Jordan Peterson on Question Time next Thursday

*some of you buy his bullshit.
Can't type...

Jordan Peterson is SUCH a twat, I can't believe sons of you but his bullshit. His arguments are sooooo weak but sound erudite. Have you seen this:

But hypothetically, how would you feel about a very right-wing party taking power, putting an end to self-ID but also drastically reducing women’s reproductive rights? Because I would rather have self-ID than for that to happen.
I think the problem is that public endorsement of people like JP by GC feminists feeds into the TRA mantra that feminists are right-wing transphobes.

captSkippy in using conservatism in the small c sense. Nothing to do with tax rates orpolitical parties.
Not all progress is good - we GCers would hold the position that the old distinction of make and female is still good.
(Even this exchange isAnother example of obfuscation of language)

There's a balance to be found between the two extremes.

It's generally a complicated thing, the business of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' How much support and comradeship you are prepared to share with people who agree with you on This One Important Thing but have other opinions that make you feel a bit sick.
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Sharing an opinion with someone is not an uncritical endorsement of everything they say for heaven's sake.

If we're getting onto the whole Conservatives v Progressives thing, here's G. K. Chesterton's thoughts on the topic:

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

How much support and comradeship you are prepared to share with people who agree with you on This One Important Thing but have other opinions that make you feel a bit sick...

See that wouldn't bother me at all, as agreeing with someone on one thing does not mean I endorse all their views? I agree with that Milo dickhead on some stuff, not much but some. But many of his other views I find vile. Doesn't mean I will disagree with him on literally everything though just because I think hes a misogynistic cunt in general.

Yes, I don’t agree with unlimited rights to eg racist speech or holocaust denial or homophobic speech. I would see the EDL banned for instance and same with Britain First. So I cannot get on board with a simple ‘free speech is always great’ agenda.

It's generally a complicated thing, the business of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' How much support and comradeship you are prepared to share with people who agree with you on This One Important Thing but have other opinions that make you feel a bit sick...

Also, the Free Speech Warriors. Some of them seem not to quite get what free speech actually is - they seem to think it means they get to say the most offensive, objectionable, idiotic stuff they can possibly say, but a) everyone has to listen and b) no one can criticise or disagree with them. Otherwise their human rights are being infringed. (This applies to all those people whining in well-paid national newspaper columns about the fact that they are being 'silenced' as well as anyone complaining that they haven't been invited to speak at an event - no event has room for every motormouth who wants to speak and event organisers choosing who to invite is not an infringement of free speech.)

7Days Why does society need conservatism? Would we all not just be much better off without it?

He says some interesting stuff. Nothing new, nothing radical, but he's a conservative, in the sense that there are things from the past that are worth conserving. I can agree with that, as a principle. Society needs conservatism as well as progressives.

Someone on another thread made a great point. He examines the role of the 'jude o - Christian heritage, the impact of ancient Greek and Romans. He's pro, and gives the benefits thereof. This is Brand New Information to a lot of his supporters, but unfortunately is political. And by giving an unbalanced view he's politicizing his followers - they don't seem to know the larger context so to them it's The Left irrationally hating something that is good and pure and useful.

He is providing an alternative model of manhood to toxicity or being a man child. Something that's sorely needed.
a
It's a pity he has to be an anti feminist to do it though

Jorden - Word Salat - Peterson prefers to be vague when talking about anything political. He is one of those "free-speech" warriors.

When he does get to the point he regurgitates self-help books from the 90s and he says that feminism make women choose "weak men", being gay is somehow wrong and "athiests are murderers" is his eyes. He is also aptly nicknamed " The Incel's Intellectual." His followers worship him like a god.

I found the most telling video of who Peterson really is when he was debating Matt Dillahunty, who is a quite smart guy. Dillahunty also says that Peterson was wrong about the Canadian bill and that Peterson was railing against something that wasn't even in the bill.

Debate is here:

He's a proponent of free speech. That's where his views 'align' with mine. I happen to think free speech is a vital component of being able to make your case and fight for the outcome you desire. What he says about lobsters doesn't interest me, or what he thinks of Tommy Robinson.

this is where tribalism goes wrong. It is possible to fundamentally disagree on some things but agree on others even though you are coming from a completely different standpoint.

Yup. I don't understand that view at all..like the arguments of 'dome daily mail articles agree with you, which means you are clearly WRONG!'. Its possible to agree on some things whilst disagreeing on others. Agreeing with Petersons stance on pronoun nonsense does not mean I have to agree with everything her has ever said.

I agree with him on some things but that doesn't mean I admire or idolize him. Most of what he says I think is derivative rubbish. He's beginning to believe his own PR and losing touch with reality. The all meat diet is a clear sign of someone losing touch with reality. I'll be interested in how he deals with QT.

I don't often give in to the temptation to pull rank, so to speak, but I have been on MN for more than 10 years.

What a lobster comment.

I quite like Jordan Peterson at least from what I've seen. I agree with Emtwizzle .

Watch him on the Wright Show,

I look forward to QT.

Electron, that's kind of... interesting. Are you trying to suggest that disliking Peterson/Yaxley-Lennon/some aspects of GC arguments makes a person somehow not a MNer?
I don't often give in to the temptation to pull rank, so to speak, but I have been on MN for more than 10 years.

It’s true though what SGB says. Seriously. JP is no friend of women. If you’re cool with that- cool, but don’t pretend JP is something that he’s not.

ReanimatedSGB's baiting of mumsnet people is NOTHING to do with his desire to support women, it's about him being an attention-seeking dicksplash

Fixed that for you.

Jordan Peterson admires that fucker Yaxley-Lennon and reckons the British 'elite' is out to get him.

Peterson's baiting of trans people is NOTHING to do with his desire to support women, it's about him being an attention-seeking dicksplash.

The topic of GRA - is firstly an issue of women’s rights - and then as a result of the no platforming & no debate it is also a freedom of speech and expression issue. When the dust settles on this issue & women’s rights win - which is what I think and hope will happen. I would like everyone involved to approach all future issue where one side is silenced, shamed and doxxed - even if they disagree - and defend the right of the other side to ‘offend people or have the wrong belief’

It's a bullying tactic and a bit dim.

The dim bit is the most obvious.

I'm not particularly interested in what feminist academics have to say. The free speech argument counts for more. The totalitarian left , Momentum and the narrow-minded tribalism of the left bothers me far more than trans issues.

I dunno Lass. I think a fairly prominent person in the movement has been quite pro TR (and also Jordan Peterson). Personally I don’t want to fight the fight on the basis of free speech. It’s not about having the freedom to call transwomen men- it’s about the state and the law recognising that women need single sex spaces for their safety and dignity. That’s why I prefer the reasoned arguments of people like Kathleen Stock and other academics, even if their tactics are not as radical.