Possible Jordan Peterson webchat on MN

[GeordieGenes]

If you go over to site stuff, MN are asking posters if they would like a webchat with Jordan Peterson! The thread is pretty negative, but I think it would be great to ask him about gender critical issues. He's one of the only Canadian voices we have!

If you think this would be good, please go and say so on the thread!

You’ve read Cordelia Fines? That’ll do eh!

So yeah she successfully debunks the most extreme and simple-minded claims about sex differences, so if you’re a dinosaur who thinks men and women are a completely different species, or that testosterone is the only reason sex differences exist, great!

But for anyone with an even slightly more nuanced view on sex differences, it doesn’t bring anything of interest.

Nooooo, not Sam Harris, mooncup. JP at least makes excellent points on free speech and compelled speech - and sometimes even considers counter arguments, forging a meaningful dialogue (if the counter arguments are raised by a man ).
But Sam Harris? The man who seriously holds that Western bombs somehow kill in a morally superior way compared to other bombs, because they mean well ('cause obviously it is never about the oil, resources or geopolitics for us and we honestly just want to spread Democracy, we just tragically fail. Every time. We coincidentally succeed taking the resources, though)? That Sam Harris? Give me a break.
He is in the same league as the Dersh when it comes to intellectually dishonest arguments (and Noam Chomsky has masterfully eviscerated both of them in debate).

My issue is with the belief that Jordan Peterson is any different from many of the other people who have had webchats on MN. Jordan Peterson believes in the patriarchy, no shit sherlock, but so do the NSPCC, the Lib dems and actually every political party in the UK. We have had webchats from all those people. I would argue that JP is less damaging to women then the lib dems for example.

There are many other Canadian voices that are not the voice of a douchebag.

He’s a charlatan peddling made up but real sounding rubbish.

I’ve not read Mystic Meg either this week mate. I don’t need to to know it’s probably not Plato.

12 rules for life? Come on. You’ll be telling me how meaningful you find astrology next

They may be lovely rules. But self-help type bromides are not interesting to me, and they are not the product of serious intellectual endeavour.

LOL. You are a card, *Donald.

deepwatersolo

Ha ha, YES, that Sam Harris

I love his curiosity, his commitment to his truth and his courage.

I don’t agree with him, especially about guns but that’s ok, I don’t have to agree with him on everything to like and respect him. Some of his podcasts are absolutely fascinating...he’s gone down a bit of a hole recently taking on Twitter (those who follow the Meghan Murphy case would be interested to know he’s tackled the CEO of Twitter specifically about that case) but still I like listening to him. Same with Peterson. They both demonstrate curiosity and provoke your thinking.

But this thread unfortunately proves Peterson and Harris right (something they do agree on) that people get so entrenched by ideology they literally can’t listen to anything in opposition to their ideology that they see it as offensive

"people get so entrenched by ideology they literally can’t listen to anything in opposition to their ideology that they see it as offensive"

You would say this about anyone disagreeing with anything that Peterson says, I think. It's smug and lazy. People here aren't just knee jerk shouting like angry bigots that everything he says is wrong.

But this thread unfortunately proves Peterson and Harris right (something they do agree on) that people get so entrenched by ideology they literally can’t listen to anything in opposition to their ideology that they see it as offensive.

Having listened to both of them extensively, I dare say they are projecting a lot. Heck, Sam 'free speech warrior' Harris couldn't even be arsed to defend Ilhan Omar's right to free speech (just like 'free choice' JP advocates social pressure to prevent women from all choosing to fuck the same 'alpha male'.)

Honestly, I don't even think JP would recognize that I was subjugated at the time - I didn't recognize it myself for a long time. My point was that I and other women like me used professional, academic stuff that women are 'naturally' disposed to the caregiving roles etc. to justify to ourselves that we were doing the right thing even though we were having a really tough time.

You only have to peruse the archives of Ladies Against Feminism to see that intellectual backing is keenly sought for the worldview. There is a kind of symbiosis between Peterson's views and the LAF worldview - Peterson just adds a veneer of academic credibility to the whole facade.

My point was that I and other women like me used professional, academic stuff that women are 'naturally' disposed to the caregiving roles etc. to justify to ourselves that we were doing the right thing even though we were having a really tough time.

You know, thinking of my great grandma, according to my family's narrative 'had to' work as a cook and therefore gave her small child to another family during the day (a family whom that child, my grandma, continued to have a loving relationship with for their whole life), I am actually not really sure, whether my great grandma 'had to' work, or just wanted to. Her husband was a policeman, after all. They would hardly have starved. Maybe the 'I have to' was just the narrative more acceptable in society.

After all, when my great grandma was in her 80's (that was in the 1970's), she told my mum: 'You know what I'd do if I were young again? I'd buy myself a VW Beetle, and I'd get on the pill.'

I loved Sam Harris's book about meditation.
Hated every other one of his books.

Birdsdestiny

..... Jordan Peterson believes in the patriarchy

I thought it was quite the opposite - that he doesn't believe in it.

mooncuplanding
It seems to me that very right wing people can cherry pick his views to subjugate people. Very left wing people can cherry pick his views to entrench themselves further into identity politics

Subjugation is not limited to the right, it is an authoritarian tactic.
Identity politics are not left wing, they are neoliberal.

It's not his fault though, that a certain demographic of angry, dim men have latched onto him. I know young men who are perfectly successful/attractive/intelligent and they like him too.

We all put our own interpretations on things and sometimes we hear what we want to hear, grab our confirmation bias with both hands and filter out whatever doesn't suit us to listen to. That's also pretty evident on this thread from some of the criticism of him.

If you already hate women because they aren't interested in sleeping with you, or you hate Muslims purely because you are a small minded racist who hates all foreigners and non-white people, or you despise people with gender dysphoria because you are a homophobe who can't cope with anything beyond hetero males acting 'manly' and hetero females acting 'feminine' then listening to JBP will make you feel entirely justified in doing so.

Here is a highly educated, erudite man using big words you've never heard before, being critical of Islam, questioning the existence of the patriarchy and critical of trans activism and getting respect for it.

They don't seem to understand that he and they are actually on parallel lines. There may be a few crossroads along the way but that's it. They hear JBP defend freedom of speech and take from that that it's okay to go through life using pejorative sexist, racist, disablist and homophobic language and to be an all-round obnoxious arsehole because 'JBP makes it okay. They are entirely missing the point and he's not responsible for that. Neither does he condone those views.

then listening to JBP will make you feel entirely justified in doing so.

And why is that??
What is it that Peterson is saying that make people feel justified in hating women, gays, Muslims?
Because that's not true of every speaker is it, just something specific to Peterson so it can't all be confirmation bias.

My issue isn't with the people who like him, my issue is with the words that actually come out of his mouth.

I don't understand how listening to JBP would make any man feel justified in hating women because they wouldn't sleep with them.

This is what he has to say on the matter in the Youtube clip posted earlier in the thread: "One of the things I've said continually - and this is on record in multiple places - so you're a young man
and all the women are rejecting you. Who's got the problem? It's not all the women. That's a bad road to go down. If all the women are rejecting you - it's you."

(link:

JBP just gives them a plan, telling them to sort themselves out, take on responsibility etc. to become a more attractive person.

@mooncuplanding - JP himself has said he's been accused of sexual harassment three times during his professorship.
I know people have a habit of trying to ignore the very clear and obvious misogyny of 'charming' men, but it IS very clear and obvious. JP is not a fan of women, in saying that, I have no qualms about him being on MN or any other platform to spout his nonsense.

What are the actual misogynistic and bigoted things he’s said?

I’m genuinely interested if I’ve missed it

I’ve seen the click bait headlines, but nothing more

There aren't any as far as I am aware moon I think I just phrased my last post very clumsily and it didn't come across as I meant it.

Firstly, take into account that I said this:

We all put our own interpretations on things and sometimes we hear what we want to hear, grab our confirmation bias with both hands and filter out whatever doesn't suit us to listen to.

What I meant was that given he disagrees with radical feminists on certain issues, in a roundabout way that plays into the hands of men who feel intimidated and sidelined by all the successful women who don't need men and won't be patronised by men. They like to see those women taken down a peg or two, as they see it.

While he doesn't ever say that men are not capable of being the principal carer of babies, he does say that most women are biologically and in evolutionary terms better suited to it than most men, and he cites many reasons for that. He also asserts that children whose parents are married almost always have better outcomes overall that children whose parents are not married. We know this is not as straightforward as it sounds and is dependent on all sorts of other factors, (which he acknowledges too) but if you are a very conservative traditionalist who believes that a woman's place is at home, you will no doubt find comfort and validation in hearing him say that.

Racists will enjoy that he is critical of aspects of Islam and has commented on various other matters relating to race that, while not racist in themselves, could play into the hands of racists.

You don't have to be a racist to be critical of aspects of Islam or Muslim culture of course, far from it. But it's a given that if you are a white racist you will probably enjoy hearing those things simply because you are a racist and most Muslims are not white and are therefore to be distrusted.

Likewise with homophobia, on LGBT matters his only issues as far as I am aware are those surrounding free speech and being legally compelled to say things that are not true, to appease people with gender dysphoria.

But of course this will appeal not only to GC women (it's almost always women) but also to those ultra conservative types who are homophobic and think that there should only be two types of people, biological straight men and biological straight women, and anything else is depraved.

I hope this is a bit clearer.

And actually, on the trans thing, it's not just about being compelled in law to use certain language to appease others. It's about the bigger picture and where this is taking us.

I agree with you Ellen

I was asking pp to cite examples of where they consider he is bigoted and sexist. There are millions of words and videos of him

I just wondered if I’d missed some massive misogyny

@mooncuplanding - he vehemently ignores any and all data on sexism in the west. He has been accused THREE times of sexual misconduct, there are many many clips of him referring to women in derogatory ways, for example, he says that it is hard to deal with a 'crazy woman' because unlike with men, you can't just beat a woman into silence (apparently, even though it happens everyday, everywhere). He believes in 'lady brain' and attributes women not choosing science to pure 'choice' without considering social conditioning, women's family commitments etc. A good book to read is 'Invisible Women' if you want to know more about why Peterson is simply regurgitating MRA talking points and why it is pretty insulting to most of us who know he's just speaking out his a$$. In saying that, again, I don't care if people want to listen to him, but he does have a lot of platforms already as well as income and support , MN could give a platform to a woman without as much support and elevate her voice instead. Just my 2 cents.

It’s true though. For most men beating a crazy woman into silence is not an option. It is not the appropriate response or solutuon to conflict. What else do you want him to say? [confused

He far more frequently speaks in a derogatory way (if that is what it is) about men than about women in my experience. He is much, much harder on men than women.

Have any of those accusations gone anywhere upon investigation? Do you know what the nature of the accusations have been?

Y'know, I've also been accused three times in my career of sexual impropriety. Baseless accusations. And the last one really tangled me up for a whole year. It's not entertaining. So there's plenty to be sorted out, but like I said already, we live in the delusion of a thirteen year old adolescent girl. And so, as long as we maintain that level of sophistication, we're not gonna have a real conversation about what rules should govern men and women in the workplace. So, you can't even open the damn discussion without being jumped on by uh, y'know, uh—a ray of like, rabid harpies.

His comments about it. Make of them what you will.