Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
GostHacked

The Jordan Peterson phenomenon

Recommended Posts

I've been following Peterson for some time, and it is interesting to see how main stream media treats him and how the questions and how his words get twisted. His detractors call him alt-right, but have nothing to back up that notion. His recent interview with Cathy Newman at the UK's Channel 4 was a disaster for Newman.  Jordan makes one statement, Newman replies with ' So what you are saying ....', and twists his words and rephrases them, in which Peterson replies, 'I never said that'.  Each time he has to reply with 'that's not what I said'. 

I suggest checking out the Joe Rogan show #1070 in which they break down the interview.  Another good talk is between Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, as both of them seem to have had the same tactics tried on them.

I really don't think people are really listening to what he says. People would rather hear what they want to hear and slander Peterson for their incorrect views and projections on Peterson.

Now I am not sure if any of you have the time to sit through some of those long sessions, but I would suggest checking them out.  

Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman  (aprox 30 minutes) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54There is a point in the interview that he provides a gotcha moment to Newman, and she obviously struggles with it, and gets derailed for a short while, then she continues to rephrase and misrepresent what he is saying. Newman fails at every turn to make a proper point that actually counters Peterson's statements/arguments.  Now this has happened in many other interviews where the same thing happens.  Then when Peterson talks to other good interviewers there is a complete difference in how Peterson gets treated. 

 

Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson discuss the interview (aprox 2h30ms) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI&t

I watched this one last night and it has two of my fave people these days. It's on the Rubin show via Youtube, in which Rubin had a good talk with Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. Shaprio is treated much the same as Peterson is when being interviewed. However like Peterson, Shapiro is a smart man and can easily smack down those who are trying to twist their words.

The Rubin Report with  Dave Rubin interviewing Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro  breaking it down again and telling their experiences with all of this. (aprox 1h40m)

 

Now I must mention the bit with Wilfred Laurier University that fits into all of this in which there is a concerted effort to shut people like Peterson up. Linsday Sheppard was a communications TA at Wilfred Laurier University. She was dragged into a tribunal with senior profs that indicated people complained about her playing a TVO clip that showed Peterson.  According to the profs there were complaints about that specific material.  Now it turns out there were NO complaints at all. None, Zero. The profs flat out lied about it, in order to shut Sheppard up and to slander Peterson at the same time. Now Sheppard was no fan of Peterson, but I bet she has come around. Sheppard had a few talks with Peterson, in which Peterson gave his full support to Sheppard regarding challenging ideas in university. Ideas SHOULD be challenged and the university (or so we thought) was one of those institutions that facilitates that.  WLU did not honour that notion.  Now if it was not for Sheppard's quick thinking, ( she was able to record the entire session (audio) via her computer and then posted that online), we would only have the profs POV which was 100% wrong and 100% fabricated.  WLU had to make a public statement, but seems to fall short of disciplining those profs who made the false allegations and tried to shut Sheppard up and to then try and control her future TA sessions. What a shame.

Recorded session of the 'tribunal'  (aprox 42 mins)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4

Nathan Ramukanna has since come forward to apologize, but that is only because they were caught. WLU had to issue a statement in which Peterson and two WLU profs broke down the statement and how messed up the whole situation is.  (ill post the clip if I can find it again)

So the phenomenon really comes down to ...  are people actually listening to what guys like Peterson and Shapiro have to say? I don't have to agree with everything they say (which is expected) but it's really concerning that this is taking place.  Their words are constantly twisted to be used against them to make them appear to say something they actually did not say.

The implications of not listening while trying to create safe spaces for some is the huge fall out that occurred at WLU.  It really is a big deal when universities appear to be teaching this kind of thing that goes against critical thinking while not challenging ideas because it might hurt someone's feelings.

So, to summarize,  people are simply not listening with their ears, they hear what they want to hear to match their worldview and will throw fits when they hear something that opposes their views. But instead of challenging the words spoken by Peterson, we see a lot of people calling him deplorable things.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

His detractors call him alt-right, but have nothing to back up that notion

I'm asking this sincerely: wouldn't you consider someone who aligns with, and accepts money from a leading alt-right new source to be alt-right ?

 

https://www.therebel.media/reception_with_jordan_peterson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm asking this sincerely: wouldn't you consider someone who aligns with, and accepts money from a leading alt-right new source to be alt-right ?

 

https://www.therebel.media/reception_with_jordan_peterson

I would say one's views establish one's political position.  Wiki defines alt right as:

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] subset of American and European third positionists,[2][3] composed chiefly of white supremacists, neo-nazis, neo-fascists, and other fringe hate groups.

I don't think JP falls into that group, even allowing for the "ill-defined" status as stated by Wiki.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] subset of American and European third positionists,[2][3] composed chiefly of white supremacists, neo-nazis, neo-fascists, and other fringe hate groups.

Two things - you say ones views make one alt-right and then quote a definition saying it's a loosely-connected subset of third positionists.  Well, he is at LEAST loosely connected so he IS alt-right.

Also if someone was associating with and staging events with alt-right people, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they are also alt-right ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm asking this sincerely: wouldn't you consider someone who aligns with, and accepts money from a leading alt-right new source to be alt-right ?

 

https://www.therebel.media/reception_with_jordan_peterson

Not necessarily.  Someone's support of me doesn't mean I support them.   I would be more likely to consider him alt-right if he were giving money to the Rebel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

So the phenomenon really comes down to ...  are people actually listening to what guys like Peterson and Shapiro have to say? I

No.  Nor do they have to.  It would, however, be helpful if they didn't muddle the message as he himself has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dialamah said:

Not necessarily.  Someone's support of me doesn't mean I support them.   I would be more likely to consider him alt-right if he were giving money to the Rebel.

I specifically said somebody who "aligns with".  Somebody who appears at alt-right events organized for them ?  He's giving attention and legitimacy to The Rebel which is more valuable than the thousands he's getting paid to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peterson is a new kind of fraud, in that he - as an academic - is charged with helping the public cause.  Unlike Alex Jones, who is free to lie and enrich himself, Peterson is paid out of the public purse to advance the 'public' good.  By aligning with an organization that spreads disunity to profit itself, by accepting money from them and aligning with them he has shown that he is not worthy of his profession.

Far from listening to him, he should be absolutely ignored, at least until he either resigns his post and stops accepting taxpayer money to sow disunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Two things - you say ones views make one alt-right and then quote a definition saying it's a loosely-connected subset of third positionists.  Well, he is at LEAST loosely connected so he IS alt-right.

Also if someone was associating with and staging events with alt-right people, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they are also alt-right ?

 

Well, I did allow how Wiki's definition stated "loosely defined" as a condition, but it then went on to give examples of the positions taken by those who might qualify.  If JP is to be lumped in with white supremacists, neo-nazis, neo-fascists, and other fringe hate groups I would say "loosely defined" doesn't really cover it.

I think that lady on Channel 4 would like it to have done, though.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Peterson is a new kind of fraud, in that he - as an academic - is charged with helping the public cause.  Unlike Alex Jones, who is free to lie and enrich himself, Peterson is paid out of the public purse to advance the 'public' good.  By aligning with an organization that spreads disunity to profit itself, by accepting money from them and aligning with them he has shown that he is not worthy of his profession.

Far from listening to him, he should be absolutely ignored, at least until he either resigns his post and stops accepting taxpayer money to sow disunity.

Ignoring him is definitely an option.  I've ignored his religious ramblings in what little I've read/seen about him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 If JP is to be lumped in with white supremacists, neo-nazis, neo-fascists, and other fringe hate groups I would say "loosely defined" doesn't really cover it.

"Lumped in" meaning he is in a group with these people, yes.  He freely chose to associate with them.  it doesn't mean he's a neo-nazi, white supremacist, or fascist himself but it does mean he associates with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Ignoring him is definitely an option.  I've ignored his religious ramblings in what little I've read/seen about him. 

His chief use is in highlighting the need for someone LIKE him, but butter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

His chief use is in highlighting the need for someone LIKE him, but butter.

We should toast him then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Lumped in" meaning he is in a group with these people, yes.  He freely chose to associate with them.  it doesn't mean he's a neo-nazi, white supremacist, or fascist himself but it does mean he associates with them.

He's in a group with academics as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

For having a use ?  Most people have some use.

For the butter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I specifically said somebody who "aligns with".  Somebody who appears at alt-right events organized for them ?  He's giving attention and legitimacy to The Rebel which is more valuable than the thousands he's getting paid to do it.

Yup you did, and I missed that.  My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

....I don't think JP falls into that group, even allowing for the "ill-defined" status as stated by Wiki.

 

Agreed...labeling Peterson with an imported term like "alt-right" is just intellectually lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Agreed...labeling Peterson with an imported term like "alt-right" is just intellectually lazy.

'alt-right' 'antifa' 'snowflake' - these are all new words that people use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.  By all means call him an academic.  Do you enjoy etymology?  

I didn't call him anything.  I tried to illustrate how silly it was to label him alt right based on certain associations.  His associations with academia would certainly be longer and stronger than his associations with the Rebel.

I suppose people just want him to be alt right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

'alt-right' 'antifa' 'snowflake' - these are all new words that people use.

The problems occur when they aren't deserved.  No-one would try and say there are no people who are alt right, antifa or snowflakes.  The trick is to be correct in applying the designation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I tried to illustrate how silly it was to label him alt right based on certain associations.  His associations with academia would certainly be longer and stronger than his associations with the Rebel.

Ok, so you failed to show how silly it is to call people what they are.  He's an academic.  He's alt-right.  He's male.  He's Canadian.

Add to the list if you like.

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I suppose people just want him to be alt right. 

Incorrect.  I, like others, was hopeful that an academic could convey a rediscovery of intellectual curiosity.  An academic to re-teach a new public how to think, and discuss things.  But he sold out, and I am not a sucker so I don't listen to the PT Barnums of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so you failed to show how silly it is to call people what they are.  He's an academic.  He's alt-right.  He's male.  He's Canadian.

Add to the list if you like.

Incorrect.  I, like others, was hopeful that an academic could convey a rediscovery of intellectual curiosity.  An academic to re-teach a new public how to think, and discuss things.  But he sold out, and I am not a sucker so I don't listen to the PT Barnums of politics.

No, I didn't fail to do anything.  You said he was alt right, I tried to show how silly that was.

You don't like what he says.  By all means don't listen. 

I like some of what he says, and I don't like some of what he says.  So I listen when I feel like it.

Which really isn't often, because I'm not really interested.  I'm a lot more interested in the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

No, I didn't fail to do anything.  You said he was alt right, I tried to show how silly that was.

By saying he's academic ?  How is it silly to call him something else that he is ?

 

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You don't like what he says.  By all means don't listen. 

I said just the opposite.  

I also listen when I feel like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×