Jordan Peterson on Question Time next Thursday

There is an enormous distinction between free speech and compelled speech which seems to have been overlooked in the article.

I think Jordan is likely very emotionally volatile, but that article didn't do much to discredit him. Basically it says Jordan had a perfect teaching record, and the majority of his students adored him except for one "astute" student. But somehow this professor was responsible for his being hired.

And the fact he has a trans daughter hardly seems like a small footnote.

As well, "Calling Marxism, a respectable political and philosophical tradition, “murderous” conflates it with the perversion of those ideas in Stalinist Russia and elsewhere where they were."

I understand that line to be saying that Peterson takes the position that the relationship of gender to biology is absolute.

I probably shouldn't have quoted that last bit - as others have said it's hard to know exactly what JP thinks about this. The bit I wanted to draw attention to was the fact that the writer said he had a trans daughter, so it's likely that anything he says about transgender issues was coloured by this. He goes on to say:

If we have a “collective unconscious” there is a good chance that it would include our primitive assumptions about gender and biology. Transgender people violate those assumptions.
and
Transgender people appear early in human history but in these socially progressive times, which worry Jordan so much, they have become more visible.

More from that article by his former senior colleague, some possibly relevant to what he'll do on Newsnight:

Jordan has studied and understands authoritarian demagogic leaders. They know how to attract a following. In an interview with Ethan Klein in an H3 Podcast, Jordan describes how such leaders learn to repeat those things which make the crowd roar, and not repeat those things that do not.
[...]
More recently, when questioned about the merits of 12 Rules for Life, Jordan answered that he must be doing something right because of the huge response the book has received. How odd given what he said in that same interview about demagogues and cheering crowds. In an article published in January in the Spectator, Douglas Murray described the atmosphere at one of Jordan’s talks as “ecstatic.”

I have no way of knowing whether Jordan is aware that he is playing out of the same authoritarian demagogue handbook that he himself has described. If he is unaware, then his ironic failure, unwillingness, or inability to see in himself what he attributes to them is very disconcerting.
[...]
I was warned by a number of writers, editors and friends that this article would invite backlash, primarily from his young male acolytes, and I was asked to consider whether publishing it was worth it. More than anything, that convinced me it should be published.

I discovered while writing this essay a shocking climate of fear among women writers and academics who would not attach their names to opinions or data which were critical of Jordan. All of Jordan’s critics receive nasty feedback from some of his followers, but women writers have felt personally threatened.

Jordan presents a confusing picture, and it’s often hard to know what he is up to. In one of his YouTube videos, Jordan said that if you are not sure of what or why someone is doing what they are doing, look at the consequences. They could be revealing.

That keeps me up at night.

he never actually comes out and says anything concrete so it's kind of hard to be sure

Exactly. I hear all this stuff about Peterson but quite honestly, I've no idea what he stands for because, whenever I've seen him interviewed (mostly by Joe Rogan) he's been so long winded I've completely lost track of what he was trying to say.
It'll be interesting to see how he copes on Question Time when presumably he'll have a strict time limit. It could make him or break him.

Perking I would suggest that his belief in gender being innate and biological is influenced by his deeply held religious views.

My impression of peterson is certainly that he likes to imply that gender is innate

of course he never actually comes out and says anything concrete so it's kind of hard to be sure

I understand that line to be saying that Peterson takes the position that the relationship of gender to biology is absolute.

Or at the very least Peterson dismisses evidence that it isn't absolute.

Assuming the writer means "gender the construct", and isn't using "gender" as a synonym for "sex", then the writer is saying that Peterson isn't gender-critical but believes gender is innate and biological.

And found this, by the person who appointed him.

That's an interesting piece with some good points made about JP. Like this:

What was off-putting was his tendency to be categorical about his positions, reminiscent of his lectures where he presented personal theories as absolute truths.

JP never comes across as someone who is open to having his mind changed about anything. But reading on, it is clear that that person's opinion of JP may well be influenced by this:

I have a trans daughter, but that was hardly an issue compared to what I felt was a betrayal of my trust and confidence in him. It was an abuse of the trust that comes with his professorial position, which I had fought for, to have misrepresented gender science by dismissing the evidence that the relationship of gender to biology is not absolute

On the back of this thread, I've gone to find out a bit more about Peterson. And found this, by the person who appointed him.

I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous
www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

I didn't know about Peterson wanting to buy a church, or about him trying to stop the university research ethics committee from reviewing any of his proposed experiments – reviews which are mandated by law to protect experimental subjects.

PeakPants. You said on trump: He is also slowly but surely transforming the country into a veritable terrifying hell-hole for women

Sorrry, but this kind of rhetoric is absolutely bonkers. How, exactly? Could you give some specific examples of precisely how the USA is “a terrifying hell-hole for women” at the moment? I am American and spend an awful lot of time there so I would be curious to know what exactly you have seen and experienced that makes you say this.

Jordan Peterson does some interesting work on identifying people who are in the grip of an ideology. I have to say you’re displaying many of the traits.

fucking hell, what is this obsession with Posie? She's banned here so can't defend herself.

Back to Peterson. I have some issues with his rules

Rule 6 Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world

Perfect order? really? so until you are totally happy with your life you shouldn't form opinions about the world around you? this just seems to me to be him saying to all those shitty little students who've been rude to him 'shut up and listen to the grown ups'

Rule 10 Be precise in your speech

hypocrite much? this is the man who mused on the Toronto incel attack and said 'an answer is enforced monogamy'.

Then when people said 'hang on, are we talking government issued girlfriends here?' said 'no,. it was a figure of speech, of course I didn't mean that'. We be fucking precise Jordan - say what you mean!

Posie was simply correcting a man who was persisting in calling her ‘miss’.

Some of the things that Posie Parker says make sense, but I have also heard her insisting, during a debate, to be called "mrs" because she is married like she derives some kind of status from it. So with Posie it's a hit and miss.

Anything remotely sensible that Jordan says is something I have heard plenty of feminist say years before. So he is not even expressing his own ideas, but ripping off feminists without giving credit and then slagging off feminism as a whole.

Ugh, FFS. Peterson is a revolting, obnoxious bellend. Also, how many revolting, obnoxious bellends does Posie Parker have to snuggle up to before you start thinking that, maybe, she isn't the world's greatest role model?

I like a lot of what he has to say and view him as a positive role model for men. I loved his book and find him quite fascinating. I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't agree with everything anyone says.

Agree, seem to having an agree with Lass day. I think he is a fairly positive influence on young men and does encourage them to take responsibility and behave well. He does have some sexist assumptions of women although his experience of 3rd gen feminists in Canada and the US may have contributed to his view of feminism. I do agree with him that there are some differences between men and women. The 2 sewing workshops on using overlockers were all women but no-one was getting worked up about the lack of "diversity". The push for that does seem to be just one way. Men were traditionally tailors though so I do think gender stereotypes play a big part in women mainly doing sewing in the west. India still has lots of male tailors.
I've read his 10 lessons book though so will be interested to hear him.

There are a few threads about Peterson on FWR. Often the posters seem to be random fanboys (boys not girls) with no posting history on FWR

I have occasionally posted postive comments about JP. There are things he says I agree with.

Just been discussing this with DP and he has his name down on the guest list for this Question Time. Apparently you get a phone call the day prior to confirm your space and at this point you are invited to submit two questions.

He's happy (if he gets a seat in the audience) to ask a self ID question - how best to word it? suggestions?

Ah, that makes sense. Thnx DeRigueurMortis. :-D

FWR - you're on it :-)

Feminism & Women's Rights - it's basically the name for this part of MN.

There are a few threads about Peterson on FWR. Often the posters seem to be random fanboys (boys not girls) with no posting history on FWR.

As far as I know gender critical thought is strongly negatively correlated with support for Tommy Robinson.

As an argument 'you lot (gender critical) like Posie for standing up to TRAs, Posie likes Tommy Robinson, Tommy Robinson is a Nazis, therefore you lot are Nazis' is pisspoor and anyone going that way should be embarrassed

What is FWR?

Good grief - this is getting ridiculous. Some people seem to think the mere mention of someone's name is akin to summoning the devil. I don't, I think you should consider and stress test all ideas.

I'm waiting for dogs to be denounced - did you see that German Shepherd who posed for photos with Hitler?

Cult thinking will be the death of us all.

Now you have publicly denounced him I think you are in a safe space BernardBlacksWineIcelolly

Those of us denouncing denouncing are the ones in trouble.