Why do people take Jordan Peterson seriously?
The Candian Conservative Psychology Professor and internet culture-warrior embarrassed himself on British TV by attempting to obfuscate a highly specific and high profile case of racism: See 3.30 on this clip for the exchange in question.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7iGfMgPjwY]
Those unfamiliar with the incident can see the testimony of Azeem Rafiq, the ex-Yorkshire cricket player and whistleblower on racist bullying within the sport:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcx2KLZXmEU]
Here, Peterson has obviously waded into an issue that he knows nothing about but in doing so exposed the vacuousness of his own arguments.
The point he was trying to make (within his own terms) is that words like 'racism' are bandied about too much and encompass different things. That individuals should be judged by their individual actions and that using 'abstractions' such as 'institutional racism and 'systemic racism' are counter-productive because they 'put groups against each other'.
This argument is based on the assumption that society is colour-blind and essentially devoid of racism apart from a few bad actors. Therefore to identify racism as having any societal, cultural or political aspect is not only wrong but dangerous. It creates division where there was none. Those who identify the problem are creating the problem and he who smelt it dealt it.
Rafiq's testimony exposes in gut-wrenchingly brutal fashion how weak and disingenuous these arguments are. This is a man who experienced racist bullying over a number of years from multiple people and Yorkshire Cricket club did nothing to stop the problem. In fact, Rafiq was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement by the club. YCC themselves ran an investigation into his allegations and found that it was 'just jokes' which Rafiq misinterpreted. The idea that there is no institutional racism at play here is clearly ridiculous. That is before you even get to questions about a wider society that socialises racist attitudes. Questions that Dr Peterson clearly has no interest in asking.
It is Peterson himself who has demonstrated 'low-resolution thinking' and is using abstractions to avoid dealing with real issues. That he is successful owes everything to the fact that he tells a section of people what they want to hear using big words. In other words, he's a fraud.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7iGfMgPjwY]
Those unfamiliar with the incident can see the testimony of Azeem Rafiq, the ex-Yorkshire cricket player and whistleblower on racist bullying within the sport:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcx2KLZXmEU]
Here, Peterson has obviously waded into an issue that he knows nothing about but in doing so exposed the vacuousness of his own arguments.
The point he was trying to make (within his own terms) is that words like 'racism' are bandied about too much and encompass different things. That individuals should be judged by their individual actions and that using 'abstractions' such as 'institutional racism and 'systemic racism' are counter-productive because they 'put groups against each other'.
This argument is based on the assumption that society is colour-blind and essentially devoid of racism apart from a few bad actors. Therefore to identify racism as having any societal, cultural or political aspect is not only wrong but dangerous. It creates division where there was none. Those who identify the problem are creating the problem and he who smelt it dealt it.
Rafiq's testimony exposes in gut-wrenchingly brutal fashion how weak and disingenuous these arguments are. This is a man who experienced racist bullying over a number of years from multiple people and Yorkshire Cricket club did nothing to stop the problem. In fact, Rafiq was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement by the club. YCC themselves ran an investigation into his allegations and found that it was 'just jokes' which Rafiq misinterpreted. The idea that there is no institutional racism at play here is clearly ridiculous. That is before you even get to questions about a wider society that socialises racist attitudes. Questions that Dr Peterson clearly has no interest in asking.
It is Peterson himself who has demonstrated 'low-resolution thinking' and is using abstractions to avoid dealing with real issues. That he is successful owes everything to the fact that he tells a section of people what they want to hear using big words. In other words, he's a fraud.
41-45, M
