Poll of the Day > Explain Jordan Peterson to me.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Who is he? What does he believe in? Why do people like him? Why do people hate him?

All of his videos are over an hour long and I just don't have time to watch that shit.

Just watched one of his shorter talks.

Dude seems like a pretty good psychiatrist but he's definitely no philosopher. I would listen to him about how to better myself but probably wouldn't listen to anything he has to say about the world.

So what you're actually saying is I'm a lobster.
---

Just know that it's perfectly OK to laugh and taunt a man because his wife is suffering from cancer if you disagree with his ideas
---

He's the adult in the room of children. Only the children are super offended so adult man bad!
---

Is he one of those dudes that incels seem to idolize?
---

Person willing to express opinions with certainty. He believes people can take responsibility for their lives and make it better little by little without setting lofty expectations. People like him because his message is pragmatic and he won't except nonsense to suit feels. People hate him because he vehemently disagreed with legally enforcing use of ill-defined pronouns and generally compelled speech because apparently that means he's a racist/sexist/transphobic bigot.
---

He's actually not a bad philosopher if you ignore certain aspects of his political philosophy. I would recommend watching his lecture/s on Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard.
---

As a clickbait article would say "SJWs hate him!"

He's basically the 'broken clock is right twice a day' of pseudo-science.
---

Lokarin posted...

He's basically the 'broken clock is right twice a day' of pseudo-science.

Raddest_Chad posted...

As a clickbait article would say "SJWs hate him!"

---

clean your room bucko

Mead posted...

Is he one of those dudes that incels seem to idolize?

Yes. Incels, complete fucking morons, et al...

---

Mad_Max posted...

Mead posted...

Is he one of those dudes that incels seem to idolize?

Yes. Incels, complete fucking morons, et al...

Yeah, you got to be a fucking moron to take hope in being told doing little things to improve yourself regularly will make you a respectable human some day.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Mad_Max posted...

Mead posted...

Is he one of those dudes that incels seem to idolize?

Yes. Incels, complete fucking morons, et al...

Yeah, you got to be a fucking moron to take hope in being told doing little things to improve yourself regularly will make you a respectable human some day.

That's one of the reasons I don't discount him entirely; and why I make the broken-clock analogy.
---

Lokarin posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Mad_Max posted...

Mead posted...

Is he one of those dudes that incels seem to idolize?

Yes. Incels, complete fucking morons, et al...

Yeah, you got to be a fucking moron to take hope in being told doing little things to improve yourself regularly will make you a respectable human some day.

That's one of the reasons I don't discount him entirely; and why I make the broken-clock analogy.

What are the examples of him being wrong? Aligning his philosophy with his religion for personal satisfaction? Not agreeing with compelled speech? I don't think he espouses enough material to be wrong 11/12ths of the time.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yeah, you got to be a fucking moron to take hope in being told doing little things to improve yourself regularly will make you a respectable human some day.

Cut too close to the bone there, bud?

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

What are the examples of him being wrong? Aligning his philosophy with his religion for personal satisfaction? Not agreeing with compelled speech?

He completely misinterpreted that anti-discrimination law, which is what made him mainstream famous in the first place. It was never about compelled speech. It simply added gender expression to protected classes so you can't discriminate(such as in job hiring) against people on that basis.
---

kind9 posted...

It was never about compelled speech. It simply added gender expression to protected classes so you can't discriminate(such as in job hiring) against people on that basis.

It turned "misgendering" in to a means of determining somebody as being discriminatory, making normal speech in to hate speech. It doesn't matter what the law intended, what matters is how the wording can be interpreted. At no point did he say they intended to criminalise misgendering, but it's what the wording says.

Also that is one thing. It's a weird broken clock if it's right half of the time.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It turned "misgendering" in to a means of determining somebody as being discriminatory

This is true.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

making normal speech in to hate speech

This is wrong. Misgendering in and of itself is not discrimination under this bill.
---

kind9 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It turned "misgendering" in to a means of determining somebody as being discriminatory

This is true.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

making normal speech in to hate speech

This is wrong. Misgendering in and of itself is not discrimination under this bill.

If you would "misgender" a transgender but not a cisgender then that's discrimination. Inherently misgendering transgenders becomes a crime despite being a valid form of discrimination. You can believe an MtF isn't female without it effecting how you otherwise treat them.
---

Right wingers love him, so that means he's probably bad.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PESYQ6TGwhQ" data-time="
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

People hate him because he vehemently disagreed with legally enforcing use of ill-defined pronouns and generally compelled speech because apparently that means he's a racist/sexist/transphobic bigot.

If a student tells a teacher their name, and the teacher responds with "no your name is *something else*" and refuses to use the name they were given, should that teacher continue having that job? Because that's basically what Peterson is saying in regards to pronouns and whatnot.
---

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

People hate him because he vehemently disagreed with legally enforcing use of ill-defined pronouns and generally compelled speech because apparently that means he's a racist/sexist/transphobic bigot.

If a student tells a teacher their name, and the teacher responds with "no your name is *something else*" and refuses to use the name they were given, should that teacher continue having that job? Because that's basically what Peterson is saying in regards to pronouns and whatnot.

Pronouns are not names. Names are also not objective. We have objective methods of determining pronouns, just as we have objective methods of determining race.

When we get in to the realms of "I believe I am male, despite my bodily sex", we enter subjectivity. If you can believe your gender is distinct from your sex, others can believe your sex determines your gender. The correct pronoun is what the speaker believes is correct. It's not objective so you can't correct them.

This is why it is a hot button issue. Some people believe they can force their subjective views on others and some want to express their subjective views without being criminalised.
---

if people really mocked a man with a dying wife, just cause they disagree with his politics, they are trash humans

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Pronouns are not names.

They're proxies for names.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Names are also not objective.

"My name is Andrew" is an objective fact. "I prefer to be called Andy" is also an objective fact (or at least it would be if I had such a preference). Were I to change my name to Bob, Jim, or Sally, "My name is Bob/Jim/Sally" would become an objective fact.

The practical significance of those facts is debatable, certainly, but it doesn't change the facts. It also doesn't change the fact that refusing to call somebody by name is just plain rude at best, and abusively dehumanizing at worst (see: the Stanford Prison experiment). None of that spectrum should be considered an acceptable way for a teacher to treat their students.
---

He's a popular conservative that hitched a ride on the sjw bashing.

And as we all know, calling out sjws makes you correct about everything else.

---

Isnt the point not that he doesnt think you should call people by their preferred pronouns but that they specifically should not< be unlawful to call someone by them? If thats all he stands for, I myself see a problem with that as that seems though it would have potential for exploitation.
---

His point is that the state shouldn't tell you what you have to say, he has said that he himself wouldn't be opposed to using someone's preferred pronoun
---

If he doesn't mind why make a fuss? This is such a weird argument.
---

Just call people whatever their name is

Its really not that complicated
---

deoxxys posted...

Isnt the point not that he doesnt think you should call people by their preferred pronouns but that they specifically should be unlawful to call someone by them? If thats all he stands for, I myself see a problem with that as that seems though it would have potential for exploitation.

im not allowed to threaten to kill someone, im not allowed to announce plans to kill the president. it IS reasonable to say that there are things you may not say. restricting speech is not the issue here, MANDATING speech is the issue. the government can tell you what things you cant say, but does not get to tell you what things you MUST say.
---

EvilMegas posted...

If he doesn't mind why make a fuss? This is such a weird argument.

Because he's opposed to the government overstepping their boundaries, why is that hard to understand?
---

They really aren't.

Everyone keeps acting like this is the moment where the government is going to take all our rights of speech away. Stop being assholes and call people their gender and we would need the principal stepping in to break up schoolyard fights.
---

EvilMegas posted...

Stop being assholes and call people their gender and we would need the principal stepping in to break up schoolyard fights.

I mean its not against the law to be an asshole. If the government started legislating everything that could be classified as "being an asshole" then there would definitely be room for misunderstandings/grey areas. We allow societal consequences to handle things like workers harassing their co-workers with doing stuff such as calling them a fuckface.
I mean think about it, theres not a law against pushing your co-workers lunch on the ground just to be an ass but we have managed as a society to do just fine.
---

Muscles posted...

EvilMegas posted...

If he doesn't mind why make a fuss? This is such a weird argument.

Because he's opposed to the government overstepping their boundaries, why is that hard to understand?

When has the government told people they have to use specific pronouns?
---

deoxxys posted...

EvilMegas posted...

Stop being assholes and call people their gender and we would need the principal stepping in to break up schoolyard fights.

I mean its not against the law to be an asshole. If the government started legislating everything that could be classified as "being an asshole" then there would definitely be room for misunderstandings/grey areas. We allow societal consequences to handle things like workers harassing their co-workers with doing stuff such as calling them a fuckface.
I mean think about it, theres not a law against pushing your co-workers lunch on the ground just to be an ass but we have managed as a society to do just fine.

That's never going to happen. And you guys really need to stop "what if"ings.
---

Mead posted...

Muscles posted...

EvilMegas posted...

If he doesn't mind why make a fuss? This is such a weird argument.

Because he's opposed to the government overstepping their boundaries, why is that hard to understand?

When has the government told people they have to use specific pronouns?

That's the law that he opposes that we are talking about, keep up with the conversation
---

Muscles posted...

Mead posted...

Muscles posted...

EvilMegas posted...

If he doesn't mind why make a fuss? This is such a weird argument.

Because he's opposed to the government overstepping their boundaries, why is that hard to understand?

When has the government told people they have to use specific pronouns?

That's the law that he opposes that we are talking about, keep up with the conversation

Which law?
---

Look it up yourself, clearly everyone else here is on the same page
---

Muscles posted...

Look it up yourself, clearly everyone else here is on the same page

So you dont know either?
---

You're allowed to say pretty much whatever you want in the US. Where smooth-brained dopes like Peterson get confused is that being free to say something does not mean you will suffer no consequences as a result of your speech. It's not that complicated.

Once you've been properly introduced, there's no reason to misgender someone other than to be an asshole.

Imagine thinking Peterson is some erudite philosopher lmao.

Noop_Noop posted...

the government can tell you what things you cant say, but does not get to tell you what things you MUST say.

So tell people they can't use the wrong pronouns. Logical consistency, ho!

Muscles posted...

Look it up yourself, clearly everyone else here is on the same page

You mean this page?
kind9 posted...

It was never about compelled speech. It simply added gender expression to protected classes so you can't discriminate(such as in job hiring) against people on that basis.

I'm not sure he's the one that's on the wrong page, dude.
---

Muscles posted...

Look it up yourself, clearly everyone else here is on the same page

Lol
---

It's a Canadian law that is being talked about. I'm not sure if it passed or not. Completely agree with Peterson on this point. If I remember right, he said he has and will refer to someone as their preferred pronoun if he's met them and that's what they'd like, but a law shouldn't exist to compel someone to have to go along with that. I think his original stance was more provocative in that he said he wouldn't call them their pronoun even if they requested it, but if I'm not mistaken he changed his stance on that.

I haven't paid much attention to him in a while, and he said some stuff I didn't agree with, but for the most part, of what I've seen him talking about I'll agree with.
---

BloodWhen_iWipe posted...

You're allowed to say pretty much whatever you want in the US. Where smooth-brained dopes like Peterson get confused is that being free to say something does not mean you will suffer no consequences as a result of your speech. It's not that complicated.

Once you've been properly introduced, there's no reason to misgender someone other than to be an asshole.

I mean did he specifically say that he wouldnt call people by their pronouns or did he only say that it shouldnt be against the law? Because there is a HUGE difference.
---

adjl posted...

"My name is Andrew" is an objective fact. "I prefer to be called Andy" is also an objective fact (or at least it would be if I had such a preference). Were I to change my name to Bob, Jim, or Sally, "My name is Bob/Jim/Sally" would become an objective fact.

Your name is also "that prick" to people who don't know you.

You call yourself Andrew but there's no reason to be called Andrew. It's your moniker that's entirely circumstantial, you're not objectively an Andrew. It's only offensive to call you another name as there's no reason to refer to you by another name thus it can be assumed to be to antagonise you.

Calling an MtF he can simply be going by how they understand the world, and not using she is refusing to say what they believe is false. It can't be inherently offensive as the intent can be divorced from offense.

adjl posted...

It also doesn't change the fact that refusing to call somebody by name is just plain rude at best

Or not directed at the referenced person and speaking in terms that least confuse the audience as to the rest of their sentence.

Regardless, it is not illegal to be rude so thank you for agreeing that it isn't inherently hateful/discriminatory.

adjl posted...

None of that spectrum should be considered an acceptable way for a teacher to treat their students.

Teachers should be clear and honest with their students, students should learn to put their pride aside when they are coming to learn. You won't die because your teacher doesn't agree with your opinion, and perhaps you'll learn to respect people who don't agree with you.
---

adjl posted...

So tell people they can't use the wrong pronouns. Logical consistency, ho!

So it's okay to refer to transgenders by their name awkwardly in all contexts where pronouns appear?

"Did you see Arv? Arv's hands were filthy and Arv rubbed them on Arv's face! Arv's gone back to Arv's position, Arv is very messy."
---