The intellectual dark web

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The NBC hitjob?

I was really hoping for some substance in that clip, but there wasn't anything of value to be found. If you're going to run a hit piece, I'd kind of be hoping for something really inflammatory or controversial taken out of context.

Even Psycnet should be against this type of journalism.

[FlamesAddiction]

If anything, I think if someone had the views of Peterson and watched that clip, it would probably make them interested in finding out more.

[Winsor_Pilates]

That clip was horrible.
I haven't explored the Peterson world much, but the one consistent thing I have found is that his detractors seem to come at him with no substance and very simplistic name calling of him and his followers.

I keep hearing they're alt right, lonely men, misogynists, etc but never any actual rebuttals of his work.

As someone who is definitely not "right wing" in any way, I have to say I'm tempted to listen to more Peterson because no one has given a good reason not to.

[PepsiFree]

There’s no danger in a critical thinker listening to Peterson. Anybody would be well suited to checking him out and being informed on the stuff he’s preaching.

There’s really no denying the similar traits of his odd fandom, though.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Alt-Right people are the literal new hipsters. Like hipsters, they take umbrage with being called by this name, but everyone knows what they are anyway.

Slapping the alt-right label on anyone who criticizes far-left identiarian politics doesn't have the shaming effect you hope it does. Quite the opposite. If people who don't follow politics all that closely watch a Peterson clip and then see him labelled as alt-right, they're going to come to the conclusion that alt-right is pretty benign, common-sense stuff. And then you'll remove the stigma from the genuine alt-right movement. Which probably isn't what you want.

[PsYcNeT]

Are you guys going to have the same indignant response next time you see someone blindly toss around SJW?

I think most people miss the point that this milquetoast bland godbotherer who constantly speaks outside his purview is an inexplicable figurehead for the Alt-Right, not that he himself is the Alt-Right.

My comment was merely pointing out that most people that fit the bill refuse to identify as such because of cognitive dissonance or some weird "no true scotsman"-like blindness to their alignment.

[Ashasx]

You made your comment following the post of that terrible NBC video that everybody should admonish. It's pretty easy to see why people reacted to your comment the way they did.

but tbh you want it anyway

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Are you guys going to have the same indignant response next time you see someone blindly toss around SJW?

Do you believe that calling someone an SJW is an equivalent slur to calling someone Alt-right? I'd also argue that SJW is much more broadly defined than Alt-Right.

"Social justice warrior (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism,[1][2] as well as identity politics.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

If you have some examples of people mislabeling SJWs on here, I'd be interested in taking a look at that.

I think most people miss the point that this milquetoast bland godbotherer who constantly speaks outside his purview is an inexplicable figurehead for the Alt-Right, not that he himself is the Alt-Right.

Cries about excessive use of labels by others, throws around more labels.

[CliffFletcher]

It's worth pointing out that Peterson does not go to church and is uncertain if he even believes in God. Some people seem to have difficulty getting their heads around the notion that religious stories and myths can illustrate human truths that have social value irrespective of any belief in the supernatural.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Do you believe that calling someone an SJW is an equivalent slur to calling someone Alt-right?

I don't believe either are a slur, but people certainly like to project them as such.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I'd also argue that SJW is much more broadly defined than Alt-Right.

Maybe 18 months ago, but "Alt-Right" has taken a much more catch-all form over the last year.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If you have some examples of people mislabeling SJWs on here, I'd be interested in taking a look at that.

Cries about excessive use of labels by others, throws around more labels.

I actually have no problem with labels, and actually think they're quite useful. My intent was to point out the double-standard that crops on this forum, wherein it's acceptable to slap the (intent to perjure) term SJW on anyone who displays a modicum of empathy, but it's out of bounds to directly point out that the Alt-Right commonly fellate Peterson with great frequency. I guess they were all just looking for a father-figure to tell them to clean their room.

If you can find a post where I decry someone calling me (or someone else) an SJW I'd be interested to see it however.

[PepsiFree]

Alt-right and SJW are similar in that both are used as a means of dismissal/derision by the user.

The difference is that SJW was born out of that intent, whereas Alt-right was coined by those who identified with it originally.

While both CAN be used as a pejorative, as you pointed out Caramon, SJW is the only term of the two used exclusively as such. So yes, SJW is more an intentional slur than Alt-right, by far.

[Ashasx]

Being labeled as far right is far more damaging than somebody being labeled an SJW.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I don't believe either are a slur, but people certainly like to project them as such.

Maybe 18 months ago, but "Alt-Right" has taken a much more catch-all form over the last year.

You really don't think calling someone Alt-Right is a slur?

Has the word changed? Most people (when trying to have productive conversations with others) use commonly accepted definitions from legitimate sources. You can't just decide to change the definitions of certain words and then expect to have a meaningful dialogue. That sounds like the more recently (and not universally accepted) Far left definition of "racism" and "racist" in recent years.

Would you please provide the definition that you are operating under? I would say most people see the "Alt-Right" as a loose collection of Fringe right wing hate groups such as White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis and Fascists.

[Max Cow Disease]

I have an interest in some of what Dr. Peterson has to say, but the Dill-meister does a fairly thorough job of taking him to the cleaners here if you ask me. I imagine the outcome will be similar next month when Sam Harris sits down with him in Vancouver twice in one weekend (one of which I'll be attending).

Peterson, in my eyes, occupies a sort of middle ground between the everyman (and the mainstream media) and the more heavyweight intellectual class. He'll make someone like Cathy Newman look like a disingenuous plug given that he does have some valid points that he's able to defend, but will come out seeming like a bit of a babbling pot of word soup when pitted up against heavier hitters on subjects like religion, God, truth, etc.

https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8

Edit: My attempts to embed the video failed horribly, so there's a lowly link for now I guess. For shame.

[PsYcNeT]

My pejorative definition of "Alt-Right" is mostly men between the ages of 20-40 more concerned with "owning the libs" than actually furthering the causes they claim to be interested in. Any outspoken commentator that furthers this "owning the libs" agenda is latched onto with the fierce dedication of a trained dog and will be defended to the death in online conversation.

The "owning the libs" agenda is of such an attractive nature however, that the hate groups you talk about gravitate towards it just as commonly as other, less hateful, disenfranchised groups. Think of the "Alt-Right" as a loose coalition of normal Conservatives that are less than enamored with the current establishment, with a smattering of /b/ rejects, /pol/ posters, incels, Libertarians, anti-Tankies, and Daily Stormer followers.

[Ashasx]

That is a bad definition of alt right.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

That is a bad definition of alt right.

Go on...

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Go on...

The Anti-Defamation League states that "alt-right" is a "vague term actually encompass[ing] a range of people on the extreme right who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of forms of conservatism that embrace implicit or explicit racism or white supremacy."


This is the Alt-Right.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

The Anti-Defamation League states that "alt-right" is a "vague term actually encompass[ing] a range of people on the extreme right who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of forms of conservatism that embrace implicit or explicit racism or white supremacy."


This is the Alt-Right.

Most people on the Alt Right would very much disagree with any definition compiled by the ADL, SPLC, etc. however.

My definition is much more realistic.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Most people on the Alt Right would very much disagree with any definition compiled by the ADL, SPLC, etc. however.

My definition is much more realistic.

Realistic? No. It just fits your agenda.