Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join Similar Worlds today »

Bad Apologetics: Jordan B. Peterson

I finally got through a 10 hour podcast of 3 people slowly disecting mr. Petersons' talking points. And I have to say it was extremely intresting to go beyond the clipped content from people whoes only goal is to make him look bad. Altough all the people on the panel agree that the man does have something to say, they also all agree there is an extreme problem with all his opinions that are not directly related to his field of expertise.

For those that want to take the time and are intrested, you can find it here:


When it comes to certain toppics, I can't help to think that these are great examples for Albert O. Hirshmans' book called: "The Rhetoric of Reaction". Espescially Petersons' vieuws on climate change, where things are just too complex to solve and therefor it's futile to try, can be directly linked to the chapter on "Futility" that Hirschmans' described. Also how Peterson tackles a toppics like pornograhpy, can be a school example of the chapter on "Perversion".

For those people that it's not clear what the man is doing, this is a pretty intresting watch/listen. For those that already figured out that this person is insconsistent and ideologically driven on almost every toppic except some parts where he actually is an expert on, well... this 10 hour wild ride is a goldmine to understanding how weird it really is.
revenant · F
Nobody is perfect, let the man talk.
revenant · F
@LeopoldBloom the college of Ontario Big Boys Pants
Kwek00 · 36-40, M
@Carla Yeah! 💪
popmol · 22-25, M
he was fine when talking to extremists but besides that i wouldn't listen!
popmol · 22-25, M
@revenant first session will already put me in debt!?
revenant · F
@popmol Ponzzi scheme
popmol · 22-25, M
@revenant 😭
Joeyyy · 26-30, M
@deadteddy Yeah if you're interested in philosophy and psychology he is a rich well to draw from. His lectures are genuinely interesting.

Once he became a public figure and he involved himself in politics and cultural observation he became another well spoken talking head in a sense for his values which happen to be very conservative. He's no worse than most, he has a large platform though.
Joeyyy · 26-30, M
@revenant I am a lefty dude lol.
Joeyyy · 26-30, M
@Kwek00 post modern Marxism would infer a deconstructionist view of modern society through a Marxist lense. So it does make sense at least to myself.

I'm neutral on it all really, it doesn't bother me to the degree it does others.
Kwek00 · 36-40, M
@Joeyyy Well, I advice you to watch the part on "postmodernism", the people in the video explain very well, where the issues are. But to give the short version, postmodernism as a discipline is trying to criticize grand metanarratives. Big stories that linger in society and that seem to explain everything. You know... like "marxism", that harbors the idea of historical-materialism. In Marxism, the history is a history for class struggle. Postmodernists are weary of such ideas, they don't go hand in hand. A lot of postmodernists come out of marxists circles, but they didn't identify as marxists any longer when they took on the new label.

But inside Peterson, there is almost this cold-war red scar going on. The enemies of his worldvieuw, are quickly labeled with all these terms that he uses so liberally that they loose all meaning. It's a bit like left wingers invoking "fascism" everytime they see a conservative with authoritarian tendencies. In those situations, it just becomes stupid.
Behind the Bastards also dos a good job exposing Peterson’s incoherence. The Nietzsche podcast occasionally brings up his inaccuracies.

Peterson combines basic observations that are obvious to anyone with misogyny and fascism.
chilloutab2 · 41-45, M
[i]I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who comes out with any defense of an earlier status quo. [/i]
Conversely, I am automatically suspicious of anyone who tries to challenge or change the status quo simply for the sake of it, for no good reason. Personally, my motto is: "It is my duty to pass on to the future - in as intact a form as possible - any and every practice I inherit that has merit or is neutral in terms of merit. If I inherit any practice that is harmful in anyway, only then do I need to make sure that it stops with me."

I think there is nothing wrong with defending an earlier status quo per se. I do think that attacking or changing any status quo without due diligence -simply because it's the status quo - is harmful and impoverishing.

[i]Obviously, men and women complemented each other historically, but in a postmodern, information-based society, most of those earlier paradigms no longer apply.[/i]
It does not seem apparent that even in the postmodern, information-based society of today, historical continuity has been so lost or broken that time-tested paradigms do not apply any longer. The human being is fundamentally unaltered; every present is only a more acute extension of our inherent tendencies than the past before it. The intensity and mode of that extension is the only difference, not the tendency itself.

If you claim that historical paradigms no longer apply now, I would request you for evidence in support. To me it appears that the historical paradigms still apply.

[i]What I see defined as "toxic feminism" is mostly coming from conservative men, who cherry-pick a few outlying examples as representative of the entire movement. It's basically a backlash against female equality. [/i]
I don't think conservative men should be shamed or silenced for what they want to say - and neither should toxic feminists be silenced or shamed. Your sentence can also be turned around to express the opposite point of view: "What I see defined as "fascist (or fascist adjacent)" is mostly woke people (or third-wave feminists) who cherry-pick a few outlying examples as representative of the entire movement."

As for female equality, females are equal under the law in almost ever country that matters - and even receive preferential treatment under the law in several of them. What more equality could we want?
If the equality you're alluding to is attitudinal equality, then I'm afraid that cannot practically be achieved... except by thought policing - and we know that that is impossible. People will think what they think. Many men will think they are superior to women and many women will also think they are superior to men. The percentages may vary, probably. You cannot stop them thinking so. Their thoughts will inform their actions, and you can only make it illegal for them to act out their thoughts, not to think them.

[i]Even putting aside the pay gap[/i],
I see you do not trust the empirical evidence against this!

[i]women are still not equally represented in leadership positions in government, business, or other societal power centers. [/i]
True, there are fewer women in these places than men.
However, at the risk of sounding parochial, I must still point out that one must take the gold with the dross. Demanding equal representation in boardrooms for women without demanding equal representation for women among sanitation workers appears to be a grab for power and privilege, not equality. And therein lies the toxicity.

[i]Ruth Bader Ginsburg was once asked how many women should be on the Supreme Court before she'd be satisfied, and her answer was "nine." [/i]
That would be a classic case of an eye for an eye making the whole world blind. The vengefulness of that pronouncement makes it toxic.

[i]I suspect that Peterson would have a problem with that, but not if we went back to nine men.[/i]
I would not base my idea about Peterson on my suspicions about him, rather on what I have actually heard him say. Peterson has said he would not have a problem with any gender - or any number of any gender - in any position so long as they are the most qualified to hold that position. If the idea is to put women or men in a particular position - rather than the most competent human being, no matter their gender, orientation or whatever - then that idea needs to be countered because it does no one any good.
chilloutab2 · 41-45, M
@LeopoldBloom A footnote: I think it would be futile for us to discuss this any further... after going through your profile, posts and comments, I understood that we come from opposite ends of the spectrum. Seen from my viewpoint you seem "Woke" (or Woke adjacent). I am "Awake".
And never the twain shall meet!
I respect your views but do not agree with them... I'm sure it's likewise for you. We will have to politely agree to disagree.
@chilloutab2 "Woke" started in the 1960s in the Black community to refer to Black people who were aware of the forces oppressing them. The word has recently been co-opted by right-wingers to mean "silly liberals who get offended at everything."

I would consider you to be brainwashed by right-wing media. I'm reminded of Orwell's quote, "The more people chant about their freedom and how free they are, the more loudly I hear their chains rattling." You may think you're "awake," but all you've done is buy into a paradigm that reassures you of that while demonizing people you disagree with.
chilloutab2 · 41-45, M
In our modern world, we are increasingly prone to throwing out the baby with the bathwater these days!

Jordan Peterson has his utility... and like every other human being, he has his flaws and biases as well. Like in everything else, the sane thing to do is to take from him what is applicable to you and your world and enriching for you personally... and discard what is not.
But that requires wisdom and common sense, both sadly lacking in the main in today's world, as evidenced by the rise of woke-ism and the return of a new, virulent left, as well as right. (Actually, at the extremes the right and the left are exactly the same.)

Hopefully, sanity prevails.

I will watch this video with interest as soon as I have time.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@chilloutab2 Peterson himself is a cipher for the radical right, whilst claiming to be a classical liberal and obfuscating when anyone tries to pin him down.
revenant · F
He is correct about many things , not all, in MY opinion. If he points out the obvious in many aspects, too bad.
I do not agree with him on everything , no.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
That's really what gets me is like... Peterson's ideas are actually insane. They're just cloaked in what sounds like basic common sense talking points that are easy to pick up and agree with. Then suddenly we're dealing with postmodern neo-marxists and feminity as chaos and what the fuck are you talking about bro
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
When they are talking about gay parenting they kept missing the fact he was laying a framework that the children do best when they have the two separate models of parents defined by sex. So in a gay couple you'll more likely be missing one of those models.
Brandyj · 41-45, F
Interesting. I do like J P
He is human,passionate and willing to have those talks that should be had. I listen to people and what they think as a person rather than as a left or right or grouping.
Thank you for sharing! Good stuff!
iamelijah · 26-30, F
I am not into his political view but I am more interested to listen his philosophy view.

I know we will have diversity opinions and its never gonna solve.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
Thanks for posting but ten hours is too much even for me.

I mistakenly took him seriously at one point but then realised early on that he was a grifter.
Zonuss · 41-45, M
He's not as hot as he was now that the Republican Party is in the toilet.
And that [b]Trumpism[/b] is no more.
Oh well life goes on. 🙂
Zonuss · 41-45, M
Anyone who [b]denies[/b] that racism exists is an unrealistic and unreasonable human being. Someone who lives in a different reality cannot grasp the reality of someone who is not like them. But he makes a few valid points on other political issues.
Brandyj · 41-45, F
@Zonuss racism does obviousy exist thats a given.
Brandyj · 41-45, F
@Zonuss ive heard many even black people say that. Never got it. But ive heard it. I dont condemn them. Just dont think they truly understand that system
Is he a Tate type figure? I have not heard of him.

popmol · 22-25, M
@InOtterWords if tate is 100 he is 30 at max
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@InOtterWords They share a lot of fans and that is not a coincidence. Do you want radical Conservatism by Chris Hitchens impersonater or a wideboy jackass?
Kwek00 · 36-40, M
@InOtterWords Hey OW, I have no idea. I don't know who Tate is. My intrests in these figures has its limits, at least Peterson seems to be more influencial? I think? Considering that he's been touring around as being this big intellectual. But he clearly overplays his hand. What @popmol said gives me absolutely 0 motivation to look the other guy up. If I want that kind of crap I'll make an alternative account and talk too Budwick and the other great thinkers of this website.

Post Comment
16,432 people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Forums Topic Members