The intellectual dark web

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

In life you have two choices, you can be a leader or a victim. So take the lead and improve yourself everyday. If you're shy, say hi to the kiosk girl. It's their job to be friendly. If you're uncomfortable at parties or networking events just go there first to observe and then maybe talk to one person. Set small goals.

I'm not sure if that's a Peterson perspective or just yours, but really have to disagree.
There are many more roles a person can play than leader or victim, and the same person can be multiple roles to different people or in different situations.

I'd say life's more comparable to a successful sports team. Not everyone has to be the top scorer or most aggressive player to be an important part of the team. The intellectual leader, experienced veteran, energetic rookie who knows he's still learning all have a role to play.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Do you feel we are reaching a point that maybe 'the republic' is at risk and could be replaced by something else either right-wing or left-wing?

Liberal democracy is definitely under assault as a political system. It doesn't get covered much in the media here, but several Eastern European countries (Poland, Hungary) have been essentially taken over by illiberal, ultra-right nationalist parties. Many of the institutions of liberal democracy are also under assault from an identarian left that feels its moral purpose is too vital to tolerate such niceties as due process, the rule of law, and free speech.

Our secular, consumerist culture doesn't offer much to people looking for answers. People aren't being strong-armed into the identarian left and ultra-nationalist right - they're embracing them in an effort to fulfil enduring human psychological needs. The need to have a simple and emotionally-satisfying outlook on the world. To belong to a group of like-minded people. To explain why they're unhappy and identify someone else to blame.

These threats are nothing new. But our society does seem more vulnerable to them today than at any time in the last couple generations.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'm not sure if that's a Peterson perspective or just yours, but really have to disagree.
There are many more roles a person can play than leader or victim, and the same person can be multiple roles to different people or in different situations.

I'd say life's more comparable to a successful sports team. Not everyone has to be the top scorer or most aggressive player to be an important part of the team. The intellectual leader, experienced veteran, energetic rookie who knows he's still learning all have a role to play.

How I interpret it is Peterson often states the example that if you've gone to an Ivy League school you're no longer a victim. You can't be the oppressor and the oppressed at the same time. So what I take that to mean that in life you can choose be a leader or a victim. We see this in the workplace. When something bad happens to a team of say 6 people. You being one of the 6 can be a leader and look for solutions to this problem or continue being a victim and blame everyone else for your problems. We've experienced this in our everyday work lives.

The hockey team: all 20 players are leaders, they have different roles to lead, one is the scores, one is the passer, one is the checker and one is the crazy one stopping pucks. If you have a 'victim' who whines about not getting the puck or not getting enough minutes then that player is gotten rid of (or should be).

[indes]

I've always put people into 2 categories;

Solution people and problem people. Lots of people go to others with problems and want someone to fix them for them. Too few people go to others with a problem and solution for said problem, fewer just fix the problem.

I thought his leader and victim thing is similar to that and less literal.

[Red Slinger]

I also put people into 2 categories: those that categorize people and those who don't. I'm in the latter group.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I also put people into 2 categories: those that categorize people and those who don't. I'm in the latter group.

[CliffFletcher]

The Globe and Mail, predictably, has just posted an opinion piece that's nothing more than a lengthy ad hominen.

The Jordan Peterson paradox: high intellect, or just another angry white guy?

The resentment fairly crackles off the page. At some point, a Canadian journalist or academic is actually going to engage with Peterson intellectually, aren't they? Step up and take Peterson's arguments at face value, and dispassionately critique them? In a country of 36 million people, there has to be someone, surely.

The only people stepping up so far are hostile partisans (the clue in the column above is when the author derides 'classical liberals' as conservatives). They desperately want to believe that the only people watching or reading Peterson are young alt-right misogynists. But by dismissing Peterson and his popularity so contemptuously, they're leaving the field wide open to him.

Which is not a good thing. I want a strong and intellectually engaged left contesting our public dialog with honesty and reason, instead of relying on ad hominens, poisoning the well, and appeals to emotion. One wonders if, on some level, the people writing these hatchet jobs are not all that confident that their beliefs can withstand the hammer and tong battering of a genuine debate.

[icecube]

I know you identify as a "classical liberal" CliffFletcher but if you aren't one of the most conservative dudes on this forum then I don't know who is. Potato potatoe.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by icecube

I know you identify as a "classical liberal" CliffFletcher but if you aren't one of the most conservative dudes on this forum then I don't know who is. Potato potatoe.

If he is one of the most conservative people on the forum, then this forum skews pretty hard to the left.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by icecube

I know you identify as a "classical liberal" CliffFletcher but if you aren't one of the most conservative dudes on this forum then I don't know who is. Potato potatoe.

I support public health care, public education, and public transportation. I'm one of the fraction of people in this province who approves of a sales tax. I listen to the CBC and CKUA, and read the Globe and Mail, the Guardian, and the Atlantic. I'm pro-choice, pro-immigration, I support gay marriage and marijuana legalization, and I'm an atheist.

If I don't pass the liberal purity test, then that should tell you all you need to know about how narrow the scope of acceptable opinion has become.

[PepsiFree]

Just like anyone, Cliff has views that are all over the map.

Rarely can people be defined by the simplified categories we’ve created for ourselves. Cliff expresses liberal views, conservatives views, views categorically similar with those on the left, and views categorically similar with those on the right.

I’m a work in progress myself, but I’ve learned the value of avoiding playing the team game, and instead holding ideas and values based on the merit you think they have, not based on how it aligns with your political stance (or vice versa).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Globe and Mail, predictably, has just posted an opinion piece that's nothing more than a lengthy ad hominen.

The Jordan Peterson paradox: high intellect, or just another angry white guy?

The resentment fairly crackles off the page. At some point, a Canadian journalist or academic is actually going to engage with Peterson intellectually, aren't they? Step up and take Peterson's arguments at face value, and dispassionately critique them? In a country of 36 million people, there has to be someone, surely.

The only people stepping up so far are hostile partisans (the clue in the column above is when the author derides 'classical liberals' as conservatives). They desperately want to believe that the only people watching or reading Peterson are young alt-right misogynists. But by dismissing Peterson and his popularity so contemptuously, they're leaving the field wide open to him.

Which is not a good thing. I want a strong and intellectually engaged left contesting our public dialog with honesty and reason, instead of relying on ad hominens, poisoning the well, and appeals to emotion. One wonders if, on some level, the people writing these hatchet jobs are not all that confident that their beliefs can withstand the hammer and tong battering of a genuine debate.

The conservative comment aside, I'm not sure why you have an issue with that article. The author directly addresses Peterson's own words and he isn't taking them out of context.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

... Because it's a blatant hit piece? I mean, come on. Look at the last sentence.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Because it's a blatant hit piece? I mean, come on. Look at the last sentence.

It's an obviously biased piece but it's kind of what I expect from newspaper opinion pieces these days. I just don't think anything the guy wrote about Peterson was particularly dishonest.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's an obviously biased piece but it's kind of what I expect from newspaper opinion pieces these days. I just don't think anything the guy wrote about Peterson was particularly dishonest.

I mean after sort of skimming it my first instinct was to ignore it - the purpose of articles like this are to reassure an audience that already has predispositions that it's right to feel superior to Peterson and anyone who'd pay any attention to him. But fine, here are a few quotes. If you think these represent a particularly honest engagement with Peterson's views, I don't really know what to say to you about that.

That any university prof, let alone a Canadian, should achieve such popularity is frankly unfathomable. How can such an absurd figure be taken so seriously?

Where other academics rise on the strength of their ideas, Peterson's fame has crested on their sheer proliferation.

It is little wonder, then, that Peterson is prominent among conservatives (he identifies as a "classical liberal," which is a conservative), angry young men, and the ranks of the alt-right.

Peterson dresses up the language of misogyny in the woozy jargon of Eastern religion

Jordan Peterson is the intellectual as guru-mystic, and the guru-mystic as shameless huckster.

It's basically non-stop with that stuff, and it should be self-evident if you don't already believe that Peterson is evil incarnate that none of it is fairminded. And yeah, a lot of it is out of context:

a Christian in the thrall of Nietzsche; a self-styled individualist free-thinker who calls for the mass sackings of fellow academics; a wholly unimposing specimen who insists on the moral necessity of physical strength and bemoans the social taboo against becoming physically violent with "crazy women."

You're right, I just can't for the life of me imagine what Cliff's objection might have been to that particular style of engaging with someone's views.

If you're interested in what a fair critique of the guy looks like, I posted one on the last page, which explores in depth the issue that I raised earlier in the thread, including its implications for Peterson selling half-truths to the credulous followers who worship him.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Because it's a blatant hit piece? I mean, come on. Look at the last sentence.

Unfortunately, much of the materials used in leftist classrooms is similar nonsense. Lack of science, high in hyperbole, high in emotions. Pure poison.

And the worst part? Many people don't even realize it.

[DiracSpike]

You forgot the jaundiced face chirp at the end.

Hard hitting, objective journalism.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I mean after sort of skimming it my first instinct was to ignore it - the purpose of articles like this are to reassure an audience that already has predispositions that it's right to feel superior to Peterson and anyone who'd pay any attention to him. But fine, here are a few quotes. If you think these represent a particularly honest engagement with Peterson's views, I don't really know what to say to you about that.





It's basically non-stop with that stuff, and it should be self-evident if you don't already believe that Peterson is evil incarnate that none of it is fairminded. And yeah, a lot of it is out of context:

You're right, I just can't for the life of me imagine what Cliff's objection might have been to that particular style of engaging with someone's views.

If you're interested in what a fair critique of the guy looks like, I posted one on the last page, which explores in depth the issue that I raised earlier in the thread, including its implications for Peterson selling half-truths to the credulous followers who worship him.

I did read the article you posted and it's obviously far superior to this one. You still haven't outlined where Peterson has been misquoted or taken out of context in this piece. Yeah it's an opinion piece and yeah it's not exactly balanced, that in itself doesn't make anything the author said untrue.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

And the worst part? Many people don't even realize it.

Most of our ascendant brahmin class genuinely don't know how to defend their beliefs rationally, any more than homeschooled fundamentalist Christians do. In both cases they hold their values as received wisdom, sacred and above criticism.

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

- John Stuart Mill

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

You forgot the jaundiced face chirp at the end.

Hard hitting, objective journalism.

It's an opinion piece. It's not supposed to be objective journalism. Do people seriously not understand the difference?