5 ms·

I'm sorry but I don't follow you here. >If this cultural shift is a concern due to its effect on society and its norms, then Peterson would be a counter-produc

I'm sorry but I don't follow you here. >If this cultural shift is a concern due to its effect on society and its norms, then Peterson would be a counter-productive solution, since this sort of person being considered an intellectual worth following is a step down from these very same norms. It's like putting out a house fire with a flamethrower. The problem is the breakdown in informed discourse. Peterson DOES encourage informed discourse. Unlike some public figures that are wont to use strawman arguments and/or voice their opinions in an echo chamber, I've seen Peterson go on almost hostile interviews, keeping calm and giving accurate and measured answers to their questions whilst ignoring their jabs(see Cathy Newman or Vice interviews for example). And as was mentioned before, he's also known to change his opinion if he's convinced that he was wrong - now you show me another public figure that's willing to do that, not too many of those from what I've seen. >The result is that the money and attention of people concerned about cultural shifts is then funneled into the pockets of people like Peterson or Shapiro or whomever, with some pretty unenviable results. I can't speak about Shapiro since I haven't watched him or his stuff, but I have no problem with Peterson getting money or attention from his lectures, interviews, or books. I cannot find what harm his material can cause either. >You end up in a situation where people talk of rediscovering traditional norms and opposing them to new norms, without actually understanding what the traditional norms are or engaging with them beyond vague social-media ready descriptions. What could have been effective or at least thoughtful conservatism paradoxically turns into a post-modern parody of itself, with plenty of references to the aesthetic aspect (flags, slogans, freedom of speech etc.) without the substance that originally generated those symbols. And this substance and world lying outside of the Petersons and Shapiros starts to shrink because they monopolize the attention of people who would have otherwise engaged with deeper material and applied it in productive ways. I think it's healthy to be at least A LITTLE bit sceptical of new norms. Our society was pretty much the same for at least thousands of years and in a few decades we're changing things up very drastically. Are you that sure that it's not going to cause issues that can have dire consequences in the future? I'm not. I'd like to reiterate again that I don't think Peterson is as conservative as you seem to be implying, he doesn't want everybody being under Sharia-like social rules of Christian propriety. He does seem to lean towards traditional family values, which I don't think is a bad thing. Otherwise he seems to champion personal freedom, especially against any form of tyranny. With regards to him not understanding traditional norms I'd like to disagree. If you can show me some examples of where he does that please do.

Bakary 6y ago
To avoid confusion around semantics, I'll try to draw up a more stripped down version of the argument. Cultural shifts linked to specific left-wing ideas underway in various parts of society → concern based on the idea of the foundations of society being weakened or changed too quickly as a result → public figure comments against the former shift in an accessible and engaging way → fanbase forms around public figure, who is then held in high esteem for their work → criticism of the figure is primarily interpreted as censorship and deplatforming The above would be the simplified and idealized description of Peterson or another such figure from one of their supporters. The following is what I believe is happening instead: breakdown in discourse over time for various factors → ideologies spring up based on their online marketability and accessibility instead of their depth → the change oriented/left-wing version turns into intensified identity politics that moves away from economic concerns → the conservative oriented version turns into a decaf, pretend version of what it used to be → media personalities from each camp do battle online with debates that are essentially entertainment only but are interpreted as discourse by fans on either side From this we can see that a supporter of Peterson would see the Newman interview as an example of bravery and intellectual strength, whereas from the second framework it would look like another addition to the huge frothing pile of low-quality infotainment. This is what I meant by using a flamethrower on a flaming house. Peterson himself and others like him contribute to the alteration of traditional norms instead of defending them. Or to be more precise, the fact that they are the figures being listened to is the mechanism that accelerates this decline. This is what I meant with the Fizz Buzz analogy: Peterson and co. would have been laughed out of the room by earlier generations of conservatives for not having basic knowledge of the issues they argue about, and these would in turn have been horrified by the idea that a speaker's accessibility and popularity would be seen as a justification of their worth. In the end, you have people who nod in appreciation when Peterson "destroys" a reporter/student/heckler in a meme-worthy contest, but don't actually know much at all about the Western canon or the traditional values they claim allegiance to or even the ideas that they claim to oppose. They repeat the words but don't actually live these values, and this is a direct consequence of decaf intellectualism taking up all of that mental space. The conservatism is then ironically no longer conservative, in the sense that it no longer conserves the norms it references.
- 6y ago

Bakary 6y ago

To avoid confusion around semantics, I'll try to draw up a more stripped down version of the argument. Cultural shifts linked to specific left-wing ideas underway in various parts of society → concern based on the idea of the foundations of society being weakened or changed too quickly as a result → public figure comments against the former shift in an accessible and engaging way → fanbase forms around public figure, who is then held in high esteem for their work → criticism of the figure is primarily interpreted as censorship and deplatforming The above would be the simplified and idealized description of Peterson or another such figure from one of their supporters. The following is what I believe is happening instead: breakdown in discourse over time for various factors → ideologies spring up based on their online marketability and accessibility instead of their depth → the change oriented/left-wing version turns into intensified identity politics that moves away from economic concerns → the conservative oriented version turns into a decaf, pretend version of what it used to be → media personalities from each camp do battle online with debates that are essentially entertainment only but are interpreted as discourse by fans on either side From this we can see that a supporter of Peterson would see the Newman interview as an example of bravery and intellectual strength, whereas from the second framework it would look like another addition to the huge frothing pile of low-quality infotainment. This is what I meant by using a flamethrower on a flaming house. Peterson himself and others like him contribute to the alteration of traditional norms instead of defending them. Or to be more precise, the fact that they are the figures being listened to is the mechanism that accelerates this decline. This is what I meant with the Fizz Buzz analogy: Peterson and co. would have been laughed out of the room by earlier generations of conservatives for not having basic knowledge of the issues they argue about, and these would in turn have been horrified by the idea that a speaker's accessibility and popularity would be seen as a justification of their worth. In the end, you have people who nod in appreciation when Peterson "destroys" a reporter/student/heckler in a meme-worthy contest, but don't actually know much at all about the Western canon or the traditional values they claim allegiance to or even the ideas that they claim to oppose. They repeat the words but don't actually live these values, and this is a direct consequence of decaf intellectualism taking up all of that mental space. The conservatism is then ironically no longer conservative, in the sense that it no longer conserves the norms it references.

6y ago