowhere have I acted like an authority. Further, I don’t have a “strategy,” I literally post for fun on issues that interest me and post what’s on my mind. Strategising posts seems to be kind of intense for a fun thing, no?
Either way, it’s silly for you to continually respond making judgements on my competence. It’s all the more wild and bizarre considering you referenced him as a “loon” (amongst other references to crazy), which is an ok ad hominem for you, but “not an intellectual heavyweight” is a dire slag that I haven’t the competence to make.
Again, I posted several articles that summed up the details of my issues with him in better words that I could say. Read them if you’d like... or don’t, but continuing this bizarre “I’m done with you! But wait, one more insult! Now I’m done!” thing is getting old. You’re just going to get this thing locked if you don’t quit making things so personal and weird.
I’m always game to debate if you want to, but the obsessiveness is weird. Debate the words, not the delivery, and let’s get on with it.
Last edited by PepsiFree; 01-23-2018 at 10:57 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Either way, it’s silly for you to continually respond making judgements on my competence. It’s all the more wild and bizarre considering you referenced him as a “loon” (amongst other references to crazy), which is an ok ad hominem for you, but “not an intellectual heavyweight” is a dire slag that I haven’t the competence to make.
Do you really not see the difference? I explained why I thought he was a loon. You've just confidently asserted bare opinions over and over without any justification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I just think you’re mischaracterising my presence in this thread. It should be implied that my opinions are opinions, and if nobody takes them as an authority opinion I simply wouldn’t know the difference. Nowhere have I acted like an authority.
Let's see if this is statement is credible, based on your posts. Here's something you said.
Quote:
I guess the better question is: why should [CBC pay attention to Peterson]? He espouses views that are mostly poorly thought out and presumptuous, betrays his own world of logic constantly, and is generally not nearly as important as you make him out to be.
Here's another.
Quote:
I’d also suggest that toxic masculinity covers the same field that Peterson often talks about, without the scent of Strauss’ “Game.”
If Petersen wants to read that book and develop an academic theory out of it, he’s free to.But his education and work history doesn’t preclude intelligent Canadians from recognising a man gone off the rails into the unacademic and illogical.
And another.
Quote:
I don’t know why you need an intellectual heavyweight to debate Peterson, considering he’s not one himself (at least in the realms of philosophy, culture, history, and politics, all of which he spends the majority of his time talking about).
In all of these cases, without exception, you make strong assertions without any support, and you do so in rebuttal to another poster's view that this is a person worth taking seriously and listening to, as if you're arguing with them about that point. And now you're objecting to me taking issue with that style of argument? You're plainly trying to make a case about Peterson and his importance to the public discourse, and doing so based on nothing but denunciations. Now you say those were just random, personal opinions that no one needs to take particularly seriously because you weren't claiming any authority. Well, that's sure not what it sounds like. It sounds a lot like you're strongly convinced that you're right about Peterson's value as a commentator, and that the people you're replying to (and everyone reading) should listen to you. If you're not claiming to know what's best here, why would anyone agree with those utterances? Invective and indictment of the guy is all you've offered, at length, over and over and over again.
I mean if all you were trying to do in this thread was express the opinion that you're not a fan of Jordan Peterson, one wonders why you felt the need to get into an argument with anyone about anything in here or why you needed to post twenty times. Just say so, once.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
As an aside, I actually have a second main problem with Peterson that's been bothering me, which is sort of hinted at in this tweet from the twitter thread I posted on the first page of this thread:
...But I don't want to get into it in any detail because I'm waiting for Lindsay to write an article about it, and suspect he'll have more interesting things to say on the subject.
I noticed that too. He says just enough to rile people up and lets them fill in the narrative. This goes for both his followers and detractors. He knows that sometimes it isn't just what you say, but what you don't say which sends a message, and both sides of the debate take from it what they will.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Peterson, to his credit, has called out the troglodytes of the alt-right.
I suppose you could look at how few hits that video has compared to most of Peterson's videos on Youtube, and at the vile up-voted comments, and conclude that most of his supporters are misogynist racists. Which could very well be true (it could also be true that misanthropic neckbeards are over-represented in Youtube comments in general). But the ugliness of many of Peterson's supporters doesn't invalidate his criticisms of the activist progressive left.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
