Thoughts on Jordan Peterson?

@Burnley123 For the fact he even believes in sin should be enough to discredit him, I know he won't among his fans because he uses "big words" that have the audience ooooooo and ahhhhhhhhing. My own made up observational study knows when you use big words on stupid people you tend to get them to believe in anything.

Also it's not just big words, it's just taking off various philosophical subjects, which anyone can do but to the stupids, it's wise.

@SatanBurger That's it.

This is a famous takedown from an academic journalist. I don't know how anyone could read this and not see him as a grifter:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

He's now claiming that the 'sin' comment was misinterpreted. This is classic Petersonism: say something that can be interpreted controversially but is slightly ambiguous and then say it meant something else. Leaving things to be 'unfairly misinterpreted' is deliberate strategy.

@SatanBurger That is just so stupid.

@Burnley123 I sort of mildly respected (although disagreed) with your answer until you indulged her very silly response lol. Essentially she's said the following:

- that anyone who believes in the concept of sin is, by default, "stupid."

- that because Peterson is capable of discussing philosophy, the stupid more or less just flock to him.

That last point in particular is profoundly asinine because stupid people are generally not going to have an interest in philosophy

I actually can't believe how stupid her comment is. I may block her if she responds again because I'm genuinely offended by how brainless she is.

@SW-User I agree with her comment and I think you are misunderstanding it. Lol.

-It's not the concept of sin being discussed, just whether it applies to trans people (or trans surgery).

-Its not about people being stupid for following philosophy, it's that Peterson's philosophy is skin-deep. She's not criticising Peterson for being an intellectual, but for being a faux-intellectual. The use of big words and rhetorical techniques instead of substance etc.

There is much more on this on the link I posted above. To give some idea though:' Peterson's critique of 'post-modern neo-marxism' can't stack up to anyone who has ever studied Marxism or postmodernism. The idea that postmodernism (a fringe within social science academia) is either influencial on the wider world or aligned to Marxism are both inarguably wrong.

This is what I mean by Peterson deliberately misinterpreting his opponents. It's not a good-faith attempt to engage with philosophical writing, it's strawman criticism. It's the social media performance of an intellectual for people who haven't read what he is talking about.

@Burnley123 She didn't exactly elaborate but I'm inclined to think that was what she meant. If it wasn't intended that way, she's certainly got a poor way of explaining herself. Even if she was only alluding to the trans issue though, presumably if you believe in sin as it's outlined in the Bible, one wouldn't be wrong for saying that those who identify as trans or have changed their gender are perhaps living in sin? I don't necessarily believe that myself, but it seems like a reasonable conclusion to make seeing that we can't "pick and choose" which sins we want to apply to us if we're to believe in such a concept.

@SW-User People pick and choose what they consider sins all the time. Even the most orthodox Christians do this.

Is homosexuality a sin? The Bible says so. If I was to post on Twitter that homosexuality was a sin, then it would (correctly) be seen as homophobia. My position on this is that transphobia is no better.

@Burnley123 You haven't given an example of that, but I don't really care what Christians do. Even if there's truth to what you're saying, it still doesn't discredit what I've said. Just because various groups of people select what sins they want and don't want to recognize, it doesn't mean that they're right or that they should be doing this as well. It just makes them sinners too, if we're to go by what the Bible says. Them also being sinners does not devalue the Bible or make it incorrect in any way, and you could apply the same logic to almost any belief system or any book even. For instance, I like Nietzsche and can identify with other people who like him, but I don't suddenly think that his words are worthless because some of these people have decided to act in ways contrary to what Nietzsche says. He often said that people shouldn't complain because it's weak to do so, but yet we all do complain sometimes. If someone who loves Nietzsche and truly believes in his words and his ideas starts complaining, does that mean Nietzsche's work suddenly loses its merit and that people should dismiss it?

I can see why saying homosexuality is a sin is interpreted as homophobic, but what I'd like to know is why one would actually care? If that particular doctrine identifies the homosexual or transsexual lifestyle as sinful, then that's their problem and you don't need to concern yourself with it IF that person isn't imposing their viewpoint on you in tangibly harmful ways. I would contend that they are just reaffirming what their religion espouses, which they ought to have the right to do.

You, like any other person who disagrees with it, can choose to ignore it.

@SW-User
It very much should concern trans people. "Your sexuality or gender identity (sense of self) is a sin. Sorry, its just my beliefs and none of your business."

It's not even that. Peterson picked out and (dead)named a trans actor. An actual person. In all the debate about Jordan Peterson and whether Twister should ban him, please spare a thought for Elliot Page, an actual human who did nothing to deserve any of this. This should be a debate about public cruelty to trans people, not about poor Dr Peterson.

It's pretty vulgar and intrusive to comment and pass judgement on another person's surgery. To call their choice and their identity criminal and sinful, is clear harassment.

JBP is feigning ignorance on that video and gaming people for attention. He knows what he did but also that his fanbase will back him. It's cry-buly trolling and he probably wrote the script for his video before he even posted the Tweet.

@Burnley123 Do you really believe all of this? Are you aware of how incredibly oversensitive and profoundly intolerant everything you've said there is?

I just can't have a sensible discussion with someone who thinks that one tweet constitutes harassment, and that openly questioning or possibly disagreeing with the transgender lifestyle is "public cruelty".

@SW-User Oversensitive?

It's not me being offended here, it's Elliot page. Imagine you had gender dysphoria and someone with over a million followers which calling it sinful on Twitter? The debate should be about wanting to understand trans people, not whether an internet celebrity gets to be nasty to them on Twitter.


Calling something sinful is a bit more than 'questioning lifestyle.'

However, should we question and criticise 'homosexual lifestyle'?'

I ask, because people used to. In Harvey Milk's day, people rarely came out in public and said that they hated the gays. It was questioning lifestyle. We know this now for what it was. Christians who still consider homosexuality as a sin can't go around telling gay people that. I think you would also agree that would be bad.

My position is that these issues carry the same weight, or at least they should do.

@SW-User Sin is an abstract concept from religion that has nothing to do with psychology so using sin as a means to degrade the gay community is more due to religious bias and not anything to do with anything logical. It's how Abrahamic religions explain the world in a moral sense but not in any scientific sense which "Dr." Peterson is supposed to be as a psychologist. Might as well said they were taken over by "demons" and call for exorcisms while he's at it, it's basically his psychological narrative that I have an issue with 💁‍♀️

Furthermore, what you say is a trap. Calling Burnley intolerant and calling me silly but only because I had a fair point regarding sin which is obvious that you're religious so therefore any fair criticism will be deemed intolerant to you which is already a set up from the get go.

@SatanBurger🤦🏻‍♀️

Yeah, I'm like reallyyy religious.

@Burnley123 Well, I've imagined that I have gender dysphoria and that Jordan Peterson said the same about me and I really don't feel offended to the extent that I want his twitter account to be temporarily banned or for him to cease talking about things that matter to him. I'm not that insecure that I have to want someone else to suffer consequences because they disagree with my lifestyle and the decisions I have made. Note: it's not the case that he even does particularly disagree with it, but let's assume for the sake of argument that he does.

Out of curiosity, why is it that you're exclusively referencing Christians and what they think? Don't you think someone can disagree or just not be entirely comfortable with homosexuality or transgenderism without being a Christian? What about what people belonging to other religions think?

@Burnley123 I just the find the whole business of pretending like Twitter is some kind of microcosm of humanity to be absurd. Twitter is a business and they delete and censor things based on that perspective. Those who complain about social media censoring conservatives might not know the leftists I know who've been banned and censored on Facebook and the like. It has little to do with some kind of larger principle about bigotry. It has to do with what they think will and won't harm their business.

In either case, as an LGBT person I don't think stifling these opinions is the answer. It just makes it seem like we can't contend with opposing viewpoints. I would much rather debate someone who "criticizes the homosexual lifestyle" than shut them up (and the same goes for someone who criticizes religious beliefs). Yeah, any religious person who's "uncomfortable" with homosexuality can say so. And anyone who is critical of religious beliefs can say so as well. Either we support open discourse or we don't.

@SW-User You may not be religious but your default programming is from maybe religious parents, friends or surrounding community. There's really no reason for you to get this hurt over me mentioning that some psychologist using sin to hate on the gay community is the wrong use of authority.


Peterson specifically mentions SIN, this is a concept in the Abrahamic faiths which are Christianity, Judaism and Islam. While I can't speak for Burnley, I'm referencing Christianity because very few old white conservative males in America would identify as Muslim. I'm not saying they can't though and anyways the subject is Peterson, NOT other people of other religions.

It's also highly doubtful Peterson is an atheist who believes in sin.

@SatanBurger Oh, and how did you work that one out? Does someone really had to have come from a religious background to defend the right for people to be able to say mildly controversial things? Is that really what it's come to? Whatever you think though, I can assure you that I'm not a Christian 😂

Has it occurred to you that Peterson might have been using the word "sin" to illustrate a point? Why have you taken it so literally? It's as if you don't understand that we can use these kind of words without believing in them or the doctrine they originate from. However, let's assume he was being literal...why is it offensive if you don't even believe in sin yourself? If sin doesn't exist or is an "abstract concept" as you've called it, what exactly is the issue? I'm asking a lot of questions because so far I haven't been presented with answers that I consider sensible or rational. You and Burnley are the kind of people who deplore others for being intolerant and incapable of any critical thought while being completely blinded by your own political and social persuasions. And, you're not open to any kind of compromise.

I doubt you have any idea what Peterson believes in. Also I don't know what fucking point you're trying to make with the "old white conservative males" comment. I mean, are you actually for real?

@SW-User You don't have the specific neurons needed for me to debate with you anymore sorry.

@SW-User Stay classy.

@SW-User It's a good point.

Peterson did deliberately target another person though. Tech giants are arseholes and they should not be the deciders of public discourse.

@Burnley123 I'm always classy

😆