Jordan Peterson on Question Time next Thursday

[HandsOffMyRights]

As somebody fairly new to the self ID debate, could somebody please tell me how Jordan is connected? And what (if anything) this means for next week?

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 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

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

In that case TRAs should start listening to what we're saying instead of just dismissing us as transphobes and bigots. Are you suggesting that we should dismiss everything JP says just to try to appease the TRAs? Because that won't work. Nothing short of complete capitulation is enough for them.

I think JP has some interesting things to say, but I don't agree with everything he says. I doubt that there's another person on the planet that I would agree with on absolutely everything.

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.

Considering I see self ID as an end to womens rights fullstop, ending self ID is hypothetically much more important to me. Not that this will be a realistic choice in this country though.

Well he may say things you don’t agree with but if you RT him, pose for pics with him and also appear to support Tommy Robinson, you can’t be surprised if the TRAs jump on it.

Vix well in US, Trump has curtailed trans rights and no chance of self-ID. He is also slowly but surely transforming the country into a veritable terrifying hell-hole for women, so....

I see, 7Days, You are using the abstract terms, not the politics aligned/associated with "progressives" and "conservatives". I find that progressive parties are more likely to to conserve culture and history and work towards the improvement of quality of life, where as conversative parties act like a bunch of "my way or the highway" bullies who care far less about herritage and culture and history. I could do without the latter.

At FreeSpeecher I don't think that definition covers what these parties are doing anymore, if it ever did. Conservatives seem to deliberately introduce errors and confusion to maintain the control they currently have. They lie and cheat and pull us all back to ideas that were already outdated a 100 years ago. Progressives often seem too unfocused to take make a fist aginast such bullying tactics and assume conservatives are arguing in good faith, but all conservatives do is try to distract us from the fact that they have no arguments.

I’ve been posting on FWR since literally the first celebratory thread that this place existed, and I find the fact that it’s now full of fans of Peterson and woman-beating racist Rod Liddle beyond baffling.

Helen Lewis (actual gender critical feminist Helen Lewis) just did an excellent 90-minute video interview with Peterson for GQ that neatly exposes him as the giant weirdo he is.

It’s not just that he’s a misogynist, he’s given up his normal job and life to be a YouTube celebrity and the man is seriously unwell.

Me too, TonyDanza, me too. Utterly bizarre. Have also seen glowing support of videos from far-right religious extremist groups in the US, who advocate gay conversion therapy. I was told to shut up and ‘we don’t need to agree with everything someone says’ when expressing my horror. It actually is fairly straightforward. Don’t retweet or offer support for people who are deeply anti-feminist (eg Rod, who beat his pregnant girlfriend). Accept and recognise that others oppose self-ID for different reasons, but distinguish yourself from that and focus on your own reason for your opposition.

Full of fans

I think this is a slightly silly exaggeration TonyDanza. I suggest it's also "full of fans" in your sense of Strictly Come Dancing.

JP's normal job is a professor, they are expected to make a public impact on society beyond their university, this what they are paid to do and the more impact they have the more money the uni pays them. He's still working there, he talks about this in the 90 minute video you refer to. He fought hard to keep his job when he was being attacked by the diversity and inclusion people that want diversity and inclusion to exclude free speech emanating from wrong thinkers. Professors take sabbaticals for lecture tours, it's an expected part of the job.

Helen Lewis (actual gender critical feminist Helen Lewis) does believe that transwomen are "actual women" whereas JP really does not.

And thanks for the instructions on how to behave PeakPants, maybe write a book about trite homilies and didacts called rules for life or something.

To keep telling us off for agreeing with Posie Parker and shouting he's a wife beater any time any one mentions something Rod Liddle said (and not even on this effing thread) at people discussing feminism is baffling.

When only 1 in ten people have inhaled transgenderism the broad range of the populous is going to be reflected in the other 90 percent, to get upset by this is a bit odd.

Not a fan of JP, but I did like how he summed up gender identity.

He said said he could define gender identity in one word: fashion.

Well he may say things you don’t agree with but if you RT him, pose for pics with him and also appear to support Tommy Robinson, you can’t be surprised if the TRAs jump on it.

What are you talking about, Peakpants? Tommy Robinson has only been mentioned in this thread by you and a poster I don't recognise (apart from a couple of regular posters who've asked you why you're talking about him).

RT him, pose for pics with him

Who is this directed at?

PeakPants is using a popular smear description of Posie Parker.

At the risk of sounding out of the loop I don't actually know who Robinson is, there is only so much news I can read and what he has done has passed me by. What happens though is Posie's name is repeatedly put next to his to smear her by association.

I have met her several times and she is intelligent and nuanced.

Thanks, Electron. It looked as though Peak's comment was directed at me, as I'd said something about JP saying things I didn't agree with, and Peak was also addressing someone as 'you'. Bit odd, as I wasn't aware that Posie was on this thread.

Tommy Robinson - leader /ex leader of right wing EDL - accused of racism and islamo phobia - he was in prison for live tweeting outside a grooming trial in Leeds - contempt of court. The only link with Jordan Peterson I am aware of is JP defended TR right to free speech - as he defended Count Dunkula in prison for a video of 'Joke' about the Holocaust and a Nazi saluting pug - JP made it clear the joke was vile and unfunny - JP has a big issue with law and control of language - which is what got him major publicity - battling and defying Laws in Canada that made it a crime not to call a man who identifies as woman She - 200 fellow academics tried to get him sacked (does this sound familiar)

Posie isn't on the thread, she has posted a pic of her with JP online a while back so it's easy to spot the PP/JP/TR trope when I see it, it's used a lot by many of the anti mumsnet/fairplay for women/WPUK agitators on twitter.

It's all smearing by association.

I have avoided much of the grooming news reports, my own child was groomed and yet treated as a criminal by the police/school/social services and now we are through this and out the other side I have to avoid the subject. But this smearing of people speaking out enables groomers. I was smeared by the school governors for criticising the schools failure to follow safe guarding so I am always sceptical now of this tactic.

It's complicated.