4 ms·

Jordan Peterson is espousing the same tired homophobic, xenophobic arguments dressed up in modern clothes. He’s a hack who appeals to people because he tells th

Jordan Peterson is espousing the same tired homophobic, xenophobic arguments dressed up in modern clothes. He’s a hack who appeals to people because he tells them the things they’re already feeling without actually advancing the conversation. His arguments are only appealing if you’re already in a position of privilege. Basically, he’s an advocate for the status quo.

dnissley 8y ago
Perhaps you'd be willing to offer your own answer to the question he poses though, which I believe is a good one. When does the left go too far? With the right, we have at least one clear cut answer: ethnic nationalism. With the left: nothing beyond vague handwaving about "when it gets violent" or "when it gets censorious". FWIW, I'm a leftist but I see a lot of worrying things coming from the left these days. I figure we could do with a little more introspection considering the results of the last election, a little less derangement about Trump, and a little less paranoia about the supposed hidden agendas of canadian psychologists.
- geofft 8y ago
  > Perhaps you'd be willing to offer your own answer to the question he poses though, which I believe is a good one. When does the left go too far? There's no a priori reason that one side of politics should go "too far" proportionate to the other. Importantly, if you do assume such a reason exists, it gives cover for bad actors (of any side), who can then argue just as convincingly, I can't possibly be going "too far" because the other side isn't, and you're biased. If the left is behaving reasonably and the right is not, or vice versa, have the moral courage to say what you observe.
  - dnissley 8y ago
    I don't mean to discuss this in the abstract. The left and the right both have proven themselves to go too far and the end result is the same: genocide. The issue is that we have an indicator for the right (ethnic nationalism) and that we don't have one for the left.
- exelius 8y ago
  My biggest criticism of Peterson is how he attacks “the left”. “The left” is not one unified, cohesive group because it’s not centered on a single defining characteristic like white nationalism. “The left” includes everyone from teachers to catholic nuns to queer radical activists. The defining characteristic of “the left” is that it is they are threatened by the advance of authoritarian, militaristic policies. Which is to say that they are the people who would lose out from white nationalism. Therefore, the left is starting to organize around its opposition to white nationalism, but doesn’t yet know how to attack it because white nationalists deny their white nationalism. But the left is still just as fractured, divided, and focused on small specific things that don’t necessarily agree.
  - bena 8y ago
    I'd have to say because you're wrong-ish. Or at least off. The left isn't comprised of people who would lose out from white nationalism. A lot of people on the left would benefit from white nationalism. Because they're white. 72% of the people in the U.S. identify as white. There is literally no competition if it came down to sheer numbers. White nationalism would benefit most people in the U.S. But it is wrong. Ethnic nationalism is wrong. The color of one's skin does not define one's character. Does not define one's ability. Does not define one's worth. Even a lot of people who are white recognize that simple fact. The problem the left has is that the more extreme stop attacking white nationalism and just start attacking "white people". When privilege stops being descriptive and starts be pejorative. And it is used as a pejorative. Tell some group they have privilege and they will rail against it, telling you all the ways in which they are not privileged. But there are privileges to most situations. Some of those privileges aren't worth the situation. Some of those privileges don't make up for the disadvantages. But still, they exist. And some of those privileges are not the fault of the person receiving them. To bring up one, it is easier to get hired as a white male. That's not the fault of white males. That's the fault of people doing the hiring. It's been found to be a subconscious bias among more than white males. It's not just a matter of like hiring like. But you can't ask someone to not take a job. To give up their livelihood, their survival, to sacrifice themselves for someone else because their group has it better. We can't sacrifice the individual for the vague betterment of mankind. That's a whole other kind of monstrous. But what's the answer? It's obviously complicated. We need to find ways to get underrepresented groups the opportunity to gain interest and skill in various fields. We need to find ways to make things like admission to jobs, colleges, home loans, apartment leases, etc more blind to irrelevant factors like race, sexuality, and gender. And we're trying. And that's what I feel liberalism is about-ish. Trying to make things more progressive, protecting society as a whole, but I'd rather not see it at the expense of individuals.

dnissley 8y ago

Perhaps you'd be willing to offer your own answer to the question he poses though, which I believe is a good one. When does the left go too far? With the right, we have at least one clear cut answer: ethnic nationalism. With the left: nothing beyond vague handwaving about "when it gets violent" or "when it gets censorious". FWIW, I'm a leftist but I see a lot of worrying things coming from the left these days. I figure we could do with a little more introspection considering the results of the last election, a little less derangement about Trump, and a little less paranoia about the supposed hidden agendas of canadian psychologists.

geofft 8y ago
> Perhaps you'd be willing to offer your own answer to the question he poses though, which I believe is a good one. When does the left go too far? There's no a priori reason that one side of politics should go "too far" proportionate to the other. Importantly, if you do assume such a reason exists, it gives cover for bad actors (of any side), who can then argue just as convincingly, I can't possibly be going "too far" because the other side isn't, and you're biased. If the left is behaving reasonably and the right is not, or vice versa, have the moral courage to say what you observe.
- dnissley 8y ago
  I don't mean to discuss this in the abstract. The left and the right both have proven themselves to go too far and the end result is the same: genocide. The issue is that we have an indicator for the right (ethnic nationalism) and that we don't have one for the left.
exelius 8y ago
My biggest criticism of Peterson is how he attacks “the left”. “The left” is not one unified, cohesive group because it’s not centered on a single defining characteristic like white nationalism. “The left” includes everyone from teachers to catholic nuns to queer radical activists. The defining characteristic of “the left” is that it is they are threatened by the advance of authoritarian, militaristic policies. Which is to say that they are the people who would lose out from white nationalism. Therefore, the left is starting to organize around its opposition to white nationalism, but doesn’t yet know how to attack it because white nationalists deny their white nationalism. But the left is still just as fractured, divided, and focused on small specific things that don’t necessarily agree.
- bena 8y ago
  I'd have to say because you're wrong-ish. Or at least off. The left isn't comprised of people who would lose out from white nationalism. A lot of people on the left would benefit from white nationalism. Because they're white. 72% of the people in the U.S. identify as white. There is literally no competition if it came down to sheer numbers. White nationalism would benefit most people in the U.S. But it is wrong. Ethnic nationalism is wrong. The color of one's skin does not define one's character. Does not define one's ability. Does not define one's worth. Even a lot of people who are white recognize that simple fact. The problem the left has is that the more extreme stop attacking white nationalism and just start attacking "white people". When privilege stops being descriptive and starts be pejorative. And it is used as a pejorative. Tell some group they have privilege and they will rail against it, telling you all the ways in which they are not privileged. But there are privileges to most situations. Some of those privileges aren't worth the situation. Some of those privileges don't make up for the disadvantages. But still, they exist. And some of those privileges are not the fault of the person receiving them. To bring up one, it is easier to get hired as a white male. That's not the fault of white males. That's the fault of people doing the hiring. It's been found to be a subconscious bias among more than white males. It's not just a matter of like hiring like. But you can't ask someone to not take a job. To give up their livelihood, their survival, to sacrifice themselves for someone else because their group has it better. We can't sacrifice the individual for the vague betterment of mankind. That's a whole other kind of monstrous. But what's the answer? It's obviously complicated. We need to find ways to get underrepresented groups the opportunity to gain interest and skill in various fields. We need to find ways to make things like admission to jobs, colleges, home loans, apartment leases, etc more blind to irrelevant factors like race, sexuality, and gender. And we're trying. And that's what I feel liberalism is about-ish. Trying to make things more progressive, protecting society as a whole, but I'd rather not see it at the expense of individuals.