Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

quadrungle wrote

I hate that I have to consciously do some weird routing around your amazon link to avoid things on the internet connecting my IP with liking his book or something (this goes for tons of everything these days, total tangent…)

Anyway, I guess you're right. He's veering on self-help guru. (Obviously, I don't read his stuff or I would have known about this direction). And in your other link, there you go: 3rd-party media using that very language. So, I guess I was wrong, nevermind. Just I thought of "self-help guru" as generally some pop-culture out-of-the-academy type people, and Peterson gave me more of the professor-in-the-ivory-tower sort of impression…

Anyway, the tidbits I got from him what's that he was just this intellectual, I dunno, was going to say masturbator. He's smart in a certain way. He's good at identifying and critiquing some bad intellectual arguments from some people, but his own conclusions are based on just some weird philosophical foundations. He's a weird mix of "not even wrong" and "sorta, almost, partly right" in some ways.

I don't know how much he has hate, but it's one of those cases where hateful people love what he has to say.

Let me put it this way: I read the article you linked, and I'm convinced that there's just a lot of communication failure going on. Peterson sounds more like a classical liberal in some ways than right-wing. He certainly doesn't know how to speak effectively to people who disagree with him in a way that would actually achieve some understanding. In that second video linked in the article, the guys standing near him who were supporting Peterson were horribly, cringily awful. The worst part is his failure to rebuke that stuff, but I don't want to jump to saying that if you don't rebuke something it equals endorsement. I'm pretty protective of ideas of greyness, spectra, etc. and refusing to take black-and-white partisan views.

Overall it seems tragic that Peterson is getting so much attention. He's obviously failing at having an overall positive impact on discourse.

3

leftous wrote

I think you've summed it up nicely, and I agree for the most part except:

The worst part is his failure to rebuke that stuff, but I don't want to jump to saying that if you don't rebuke something it equals endorsement. I'm pretty protective of ideas of greyness, spectra, etc. and refusing to take black-and-white partisan views.

He's not merely "failing to rebuke" them. He's actively rallying them with rhetoric that targets the most powerless groups in society. He's acting like marxism is the dominant ideology that must be slain, and transpeople are coming to steal your rights.

He may have good intentions or not realize that he's encouraging hate against groups who have to deal with it on the daily. Moreover, he doesn't seem to ever say anything when actual free speech is threatened (e.g. hate speech laws? anti-BDS?).

This imo adds up to someone who is full of shit.

2

quadrungle wrote

Well, I mean, I could imagine inadvertently rallying people to those ideas, but if I somehow did that, I'd then be shocked to witness it and react with a "holy shit! Don't talk like that, is that what you thought I meant‽" and so on…

Like, he has a legitimate complaint about the idea of slippery-slope worries about legislating speech. but to then hear his wannabe-sidekick try to argue that laws against housing discrimination only [should] apply to government housing‽ I could see making the original legal argument, but if you see others associated with you getting everything all wrong…

Hanlon's Razor though… maybe Peterson is shitty at handling these things more than actually believing the real reactionary nonsense… I don't know

2