06
Oct
2019
The Mindset of a Pharisee
Check out this interviewer trying to nail Jordan Peterson. When JP explains how his work has helped countless young men escape drug addiction and suicide, the guy doesn’t bat an eye (or challenge JP to see if he’s exaggerating). He just moves on to the next rhetorical trap.
(And no, just because I’m saying this is how the Pharisees behaved, I’m not saying “Jordan Peterson is Jesus.”)
I’m not a Jordan Peterson fan, in as much as I don’t follow his philosophy. For starters, I should never have to clean up my room … that’s my wife’s job!
But oh gosh those journalists are slimy and dishonest. It’s cringe-worthy watching that guy come up with random garbage that he made up five minutes ago and throwing it up as if it might be somehow a genuine questions. I love the way Peterson stands up to these people, even if I don’t agree with him at every level. As psychologists go I prefer Theodore Dalrymple … if there are young men getting off the gear and pulling their lived into shape because Jordan Peterson helped out, then I’m totally fine with that. We don’t all have to agree on details of lifestyle.
He should have asked the interviewer to take out a dollar bill and then hit ’em with the zinger, “Render to Washington what is Washington’s…”
Nice…
The interviewer is from New Zealand and seems to be mostly a sports writer, but also covers political matters … provided you don’t mind if politics ends up being called same as a football game.
I doubt he would have cottoned onto the Bible reference, and unlikely he would carry any Yankee bucks around either.
Well then “render unto the Queen” or something!
If Peterson stuck to self help he would be fine, but he is very political. He would get on well with Bill Clinton: “It depends what you mean by “is.””
His statements on arguing with “certain types” of women were senseless and obnoxious, however he tries to dress them up.
Peterson’s arguments are wrong, but in subtle ways which are picked up in debates but rarely in media interviews.
The big mistake they often make is putting words into Peterson’s mouth, which is a really bad technique. It is fair enough to repeat what someone said, but you cannot tell them what they meant. Doing so is asking for a very easy rebuttal. This interviewer said Peterson wanted to hit women.
Peterson replies that he didn’t mean that, but he meant that there are limits when men interact with men that don’t apply when men interact with women. What limits? He doesn’t say here, but in his previous statement he made clear it was violence. His clarification does not actually negate the interviewer’s interpretation, but tries to sidestep it. What is he actually talking about? Does he feel hos inability to hit women makes it impossible to deal with certain types of women? As with him so often, each is left to make up their own mind because his meaning is so opaque.
Peterson also said there is no way of regulating that, which is obvious nonsense.
The interviewer then did it again, saying that what Peterson was “really getting at” was men avoiding engaging their anger. Allowing Peterson to rebut easily again, saying men regulate their behaviour so that anger is not necessary. Why engaging with women presents such a problem in the first place is again left unexplained.
Another famous example is the lobster hierarchy stuff. He literally said antidepressants work in lobsters. That is wrong, because we do not even know if lobsters can be depressed. What he should have said was that antidepressants block serotonin uptake in lobsters, much as it does in humans. This actually has the opposite effect, making them more aggressive. He can claim that this is what he meant by “work”, but clearly there is another message given. Either he is disingenuous or remarkably clumsy in his language, and given his erudition I doubt the latter.
However, none of that matters because his point is almost meaningless. He argues that hierarchies are natural and unavoidable. So what? The one we have now is neither “natural” nor unavoidable. We know because we have changed it massively over the last few years. His argument is a straw man because it only works against a few people who insist everyone should be equal. Once we sidestep that, then all his lobster talk is pointless. Cathy Newman famously missed the point when she asked if Peterson wanted us to be organised like lobsters. The real question is “if hierarchies are inevitable, should we settle for the one we have or could we do an awful lot better?” Lobsters cannot help you there. The answer is we can do much better.
Bob, it might be a good idea not to link videos introduced by Pepe.
Are you angry right now?
“The real question is “if hierarchies are inevitable, should we settle for the one we have or could we do an awful lot better?” Lobsters cannot help you there. The answer is we can do much better.”
Maybe someday Jordan Peterson will grapple with the tyrannical potential of hierarchies. Perhaps he could put out many videos online where he spends literally hours discussing that very issue. One can only hope. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kGE1WCt2zvI
I was getting myself primed for a lengthy, perhaps hours long, exposition by Peterson. Honestly, I was looking forward to it. Instead I get a 2 minute clip totally justifying my point. Lobsters are not relevant. Human hierarchies are different. They can be better or worse. There is nothing there that contradicts the idea we should look for a better one. Nothing that suggests the one we have inherited is in any way the one we should now support. Nothing to reject the idea that tyrannical men have hijacked the hierarchy to the deriment of women. The lobsters remain a red herring, to use a pelagic metaphore.
I have watched an awful lot of Peterson. More than is probably good for me, because I find him a fascinating study. He is clever, erudite and very good at debate. He undoubtably has some good arguments and his self help stuff is good for some people. He is very hard to rebut for several reasons One is that he uses words to mean something different from the usually accepted meaning. Truth, for example, means something different for Peterson than it does for most people. So does religion. In a live debate I am sure he would wipe the floor with me. My style requires deliberation and fact checking. Nonetheless, many of his argumets are ultimately hollow.
Just a quick test, which some here may find interesting. Is Peterson religious? Is he a Christian? How do you know?
He’s literally taught entire courses on hierarchies that went terribly wrong. They are free on YouTube. Your comment was ignorant. Not only does he acknowledge that hierarchies can become tyrannical, he’s spent a huge portion of his career warning people of this fact. So not only does he warn about the dangers of hierarchy, he also points out that the people who think it can be eliminated are delusional because it exists everywhere in life on this planet. Just because you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time doesn’t mean nobody else can.
So why the lobsters? They remain a distraction. He is tilting at windmills. Somebody has to be on top, as I just discovered Pareto discussed with his ideas on elites. Peterson rejects the Patriarchy, and his discussion of lobsters is entirely irrelevant to that. I have seen a lot of Peterson, I am not ignorant of his arguments. I still find them hollow.
I am not rejecting his ideas on hierarchies, just how they are presented to support the one we now have. Something he does himself.
An observation. Peterson decries identity politics, Yet he says he cannot deal with some people based on what he sees as their identity, namely women. Odd.
Its almost as if he wants to retain identity politics when he finds it useful, and reject it when he doesn’t.
“So why the lobsters?”
To demonstrate that hierarchies are not some man-made invention that can be eliminated. It’s a part of life that will always exist. Then he spends an enormous amount of time discussing the potential dangers of hierarchies.
“Peterson rejects the Patriarchy, and his discussion of lobsters is entirely irrelevant to that.”
Yep his discussion of hierarchies is different than his critiques of people who spout on endlessly about the patriarchy.
“I have seen a lot of Peterson, I am not ignorant of his arguments. I still find them hollow.”
No, the problem is you hear his arguments and then can’t restate them accurately. They go into your head and get mangled for whatever reason, and then you insist he means things he most certainly doesn’t mean.
“I am not rejecting his ideas on hierarchies, just how they are presented to support the one we now have. Something he does himself.“
Peterson would like massive changes to the current structure. Sure, he’d not go as far as I would, but he’d go pretty far.
“An observation. Peterson decries identity politics, Yet he says he cannot deal with some people based on what he sees as their identity, namely women. Odd.”
What do you think identity politics means? It has nothing to do with recognizing that men and women are different and treated differently in certain situations.
“Its almost as if he wants to retain identity politics when he finds it useful, and reject it when he doesn’t.”
No, it’s just you heard what he said and then those words got filtered in your head in an incoherent way, and you are blaming him for you failing.
Harold: Jordan Peterson is not a Christian. He is really good on some things (like gender, SJW stuff, cultural Marxism) and full of garbage on others (like psychology and the Bible.)
If you want to see Peterson dissected from a Christian point of view, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y5OdiRnZpw
Jump ahead to 10:35 for the start, and it ends at 54:50. Also, White is just a bit of a slow talker, so you can increase the speed to 1.25 and save yourself some time and keep your brain alert.
“Peterson replies that he didn’t mean that, but he meant that there are limits when men interact with men that don’t apply when men interact with women. What limits? He doesn’t say here, but in his previous statement he made clear it was violence. His clarification does not actually negate the interviewer’s interpretation, but tries to sidestep it. What is he actually talking about? Does he feel hos inability to hit women makes it impossible to deal with certain types of women? As with him so often, each is left to make up their own mind because his meaning is so opaque.“
If you ever dated a crazy woman before you’d know exactly what he meant. https://m.worldstarhiphop.com/apple/video.php?v=wshh68I8fvG86w4sYC68
I don’t know what point you are trying to make. There are crazy people everywhere. The clip you showed was a clear assault on the big guy by the woman.
Correct me if you think I am wrong, but Peterson’s idea seems to be that if the person attacking him was a man, then the big guy could have hit him. Even if the man was a bit of a weed. Great, the big, tough guy could have laid him out. In Peterson world, this would have inhibited the man from behaving in this way, so the problem would not have arisen. Instead, in our world, the big guy walked off, and diffused the situation.
Nobody at work should have to put up with that. I wholeheartedly agree. The man was assaulted by a woman and there should be sanctions against her. The man showed admirable restraint. However, I don’t see that things should be different if it was a man rather than a woman doing the assault.
This is what Peterson seems to be suggesting. Instead of thinking violence is always an option with a man, why not think violence is never an option, unless your physical integrity is actually threatened? Then it does not matter if you are dealing with a man or a woman. Your response can be exactly the same, and there is not need at all to invoke some concept of men being unable to deal with “crazy women.” Just think of them as “crazy people.”
In this instance, the apparent prohibition aganst violence aganst women prevented any further violence (beyond the food throwing). That seems a good outcome to me. Why not extend this to everyone, instead of giving violence a pass between men, as Peterson seems to want to do?
And once again, Peterson’s idea of men not being able to deal with crazy women because they cannot resort to violence is debunked.
I also reject the idea that violence against women is a universal no-no. Believe me, there are plenty of women who can attest to the opposite. Male violence against women is not a myth. If we could reject Peterson’s free pass for some sorts of violence we may get towards a better society.
“If we could reject Peterson’s free pass for some sorts of violence, we may get towards a better society.”
Spoken like a true anarchist. Indeed.
“Instead, in our world, the big guy walked off, and diffused the situation.”
I don’t see a diffused situation here. She was following him continually harassing him.
From my personal perspective I much rather would have it being harassed by a man than a woman. At least with a man I can answer in kind. I am not one who thinks escalating is a good idea so I wouldn’t hit out. But I may would shove back, run my hand through his face etc… But I can’t do that with a woman. I just can’t answer in kind, when it gets physical.
With a woman I could only run away. And if she doesn’t stop call the police. But what are they going to do here? They can’t take her into custody for having shoved him, could they?
And what Peterson means finally is that since among men it is clear that if anyone ever gets physical, he may well be answered in kind as well, so this possible outcome carries over into the part where the debate is still civil, and makes it more civil, less likely for anyone going crazy. But since women know that mentally sane men cannot answer in kind when they get physical some abuse this situation, by pressuring men to their will by physically abusing them like in the video.
Which might mean, that men try to avoid this situation in the first place, and don’t really discuss as hard as they would with a man, since they don’t want to risk that the woman starts being physically abusive.
Now I would say to Peterson, so what? Who cares, that is reality. If a man doesn’t stand for his opinion because of that possibility he is a weakling. I never hold back when I discuss with women, and if one would ever start snapping, then I would try to ignore it, get away from her, and cut her out of my life.
I think this is too much fuss that is made about this. Yes Peterson is right about this, this is reality, and you could see it in the video. The men didn’t even try to argue. He was helpless. The only option he has is to leave her for good. Obviously, that might be a lot harder if she is your wife, and you have kids, then this is nightmare.
Can you agree with me?
* The mAn didn’t even try to argue. He was helpless.*
” They can’t take her into custody for having shoved him, could they?”
I believe they absolutely could take her into custody for assaulting him with the ice cream, or whatever it was. I doubt they actually would if they were called. in part, because they would not have all the facts to hand, and also because society does not accept that a big man can be assaulted by a little woman. He does have a case for assault and I believe the woman should be held to account. There is no excuse for that abusive behaviour.
It is possible for big men to abused by women. Exacty the same rules should apply. Watching the video again, I am not sure of the realtionship between the main protagonists. Are they partners? He does seem to be in abusive realationship if that is the case and he probably should leave her, because it is very hard to change that dynamic. This applies whether the man or the woman is the abuser.
This is exactly where we should abandon identity politics and treat all people equally. Don’t think this is a woman, or this is a man, but this is a human being. Why can we not behave to everyone the same? Lets drop this identy politics crap and treat everyone as human, and make an assumtion that violence is off the table unless absolutely required to protect yourself.
This is where Peterson as a clinical psychologist and Peterson as a political activist come into conflict. It is perfectly OK to talk to individuals given their actual personal experiences and their prejudices etc. How he would advise an individual shuld be very different from how he should advocate society should operate.
So you may say to an individual woman (or man) that showing too much emotion in the work place may do you harm for promotion. It may be good advice for that individual to hold back on displays of emotion, if that individual says they want a promotion in the particulat environment they find themselves in.
It is very different to say that this is good for society. I think Peterson gets these mixed up, or at least conveys the impression that good advice for individuals is good advice for all..
Agreed. Before the law everyone should be treated the same. And I also don’t see where Peterson would argue for the contrary.
As I understand it he merely states a reality, that it seems some might not want to see. The different dynamic between men, or men and women is there. You cannot change it. Nevertheless, as you say before the law this should not make a difference. And though I am not saying it is actually handled the right way now, still I would ask, is it actually right to treat it really completely the same?
Think about the situation in the video the other way around. This would be a horrible frightening scene. Why? Because the big guy losing his shit on a small weak woman (BTW in is not much different, if it were a child, or for that matter a small weak man) means serious things might happen, with grave consequences. But as long as the woman does it, it is rather funny.
And there is a good reason for this. You always want that the side with a lot actual power is mentally stable and in control of his/her emotions. That is what you want to have as a societal norm/pressure. You WANT that strong big individuals do not take it out on small defenceless individuals. And since for the most part man are the strong ones, and women the weak ones, you have this difference in how those situations are seen by people in general. She losing her shit on him is annoying, him losing his shit on her is dangerous.
So the police behaving differently depending on the side being crazy here must not really mean they treat them differently if they factor in possible consequences of such situations. So, the situation is actually NOT the same just because either side acts the same. They are different. What would be basically equal though is, him losing it on her, or her losing it on 5 year old. Right?
Also in defence of her in the video. Her losing it on him does not mean she would lose it on an equally weaker individual like a child. And for that matter him keeping it together here, doesn’t mean he wouldn’t lose it if the other side was… well hm the Marvel Hulk.
I am not sure what to the police should or should not do here actually. Because obviously I am not arguing for the police to not do anything here just because there is a low probability for something serious to happen to him. Though I see why it is not the same, and why there is a good reason to be handled differently by the police. Yet that doesn’t mean it would be different treatment before the law, because it just isn’t the same situation. What it is, is a big can of worms…
Thinking about it, the reason abusers are seldom arrested is because the victim refuses to press charges.The reasons are complex. The role of the police in the first instance is to keep the peace and ensure everyone’s safety.
“You cannot change it. ”
Yes you can. That is the problem. Peterson throws up his hands and says “men can’t deal with crazy women” when they can learn to do so if they give up their fixed idea. Just take violence off the table unless your physical integrity is actually threatened. A woman or a man calling you a Nazi is not that.
Peterson comes from a cinical psycholgy background. I am sure lots of individual men do have the problem he identifies. They do find it hard to deal with women because their techniques for dealing with stuff are so based on violence. The answer is not to say nothing can be done, but teach these men, or at least the next ones, to deal with stuff in a different way.
Sorry for late reply.
You do not understand what it is that cannot be changed. Yes you can teach some men a thing or two how to deal with women especially crazy women. Yet the fundamental fact doesn’t go away, and cannot be wished out of existence, which does make real world differences no matter what men do or not do.
As an analogy I try this: Imagine wage negotiations with you employer. Usually it is said you need to make clear to your employer how well you work etc, and all that BS. But the hard truth that really makes you able to negotiate a higher wage is, that you might quit if you don’t get it. And it is not necessary to threaten with leaving, not at all. Your employer and you know full well, if he doesn’t keep you happy enough salary-wise, you might go to another company that will pay you what you want, or make your own company. So not even bringing the topic up, still changes how the conversation goes. On the other hand, imaging it was impossible to quit, that makes it impossible to negotiate. Yes if you sugarcoat what you say, maybe you can get your employer to give you something, but that is not really meaningful nor will it work in the long term.
So, if arguments are tough between two individuals, the possibility of both parties being able to retaliate accordingly if one side completely “steps out of line” keeps the argument civil. But if one sides hands are tied, while the other can do a lot of stuff (like in the video) with impunity (as long as not threating the other sides health), then guess what, the side that can snap without repercussions, will snap a lot more often. This fact you cannot change, because it ultimately doesn’t depend on what the men do or not do. If you know the other side cannot touch you, people are more likely to (men and women) insult the other side, to behave abusive to them, be demeaning etc… That is just reality.
I went back to the original video where Peterson brought this up. And what was most interesting is that he said it wasn’t himself who came up with that but his wife, and he was telling it here to an old school feminist Camille Paglia, who also understood what he said there. This should not be an argument from authority, but it should indicate that it just isn’t coming from Petersons violent phantasies as so many people try to spin it (even you I think, by inferring he argues for hitting people who call you a Nazi, which isn’t true at all). If it were, his wife wouldn’t be the originator of this, and you can bet Camille would have protested heavily.
And finally, sorry for the lengthy reply, because funnily enough the first comment below the video sums it up perfectly:
“I bounced in nightclubs. When a man gets out of line, it gets physical. Women know, its not going to get physical, so they can go crazy. And they do.”
So you cannot change this, and the only people who can control crazy women is women themselves. That is all Peterson is saying. (Obviously it is nearly the same vice versa, mostly only men can control crazy men, but it is for different reasons here). So basically, both women and men have to run away when the other side gets crazy. In a way it is not even that unfair.
One more thing I want to add. Because I think what you think is:
If the threat of it getting really physical is really the answer then it means, if someone goes a step above civil, like calling names e.g., calling you a Nazi, means automatically you would need to answer with said physicality, right? Like hitting the other side who calls you that..
No, because that is not how things escalate. It is not that one side oversteps slightly, and the next step is war. No, it is ratchet effect of escalation. Both sides escalate step by step. One side may lead and the other merely following the escalation, nevertheless both need to escalate their behavior until TSHTF.
But for men there is only so much room for escalation if they argue with a woman. They cannot match what the women can do by long shot, women can be really physical to men without really threatening their health. However men literally cannot even touch women. So there is no ratchet affect possible, hence women can insult (sane proper behaving) men with impunity because they know nothing can go wrong for them.
However among men, even starting to insult could start a ratchet affect that might end badly. That is the heart of the matter. Men insulting other men could lead to a fight. Women insulting men cannot, so they do a lot more often.
Well if that doesn’t make it clear I guess we will have to disagree.
“This is what Peterson seems to be suggesting.”
It’s not. I’ve already discussed this issue with you when I told you the story of the crazy girl who threw a sad iron at me. It’s not about wanting to use violence. It’s just a fact of the world that women can get away with a lot more than men. Jordan Peterson not only doesn’t say we should use violence to solve it, he says that it is largely a problem that men will struggle to address and that it’s better suited for sane women to handle.
I’ll give you another example. I was at a gas station the other day, and these 4 punk ass high school kids were about to get into a fight with some old man. I started heading over to get in between them. As I was, one kid was squaring up to throw a haymaker. The old man’s wife stepped in between and started pushing the kid and ripped the shit out of his shirt. The kids didn’t know what to do. Then I got over there and got in the middle and separated everyone and made the kids walk away.
Had that old woman not stepped in, her husband would’ve gotten laid out before I got there (moron was walking in with his chest and chin out and hands at his side.) And had that old woman been a man, the kids would’ve immediately started fighting back. The fact she was a woman and there are different rules saved her and her husband.
Women live by a different set of rules. The threat of violence is lower. Stating this fact doesn’t mean you wish you could hit women. It’s just acknowledging that because women can get away with more there are going to be crazy women that take advantage of that situation. And I agree with JP that sane women are in a much better position to deal with this problem than men are.
The reason you can’t seem to grasp this even though it’s been pointed out to you numerous times is likely because you oppose JP ideologically and seem incapable of reading him charitably. I’m sure even now you’ll continue interpreting this point that numerous men have made over the years as a desire for women to face violence.
#wearenotlobsters
I am watching the whole thing here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sSe6FSrylc
But what the f*** is happenining with the viewpoint? One second he is on the left, the next on the right! It does not seem to be a change of camera.
This is pretty much verbatim from the inteview:
“We talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the bounds of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. That is forbidden with discourse with women… If a man is crazy enough or offensive enough the reaction becomes physical. Or at leat the threat is there.
If you a talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstance then you are talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.”
This last line shows how he is wrong. He is saying that he does not respect say Ghandi, the Pope or the Dalai Lama because they would almost certainly refuse to have a physical fight with him. The whole premise is clearly and obviously wrong.
Then he talks about a woman in Toronto who is organising against him, using the swastika for example. He claims he is powerless because “the techinques I woud use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me.”
Does that make any sense to you? It does not to me. How would it be different if it was man in Toronto? Seriously, what point is he trying to make? If it was man in Toronto he might go up there and thump him? So a man in Toronto would not be so inflammatory, for fear of being thumped? So he could deal with a man in Toronto organising against him by using swastikas, but not a woman? It really makes no sense to me, but perhaps you can explain.
One; I absolutely reject the principle he espouses that as a man you can have no respect for another man who refuses to fight you. Do you agree or disagree?
Two: I reject the idea that this makes any difference to interactions except direct personal ones. Sure, men have a problem dealing with violent women personally, but that is very different from public figures such as Peterson not being able to deal with female politcal opposition.
And how does this look to women who are far and away the victims of male physical abuse? He is basically saying that physical violence is the natural and almost unavoidable end point of male on male disagreements. How does that make a woman feel who may wish to disagree with a male? Maybe they will feel theatened, because apparently the only way men can deal with disagreement is through violence?
He may (or may not, really who knows?) not be absolutely saying he wants to hit women, but he is implying that men who do are simply acting out their natural aggression, and women would be well advised to avoid putting themselves in the way.
“ It really makes no sense to me, but perhaps you can explain.”
It’s been explained. Over and over and over and over again to you. You’ve not once even shown any ability to comprehend what multiple people have tried to explain to you. It’s a waste of time. It’ll be a waste of time the next time you offer your absurd takes on JP, too.
It has not been explained. It has been talked around and hints have been dropped, but no actual explanation of how he would react differently to a male political activist in Toronto compared to a female political activist who was using insulting and possibly libellous claims against him.
First you misunderstand him for sure when you say he wouldn’t respect Ghandi. He does not mean physical fighting literally but standing up for yourself. And there are different ways how you can do that. Obviously in the specific moment he meant if you had to fight physically for something of utmost importance for you. Key phrase “under any circumstance”. Just think of any Saw Movie scene being done to your loved ones, and you needing to fight to maybe save them, yet you still wouldn’t do it? Really?
That you need to interpret him in this way (that he doesn’t respect Ghandi or any other pacifist who used pacifism to fight and risk their lives by doing it that way) shows clearly, in my personal opinion, that you are not fair here. Do you really think he would say that he doesn’t respect Ghandi because he didn’t fought the Brits with his fists?
Anyway, I do agree with you that his example with the Toronto guy is kinda bad. We all know that people (males and females writing to males and females), use the internet and distance to hide and then talk crap about people, they wouldn’t dare were they directly in front of them (now why is that, oh wonder, and there might be several reasons, though the one Peterson is getting at here, is for sure a main one among them). So yes the key issue with the Toronto guy is the distance not what gender he is. But obviously he meant if was face to face from the start. And it was a mistake not pointing the issue of distance out by him. Focusing on the matter of distance here is creating a red herring, that is not the point. The point is women would change much less of what they dare say from behind the internet to a face to face conversation to him than man would.
I respect Ghandi, he had balls! I do not respect people who don’t fight under any circumstance physically if that is the only thing that could save his loved ones. If someone doesn’t fight for himself out of principles, oh man I respect him (I really do hope that Bob isn’t a pacifist under very specific circumstances). If he doesn’t because he is just scared less so, but much more if he still would overcome it at least if it is about his loved ones. So maybe you see the respect issue is not a black and white one either. Having no respect in this specific sense doesn’t mean at all that I wouldn’t talk to such a person. That I wouldn’t take them serious. Or that I would abuse them in any way, nor wish them anything bad. Basic respect for such people is still there.
And if you claim that you have as much respect for a coward as for someone who has the balls to fight back (given the right circumstances! Ah it is so annoying to walk on eggshells all the effing time to avoid having things spun in ridiculous negative ways nowadays), then I call you a liar.
And if the above didn’t make it clear “He is basically saying that physical violence is the natural and almost unavoidable end point of male on male disagreements.” No he didn’t say that.
“If you a talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstance then you are talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.”
He says it straight out! He is talking about violence, as he makes very clear in the same section of speech. He is not talking about standing up for yourself, he is talking about physical violence.
Extending it to “any circumstance” means women are just as likely as men to fight in extremis. I have not seen the Saw films (except the first) but I hazard a guess there were some women protagonists who did nasty, violent things. Try to take a child from a mother and you will likely provoke violence. In these extreme situations nobody is forbidden to use violence, so that explanation makes no sense either.
“That you need to interpret him in this way …shows clearly, in my personal opinion, that you are not fair here. Do you really think he would say that he doesn’t respect Ghandi because he didn’t fought the Brits with his fists?”
It does seem ridiculous, doesn’t it? Yet that is what he is saying. He says this stuff which sounds ridiculous, then his audience thinks “he can’t possibly have meant that. I will interpret him to have meant something he didn’t actually say.” Exactly what that is will depend on the individual. Since it is no longer what he actually said, Peterson can honestly say “I never said that” if challenged in a TV interview.
“But obviously he meant if was face to face from the start. ” You would think so, wouldn’t you? Yet again that is not the case. He says “When men are talking to each other in any serious manner that underlying the threat of physicality is is always there, especially if it is a real conversation, which keeps the thing civilised to some degree”
That ‘especially” means it also applies to not real conversations to some degree.
He then talks about the woman organising against him in Toronto, obviously not a face-to-face thing. She compared him to a Nazi, using a swastika to do so. He says “I am defenceless against that kind of female insanity because the techniques I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me.”
So does he mean face-to-face, or does he mean to include remote interactions? His words indicate the latter, yet it does not make much sense because physical violence is not possible in those circumstances. If we interpret him as meaning only face-to-face. then this is relatively trivial, personal observation and cannot apply to political campaigns. Yet he refers to just such a campaign against him where tactics are forbidden to him.. We end up sort of applying it to all situations, when we think it strictly only applies to “real conversations.” It leaves us with a vague sense of justification for failing to deal with women we don’t like (crazy and harpies, he calls them) due to a poorly explained inability to express our violence.
This is why I say it has not been explained. What exactly does he mean?
He gives it away at the end.
“it is undermining the masculine power of the culture in a way that, I think’s fatal.”
Yes, because loss of masculine power is bound to be fatal.
“And if the above didn’t make it clear “He is basically saying that physical violence is the natural and almost unavoidable end point of male on male disagreements.” No he didn’t say that.
I agree with you there, I did overstate that somewhat.
Well, yes I agree that Peterson isn’t clear enough about this, and what he means in detail specifically in which instance. And maybe I am too generous with my interpretation, because obviously the way you interpret it, it doesn’t make sense, so I try to interpret it that it does. Or another way that would make sense is he is a hidden violent thug. But step back for a moment and look at him, how would you characterize Peterson?
If you watch him getting completely emotional, nearly starting to cry (and it doesn’t look fake to me, he doesn’t strike me as a good actor), when he talks about people coming up to him thanking him for helping them getting their life in order etc.., if you see him on certain videos getting screamed at by a bunch of morons… He isn’t attacking anyone there physically. Yet you see he is clearly affected by this display of, in my view, disgusting behavior. It hurts him emotionally.
So probably deep inside he wishes he could just lash out (who wouldn’t feel like that?), but he doesn’t and never would argue for it in these instances. He often talks about the dark inside of everyone, and what people actually are capable of under the right circumstances (refers to Karl Jung all the time, I haven’t read him), yet people try to deny this side in themselves. I guess that is what it is about for him. That you may feel like that, but you control it, contain it, and redirect it to proper action. And that makes you human, to contain the monsters inside, which he argues, and he is probably right with this, everyone has.
So, do you think he is a violent thug? I think he (or better his wife!) came up with a true fact, yet maybe expressed a bit poorly or with not enough clarifications. Instead of getting sidetracked by that, I would retort: Right Peterson, men cannot deal with crazy women, at least not like they could with crazy men, yet it is basically the same story the other way around. Women (mostly) can’t deal with crazy men either. So, what?
So, do you really think he is a violent thug?
“how would you characterize Peterson?”
I do not think he is a violent thug at all. I characterise him as a very clever and erudite man, who makes subtle arguments. He has a great deal of time for Jung and archetypes and I think he tries to fit too much into that model, as I explain below, but that is just my opinion and I don’t claim to know this for a fact. It is my hypothesis.
Basically, to me he appears to be saying that interactions between men are kept civilised by the threat of violence. He says that is what keeps them civil. Interactions between men and women do not have this threat of violence and therefore there is nothing to keep them civil.
One way to solve his problem of keeping inter-sex discourse civil would be to allow violence against women. He does not advocate this, but simply throws up his hands and says that since violence is off the table there is nothing that can be done. Nonetheless, he is promoting the positive aspects of violence in regulating civil discourse.
One problem with the threat of violence keeping things civil is that it may do so by forcing the physically weaker person to back down. Not always, because the stronger person may not wish to provoke an attack even from a weaker person about something the strong person cares little but the weak person cares a lot. However, given equal stakes it will be the weaker person who backs off. It may maintain civility but does so in an unproductive way.
Another way to solve the problem is to find other ways to keep interactions civil apart from the threat of violence. My thoughts as to why he does not promote this avenue is because it does not fit so well with the archetype model, so this is an example of over-reliance on a this model.
The counter argument is that he is not advocating for any position at all, merely making an observation. This is contradicted by several things. He implies non violent men are not deserving of respect. He says he uses the tactics himself with men and he says the masculine culture is being undermined in a fatal way. These taken together are advocacy for the threat of violence method.
Here, Skylien, you can see perfectly why discussing this with Harold is a waste of time.
“He does not advocate this, but simply throws up his hands and says that since violence is off the table there is nothing that can be done.”
It’s been pointed out numerous times what JP thinks is the solution. None of that solution contained any sort of violence, either. Harold either ignores this for whatever reason, he is just a bad troll, or he is just a liar. Regardless, it’s a waste of time because it happens repeatedly when JP is the subject matter.
His solution is for other people to solve his problem for him (other women to control the crazy ones). That contradicts his message of taking reponsibility for yourself. I can change that sentence “there is nothing that he can do” if it makes you feel better.
He seems to think that women have a way to solve this without violence, since it is men who use the threat of violence to keep things civil. Women can somehow control crazy women without violence.
Why not learn how they do it and try it yourself, Peterson?
At least from now on, I will have a keen eye on how men with women, men with men, and women with women communicate with each other. I want to see if I can sense the aggression level, respect level and how cubtle or open those feelings are.
*cubtle* meant subtle
Either he is disingenuous or remarkably clumsy in his language
It’s pretty clearly both.
I’d be surprised. He does really poorly whenever his ideas are challenged with genuine curiosity rather than these gotcha style interviews. See his Sam Harris and Joe Rogan interviews for examples of Peterson floundering under modest scrutiny.
Better challenge: Name one valuable insight from Jordan Peterson. As far as I can tell, there isn’t one. Nothing I’ve heard him say is simultaneously true, useful, novel, and able to be summarized in a couple paragraphs. A lot of people will tell you how he’s helped people and how his insights are so meaningful and impressive. And I must admit that I bought into it for a moment. I had that feeling of wonder at his Bible lecture series. But if I try to describe what he said that was so impressive, it’s impossible. It’s like he brings together disparate pieces of information in a way that feels meaningful but has no real meaningful content. It’s like a psychological magic trick.
More accurately, I think he’s saying that Ghandi does not respect anyone else but either way, it’s nonsense.
Peterson is saying that if a man were slandering him, then he could threaten to beat him up and look like a tough guy. But because it’s a woman, using the same rhetoric would make him look like a psycho. Of course, Peterson would never say anything that honest and direct; so he’s forced to ramble around and evade the question. It’s ironic that Peterson places such high value on being able to threaten people with physical violence since it’s clear from his autobiographical writings that he is a physical coward.
That first line was meant to be a quote as well. All quoted sections are taken from Harold’s comments.