...There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?
It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind. When the poetry editors of The Nation virtuously publish an amateurish but super-woke poem, only to discover that the poem stumbled across several trip wires of political correctness; when these editors (one of them a full professor in the Harvard English department) then jointly write a letter oozing bathos and career anxiety and begging forgiveness from their critics; when the poet himself publishes a statement of his own—a missive falling somewhere between an apology, a Hail Mary pass, and a suicide note; and when all of this is accepted in the houses of the holy as one of the regrettable but minor incidents that take place along the path toward greater justice, something is dying...
...If you think that a backlash to the kind of philosophy that resulted in The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming. And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded. All across the country, there are people as repelled by the current White House as they are by the countless and increasingly baroque expressions of identity politics that dominate so much of the culture. These are people who aren’t looking for an ideology; they are looking for ideas.
- Caitlen Flanagan
__________________
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 User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
While I think a lot of what Peterson says is right there is an underlying issue that I can't seem to shake. His focus of attack is primarily leftists on campus and how they are neutering free speech. Fair enough considering his background and experience. Since his crusade has really caught on he continues to sing the same hymn. Maybe it's through no fault of his own that he's being consistent but I think that there is a responsibility to discuss a wider spectrum when you have an audience and a platform as big as he does, otherwise he comes off as a biased, dishonest actor posing as the voice of reason.
I guess I wish that he'd spend as much time knocking down the logical fallacies of the right as he does the left, but he tends to just brush it off. So, the left, rightly or wrongly sees him as the enemy because that's how he's positioned himself. As a result, none of us should be surprised by these attacks from the left.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Don't know where else to put this, but I recently listened to this podcast which touches on the evolution and resistance to ”new ideas, ” both on a product level and a cultural level.
In relation to threads such as this one, and the battle between progressives and ”the rest, ” I’m left with the question: how do you identify a new normal?
Are the posters who espouse views that suggest things were better ”before” in some way or other simply unable to cross the chasm? Has the paradigm shifted on them, and will ”progressive” today seem like ”always” tomorrow?
Don't know where else to put this, but I recently listened to this podcast which touches on the evolution and resistance to ”new ideas, ” both on a product level and a cultural level.
In relation to threads such as this one, and the battle between progressives and ”the rest, ” I’m left with the question: how do you identify a new normal?
Are the posters who espouse views that suggest things were better ”before” in some way or other simply unable to cross the chasm? Has the paradigm shifted on them, and will ”progressive” today seem like ”always” tomorrow?
I thought about this and yes things are always improving. However, for something new to become the normal probably 1000 similar things failed.
Like why did the VHS win over Beta? or a DVD win over the Laserdisk.
Everything new was thought by someone as a stupid idea. Just look at resistance to change in your own workplace. Many hours and money spent on meetings to fight for good ideas.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Every significant social change begins as an unpopular idea, sometimes a minority of one. Most unpopular ideas die on the vine, but some prove to be winners in the long run. Which is why we need to protect free speech and liberalism - once you start suppressing unpopular ideas, you close off what may well end up to be better courses for the future.
__________________
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; 08-24-2018 at 09:18 AM.
Every significant social change begins as an unpopular idea, sometimes a minority of one. Most unpopular ideas die on the vine, but some prove to be winners in the long run. Which is why we need to protect free speech and liberalism - once you start suppressing unpopular ideas, you close off what may well end up to be better courses for the future.
So you're fine with say giving anti-vaxxers as much of a platform as they need, despite overwhelming evidence that what they're spewing is incredibly harmful?
So you're fine with say giving anti-vaxxers as much of a platform as they need, despite overwhelming evidence that what they're spewing is incredibly harmful?
I thought we were talking about social values and ideas rather than science. But if people are peddling scientifically false lies that are a threat to public health*, they should be challenged over their lies.
But I don't really understand what you mean by 'give them a platform.' Speech isn't rationed. How would you stop them from spreading their bull####, and how would you ensure that whatever method you use couldn't also be used to stop people from saying other unpopular things?
In order to suppress 'bad' speech you need to 1) Give some people the power to police the speech of others, 2) have faith that those people are so wise that they're able to distinguish bad ideas from good without fail, and 3) hope they won't abuse that power to suppress their political or ideological enemies.
That's a big ask.
* It's not even clear what to do about bad health information, and where you draw the line. A doctor came out earlier in the week and slammed the notion that coconut oil is a healthy option, saying it's one of the worst things you can eat. A report came out yesterday saying alcohol has no health benefits, and public health authorities should push a message of zero consumption. So should we 'no platform' people marketing coconut oil as a healthy option, and anyone saying a glass of wine a day is good for you?
__________________
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 5 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I thought we were talking about social values and ideas rather than science.
Well unless you're peddling relativism, there shouldn't be a massive difference, should there?
Quote:
But if people are peddling scientifically false lies that are a threat to public health*, they should be challenged over their lies.
Has this not consistently been done with anti-vaxxers, climate-change deniers, flat-earthers, the anti-GMO movement, etc.? And yet these movements continue to grow and flourish. You seem to cling to a naive idea that good ideas always win out in the end so long as we practice your abstract idea of liberalism. It borders on dogmatic and teleologic, and belies history that is well-documented with evidence to the contrary.
I'm not necessarily saying there's a better way, but you really need to step back and at least acknowledge the flaws inherent in your ideology.
Quote:
But I don't really understand what you mean by 'give them a platform.' Speech isn't rationed. How would you stop them from spreading their bull####, and how would you ensure that whatever method you use couldn't also be used to stop people from saying other unpopular things?
I think an example of this was the uproar over the a health professor at a Canadian university (Queens?) teaching anti-vax material as part of her curriculum. In my opinion, giving someone that kind of platform has a legitimizing effect on what they're teaching. On the other hand, firing her or removing the course would be an infringement on her free speech. So what do you do in that situation?
Quote:
In order to suppress 'bad' speech you need to 1) Give some people the power to police the speech of others, 2) have faith that those people are so wise that they're able to distinguish bad ideas from good without fail, and 3) hope they won't abuse that power to suppress their political or ideological enemies.
That's a big ask.
And yet no one thinks the jackboots are marching down the street because you can't yell "bomb" on an airplane, which tells me we do have a demonstrated ability to evaluate speech on some level and effectively limit examples of it that cause societal detriment without overstepping our reach.
I am always curious though when you do bring up your issues with the supposed clamping down of free speech, when exactly do you think it was the speech was more free than it is now? When was the golden age of liberalism that you believe allowed everyone to exchange their ideas freely?
As far as I can tell we are currently living in an era that may have the freest speech of any in human history. And as such we now have consequences to deal with that classical liberals probably could have never predicted.
Again, for the record, I'm not arguing in favour of a clampdown on ideas. I'm saying that the antidote you're prescribing for bad ideas is outdated and not equipped to deal with the information age.
Quote:
It's not even clear what to do about bad health information, and where you draw the line. A doctor came out earlier in the week and slammed the notion that coconut oil is a healthy option, saying it's one of the worst things you can eat. A report came out yesterday saying alcohol has no health benefits, and public health authorities should push a message of zero consumption. So should we 'no platform' people marketing coconut oil as a healthy option, and anyone saying a glass of wine a day is good for you?
You see how this is a false equivalence, right? Neither of these things are likely to trigger a massive health epidemic.
I've listened now to all 4 of the Peterson-Harris conversations - the two in Vancouver moderated by Bret Weinstein and the Dublin and London events moderated by Douglas Murray.
I have a hard time (Like Harris I think) wrapping my head around Peterson's arguments in the realm of religion especially. But all four (in order despite some repetition across them) are a pretty remarkable set of conversations. Just super interesting. They can all be found on youtube now.
Yet in a July appearance on the comedian Joe Rogan’s podcast, Jordan Peterson explained how Mikhaila’s experience had convinced him to eliminate everything but meat and leafy greens from his diet, and that in the last two months he had gone full meat and eliminated vegetables. Since he changed his diet, his laundry list of maladies has disappeared, he told Rogan. His lifelong depression, anxiety, gastric reflux (and associated snoring), inability to wake up in the mornings, psoriasis, gingivitis, floaters in his right eye, numbness on the sides of his legs, problems with mood regulation—all of it is gone, and he attributes it to the diet.
“I’m certainly intellectually at my best,” he said. “I’m stronger, I can swim better, and my gum disease is gone. It’s like, what the hell?”
“Do you take any vitamins?” asked Rogan.
“No. No, I eat beef and salt and water. That’s it. And I never cheat. Ever. Not even a little bit.”
“No soda, no wine?”
“I drink club soda.”
“Well, that’s still water.”
“Well, when you’re down to that level, no, it’s not, Joe. There’s club soda, which is really bubbly. There’s Perrier, which is sort of bubbly. There’s flat water, and there’s hot water. Those distinctions start to become important.”
Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice, but said that many attendees of his recent speaking tour have come up to him and said the diet is working for them. The takeaway for listeners is that it worked for Peterson, and so it may work for them. Rogan also clarified that though he is also not an expert, he is fascinated by the fact that he hasn’t heard any negative stories about people who have started the all-meat diet.
“Well, I have a negative story,” said Peterson. “Both Mikhaila and I noticed that when we restricted our diet and then ate something we weren’t supposed to, the reaction was absolutely catastrophic.” He gives the example of having had some apple cider and subsequently being incapacitated for a month by what he believes was an inflammatory response.
“You were done for a month?”
“Oh yeah, it took me out for a month. It was awful ...”
“Apple cider? What was it doing to you?”
“It produced an overwhelming sense of impending doom. I seriously mean overwhelming. There’s no way I could’ve lived like that. But see, Mikhaila knew by then that it would probably only last a month.”
“A month? From ####ing cider?”
“I didn’t sleep that month for 25 days. I didn’t sleep at all for 25 days.”
“What? How is that possible?”
“I’ll tell you how it’s possible: You lay in bed frozen in something approximating terror for eight hours. And then you get up.”
The longest recorded stretch of sleeplessness in a human is 11 days, witnessed by a Stanford research team.
Meh, the 25 days of no sleep certainly sounds like hyperbole, but it doesn't sound nuts that he would be dramatically affected by a cider if he has been following such an extreme diet. I followed a diet of unprocessed meats and fish as well as leafy greens for a long time and found both that I had similar experience of benefits as he describes and that having one bit of something that seemed normal in my prior diet could mess me up for days. I still follow a much less extreme but also restrictive diet and find that one wrong meal can cause clear issues for me mentally as well as physically for a few days.
It's not like he's prescribing that others should follow the same diet as him, so other than the hyperbole I don't really see much to get worked up about. The guy is just sharing his experience of experimenting with his diet and health. His daughter should steer clear of providing medical advice, especially being paid for such, but I don't think she should be viewed negatively for sharing her personal experience.
It was a pretty poorly reasoned article.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
What's strange is that podcast is several months old and no one really took issue with his comments at the time, as most people just assumed he had a rough month and he was exaggerating (the fiend!). Sounds like one of those gotcha journalism articles where you dig into someone's past, find a time they mispoke and blow it up into some kind of great tragedy for people who are previously inclined to dislike the target.
Or it’s just funny and bizarre. Oh no, someone pointed out Peterson being dumb, man the cannons, we better mount a dramatic defence! Great tragedy! Fake news!
