
What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson? - Chaebixi
https://www.chronicle.com/article/whats-so-dangerous-about/242256
======
Erik816
What is often lost since Peterson became "famous" after the whole gender
pronoun controversy is the quality and depth of his thinking and lecturing
that was already available on YouTube. This article starts with that, and
explains his popularity as a teacher at Harvard and Toronto. I had been
watching his lectures for about a year before the pronoun issue, and his ideas
are fascinating and deep. They tie together many disparate fields and ideas
into an original and interesting synthesis.

But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think
about. There are problems with it, and it deserves to be criticized (Peterson
would be the first to agree). There are also profound insights that can help
elevate your thinking if you can incorporate them. Lots of people don't have
the intellectual background or ability to do so. But everyone can form a 2
second hot take on one of his more recent controversial statements, so that is
what gets discussed.

~~~
mywittyname
I was quite surprised to discover that the alt-right venerate him. I got the
impression that he was pretty liberal. I mean, I support LGBTQ rights, but
don't agree that people should be forced to use appropriate gender pronouns.

I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his
newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely)
awful followers.

~~~
krick
It's not as much "alt-right venerate him", as his ("alt-left", I guss?)
opponents like to mark him "alt-right" for no reason other than he is not as
"left" as they are.

~~~
mywittyname
Based on the recent YT comments on his videos (and the titles of clip
compilations of his lectures), the alt-right definitely appear to hold him up
as some figure head.

I definitely get frustrated when I hear people on the left call him dangerous.
I feel like these aren't even "alt" left people either, it sounds like they
are largely plain old liberals who never heard of him, and blindly toss him in
with the like of Steve Bannon.

~~~
qbaqbaqba
You may find some "alt-right" comments on some of Slavoj Žižek 's videos.

------
lixtra
I would place myself in the conservative corner, but I find Peterson quite
problematic.

1\. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures.
But if you don’t „follow“ and instead analyze what he is saying and how he
forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting
metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s
why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less
conclusive.

2\. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a
useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a
pessimist.)

3\. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing
titles and no silver lining.

2\. and 3. put his followers in a depressed state where he can uplift them
with 1. No wonder he has a sect like following.

His conservative debates are more to the point but I‘m not sure if it is not
just advertising for his „religious lectures“.

That’s what I find dangerous about him.

~~~
stcredzero
_1\. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning
lectures...just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees
fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not
logic and even less conclusive._

Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to
be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language
and to use metaphors. Also, they advise you to throw in sentiments to which
your audience will agree.

 _2\. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not
a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a
pessimist.)_

Do you actually think he says that life is only suffering? Sorry, but that
seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of his views. What evidence do you
have that Dr. Peterson is anti-joy? Here's an exercise: find evidence in what
he says that shows he values joy.

 _3\. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing
titles and no silver lining._

Let's go right for the most disturbing: The Gulag Archipelago. It's disturbing
as an indictment of the worst human beings can do, while those same people are
spouting the most positive sounding utopian ideology. It's not going to
depress anyone in the West, unless they have already tied up their identity
and self worth in a similar ideology.

As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a
worthwhile life -- strikes me as a worthwhile and positive message.

~~~
lixtra
1\. I already agreed that his lectures are appealing. Do you agree that his
arguments are not logic and conclusive?

2\. Fair enough. I shall try if I ever hear his stuff again. With all the
metaphors flying around it shouldn’t be to difficult. But can you point out
where he says it’s so great to be alive?

3\. If you call „I survived the gulag where thousands perished“ as a silver
lining you must have a pretty grim world view.

You agree that the Gulag Archipelago is not a relevant reference point to 95%
of his western audience. If you don’t find it depressing you must have a very
strong character, I would assume a good portion gets depressed (in mood;
clinical depression is out of my judgment).

~~~
stcredzero
_Do you agree that his arguments are not logic and conclusive?_

In that they are public speaking and they are not a thesis. They are public
speaking, and those aren't logical and conclusive. The point you're trying to
make could only stand if all the speakers you like and feel represent your
world view have 100% logically rigorous speeches.

 _But can you point out where he says it’s so great to be alive?_

I don't need to, to refute your silly assertion that he's somehow anti-
happiness. None of these videos are direct statements about joy, because they
are from talks where he is making an entirely differnt point, but it's clear
that he's like any human being who thinks children are wonderful, and likes to
have fun and laugh.

Talking about the potential of children, and of a pristine relationship with
one:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg9TY8uwaSY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg9TY8uwaSY)

Humor:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyWwuv1UkRg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyWwuv1UkRg)

Stoner Comics:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jisfAwMOhrQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jisfAwMOhrQ)

 _3\. If you call „I survived the gulag where thousands perished“ as a silver
lining you must have a pretty grim world view._

Again, not what I said. You said that he put forward books to depress his
audience. That's obviously not true. The Gulag Archipelago is meant to _alarm_
and meant to make a personal, emotional connection to the magnitude of the
possible evil of such flowery sounding utopian ideologies.

 _If you don’t find it depressing you must have a very strong character_

Or, one could be sure that one is in opposition to such ideologies. My
father's older brother disappeared due to one regime with a collectivist
ideology. My family here in the US is only here because the US military
defended their lives from another regime with a collectivist ideology. Why
should The Gulag Archipelago make anyone depressed, as opposed to angry? As
opposed to resolute in the opposition of disguised evil?

I can only imagine it makes someone depressed if they identify with such an
ideology.

What's more, I explicitly cite Dr. Peterson's message, "As for a silver lining
-- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life," as a
silver lining. I find it problematic that you ignore that and try to stuff a
different position in my mouth above.

------
tomsthumb
It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety
of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong.

He is against being _compelled_ to use a variety of gender pronouns by
legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and
additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario
human rights commission which can change their process and definitions without
involvement from an elected legislature.

~~~
stcredzero
Not to mention scientifically dubious tests of "unconscious bias" used against
you as evidence in kangaroo courts -- enshrined into law. That's something
that might be in Room 101 in the world of Orwell's1984.

Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember
the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)

~~~
rosser
The pi thing never actually happened. The bill was proposed but _did not
pass_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill)

~~~
kazinator
All those who jumped on that bandwagon found they couldn't get it rolling,
because the wheels looked like hexagons in order to make _d = 2πr_ work out.

------
indubitable
Surprisingly well written and balanced article in today's world of demonizing
those we disagree with and deifying those we agree with. Something
increasingly lost in the noise is that in the end we're all just people --
something that this article emphasizes.

~~~
Chaebixi
I found it on [http://www.aldaily.com](http://www.aldaily.com). They find some
very good stuff.

------
adomanico
Jordan Peterson is not extreme at all. We are just currently in a climate
where nuanced opinions and observations are ignored by radical ideologues.

~~~
Yetanfou
He is not radical but he is outspoken and does not let himself be cowed. This
antagonises other outspoken people who have been able to silence a large part
of their opposition by labelling them as racist, insert-whatever-identity-
phobe, nazi and such. When they tried the same with Peterson by calling him a
'transphobe' their attempts spectacularly backfired in that they drew the
attention of the general public to Peterson which quickly gave him a much
larger following than he normally would have had.

~~~
mizzack
It's the same pattern with Nicholas Christakis and Bret Weinstein. An
association the article pointed out, but didn't mention the pejorative labels
applied to those two.

------
hashberry
Jordan Peterson became famous after a student tried to debate him about his
"Nazi followers" and gender pronouns:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA)

Many people see him as an enemy because of his conservative viewpoints. His
most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54)

~~~
js8
> his most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago

God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a
single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am
left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.

~~~
api
I'm fairly socially liberal too and on the fence about him. He says a lot of
interesting things and I've never been a fan of postmodernism which I regard
as a form of "pseudo-profound bullshit," but I keep getting hung up by the
fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists.

Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung.
Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.

~~~
jnbiche
> I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers
> are fascists and racists.

Well, given that Peterson has repeatedly pissed them off by saying that ethnic
nationalism is an idiotic ideology (I'm paraphrasing), I'm not sure how many
of those followers he now has left.

He definitely has a very vocal cult-like following among a certain type of
young adult. While they can be annoying, they're not typically the
fascist/racist type. Far from it.

------
beat
Thinking to his issue over pronouns...

He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok,
that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to _not be
an asshole_. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to
oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.

And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and
interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual
cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.

~~~
DanAndersen
Respectfully, I'd like to put this in a different frame.

"Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining
that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that
person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's
nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a
society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time. These things
come about through consensus and if there isn't some consensus that that's the
way things are, then those attempting to impose new norms are ironically also
"being assholes."

When you have moral society in recent decades changing very rapidly in terms
of what is being considered acceptable or not (whether or not you consider
that positive progress), it's going to feel like whiplash to people who are
not on the vanguard of the latest new definition of what's acceptable. People
say, "Wait a second, I was taught to be a decent person, I think I'm a decent
person -- who are these people telling me that I'm now a hateful person for
doing or not doing what seemed reasonable up until a couple years ago? Do the
people telling me this have moral authority in my eyes?"

Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too
fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.

~~~
beat
Most people with unusual gender identities understand this, and are
understanding and patient with those who are making an effort to respect their
wishes. It's those who consciously refuse, or mock their attempts to clarify
their identities, that get called out, and they deserve it.

Yeah, it's hard for us. Hell, I'm 52. I have a lot of adjustment to do. But I
try to do it, because I respect my friends. (Patton Oswald did a really
excellent speech about this, btw.)

For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if
wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being
asked to be nice to others. So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he's being
oppressed by the evil forces of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use
preferred pronouns... I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining
about how he's a victim. And when he doubles down and says people shouldn't
get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society
should choose for them? Then he's a _hypocrite_. And an asshole.

~~~
stcredzero
_So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he 's being oppressed by the evil forces
of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use preferred pronouns..._

But you've never heard that. You've only heard him reject being _coerced_ to
do that. He's even on the record as saying he's fine with addressing people as
they'd like to be addressed, so long as it's all done civilly. What you're
doing is projecting a caricatured position onto him.

 _For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if
wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being
asked to be nice to others._

A law that empowers kangaroo courts isn't "simply asking nice." A law that
empowers those courts to use an unscientific "unconscious bias" test that
claims to get into your head isn't "simply asking nice." A law that can result
in dismissal from your job isn't "simply asking nice."

 _I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he 's a
victim._

He doesn't claim he's a victim. What he claims is that the law is a potential
abridgement of freedom. You could make a claim that Lindsey Shepherd claims to
be a "victim"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFUvfAvKs4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFUvfAvKs4)
\-- but then you'd be presenting evidence that Dr. Peterson's assertions about
the law are correct.

 _And when he doubles down and says people shouldn 't get to choose their own
pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then
he's a hypocrite. And an asshole._

A coworker at my work announced her transition, and everyone just started
using the feminine pronoun. Everyone was civil about it, and everything was
fine. (And I am certain that she was happier and a more vibrant and complete
person for making the change.) Again, you are misrepresenting his position.
More accurately, a person exists within society (and hopefully a community)
and identity is something which is effectively negotiated between the person
and society. It's the parties who are being emotionally dishonest, playing
games with emotional blackmail, and being crappy people who are "being
assholes." From where I'm sitting, it's a lot of emotionally imbalanced trans
"activists" who fit that description. Jordan Peterson gets mail from trans
people, the majority of whom are supporters or sympathetic to him. Their
collective position is that they just want to not be singled out and live
their lives in peace.

~~~
jnbiche
> A law that empowers kangaroo courts sin't "simply asking nice." A law that
> empowers those courts to use an unscientific "unconscious bias" test that
> claims to get into your head isn't "simply asking nice." A law that can
> result in dismissal from your job isn't "simply asking nice."

I'd like to underline this statement. Making this into a law that will impact
employment, sentencing, etc., is not a polite request. It's the power of the
state. When that involves a certain way of speaking, or thinking, a lot of us
civil libertarian types get very uneasy, regardless of the merits of the issue
at hand.

~~~
beat
I'm a civil libertarian myself. It makes _me_ uncomfortable. But people seem
hell-bent on missing my point in order to correct me for God forbid equating
coercion and oppression.

My actual godddamned POINT is that, whatever the logical merits of Peterson's
position coming from _him_ , the practical effect is for a hundred thousand
red-pill assholes to share excerpted clips around, and thinking it means that
a wise philosopher agrees with their joy in being mean to people over their
gender identity.

~~~
stcredzero
No matter what position you pick, some gaggle of idiots on the Internet are
using it as a pretext for being a dick. A lot of the acrimony coming from the
Right is a reaction to others doing it using pretexts from the Left.

The solution is to have reasoned dialogue. If you follow Peterson's message,
he seems to have explicitly decided to minister to lost young clueless right-
wing men, by urging them to clean their rooms, and live worthwhile,
responsible lives. In fact, I remember the video where he talks about becoming
aware that so many of his followers were effectively Alt-Right, and seeing him
hesitate, then say he didn't know what to make of that.

He also talks about the mechanisms by which a crowd can suborn a speaker, so I
think he's actively fighting against that.

 _thinking it means that a wise philosopher agrees with their joy in being
mean to people over their gender identity_

It seems to me that a lot of people did exactly that, coming from the far
Left, in the name of Intersectionality. It was also done with racial identity.
(Google "Feminist Cringe" & "Dartmouth College Library Activists")

~~~
beat
Oh, undoubtedly. There's no small amount of tribalism and moral sadism among
the SJWs, using these sudden shifts in vocabulary as an excuse to berate
people they didn't like in the first place.

Which in no way means intersectionality is a Bad Idea. Intersectionality is a
major advance in the understanding of oppression.

I hope Peterson can actually wake up some of his red-pill followers, and do
more harm than good in the long run. But for now, he really needs to apply
that intellect to dealing with something he wasn't ever prepared to deal with
- being a symbol of intellectual authority to a movement that stands for
things he no doubt despises.

~~~
stcredzero
_I hope Peterson can actually wake up some of his red-pill followers, and do
more harm than good in the long run._

Freudian slip? As George Orwell noted in _Road to Wiggan Pier,_ leftists often
don't so much as love the poor, but hate the rich.

 _But for now, he really needs to apply that intellect to dealing with
something he wasn 't ever prepared to deal with - being a symbol of
intellectual authority to a movement that stands for things he no doubt
despises._

For one thing, I can imagine him basically paraphrasing that sentence. How
come I don't often hear anything like that kind of introspection coming from
the left about the depredations of unbalanced followers? When it does come,
why is it that others on the Far Left then try to kick them out of the Left?
Then too, I hear and read things like, "It's okay to hate your oppressors." I
think I know what it means when people start to say it's okay to hate on a
group of people based on outward and inherent characteristics. I grew up being
on the receiving end of that.

~~~
beat
You're making an awful lot of generalizations with very little substance here.

~~~
stcredzero
You're denying people say "It's okay to hate your oppressors?" You're denying
that people have been trying to kick people like Dave Rubin and Bret Weinstein
out of the Left?

------
sincerely
>He believes that the insistence on the use of gender-neutral pronouns is
rooted in postmodernism, which he sees as thinly disguised Marxism.

I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation
of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand
to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.

~~~
jseliger
"Postmodernism" and "deconstructionism" are often used synonymously:
[https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-
decons...](https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-
deconstruction/) and like many overarching "isms" they've come to mean such
different things that they can be used to mean almost anything.

That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to
teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common
reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or
sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just
change the language.

Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the
powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and
"oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets
grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).

So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the
oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor
and must be opposed.

This, anyway, is the line of thinking, though it isn't my own view of the
world. To say that everything is linguistic seems unlikely. When I was in grad
school in English (note: don't do this:
[https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-
befo...](https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-before-you-
start-grad-school-in-english-literature-the-economic-financial-and-
opportunity-costs/) ) and would hear this argument, I liked to observe that
everyone, given the choice between getting punched in the face or having
someone say something mean to them, chooses the latter. This would seem to me
to argue that not everything can be reduced to language, even apart from all
the other very good and obvious-seeming arguments along those lines.

~~~
dragonwriter
> That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to
> teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common
> reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or
> sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just
> change the language.

> Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the
> powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and
> "oppressed."

Those aren't really separate stands, the latter is a consequence of the
former: if language (or, rather, beliefs which is transmitted between people
by language) is the defining factor in reality, then the ultimately meaningful
differentiation between people is whether they are influential in shaping
belief (powerful) or not (powerless).

It's also directly contrary to the central theme of Marxism, which makes the
association of these particular postmodernist viewpoints with Marxism bizarre.
(Certainly, there are people who moved _from_ Marxism to this kind of
postmodernism, just like there are people who have moved from Marxism to
capitalism or from Marxism to democratic socialism or from Trotskyism to
neoconservatism.

~~~
stcredzero
_It 's also directly contrary to the central theme of Marxism, which makes the
association of these particular postmodernist viewpoints with Marxism
bizarre._

And yet, activists who claim to be Marxist seem to be very well aligned with
others who claim postmodernist derived ideologies.

------
krick
So, to put it short: "What's dangerous about Jordan Peterson is that he makes
ideas we don't like sound plausible"? I don't really see an answer to the
question in title.

Anyway, his lectures for psychology students on youtube are quite nice to
listen, even though I find it problematic how often he treats hard facts off-
handedly to speak in favor of his overall narrative. I wonder if there are
more courses (especially on non-technical subjects) of the same quality freely
available on youtube.

------
m52go
His interview with Camille Paglia is a gem.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM)

~~~
chimen
The "so you're saying" interview. Def. a good watch. Peterson handles it so
good.

~~~
sremani
That interview is with Cathy Newman BBC4 Radio.

Camille is OG feminist, the real deal. Not the 3rd wave Feminists, that are
lying around in the media and academia now a days.

~~~
m52go
Exactly. I've only seen a little bit of her stuff so far but that's been
enough to put her high on my list of people to check out more deeply.

I find this response from her hysterical:

[https://twitter.com/100millionbooks/status/91309969607542784...](https://twitter.com/100millionbooks/status/913099696075427840)

------
empanadada
As an interlocutor, Jordan Peterson seems like a reasonable person to debate
with. But his followers are quite dangerous, much like many other political
thinkers, whose suggestions were modest, but the followers took it to mean
something else...

~~~
ankushnarula
Which followers? And what did they take it to mean?

------
mizzack
I think the "danger" around Jordan Peterson goes beyond the pronoun debate.

Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of
what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his
most vocal enemies.

~~~
api
Why do so many fascists and racists like him then? They're collectivists.

(Not necessarily saying Peterson is a fascist or a racist, but that's a
separate question.)

~~~
mizzack
From a post elsewhere in these comments:

> Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the
> powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and
> "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets
> grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).

> So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are
> the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the
> oppressor and must be opposed.

Same thing applies here. Take note of who is applying these -ist labels, and
who they are being applied to: anyone in the outgroup.

I would be floored to discover if the majority of these strawmen "fascists"
and "racists" are a collective by any definition other than "not on board with
the cause."

------
superquest
Below is a very good related article about the "intellectual dark web"
consisting of academics like Peterson who are being driven out of the academy
by orthodoxy and instead work through podcasts, Youtube, Patreon, etc

[http://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark-
web/](http://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/)

edit:

I made a thread
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120)

~~~
DanAndersen
I think there's something really interesting happening with philosophy and its
use of the Internet as a platform. It's a disruption in the same way that
traditional media is being disrupted.

YouTube debates held by self-made moderators are a sort of spectator sport
where differing schools of thought are battling it out rhetorically. The
audiences are people who are honed by online debate groups and have experience
in one-liner Tweets and trolling to prove a point.

When you think about it, it's not all that new of a concept -- the classical
philosophers had their "schools" but they weren't like formal institutions
with faculty. Philosophers had their followers or acolytes, not matriculated
registered students. Maybe the more calcified academic structures we see
starting to break down are the aberration rather than the norm.

------
emptybits
The article mentions the first interview Sam Harris did with Jordan Peterson.
It appeared frustrating for both parties because they got caught up in
definitions of words, etc. Still, it was civil so they parted and agreed to
talk again. Harris says, "I’d received more listener requests for him than for
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Edward Snowden—or,
indeed, any other person on earth."[0]

Notably, but not in the article, Harris interviewed Peterson again, two months
later.[1]

[0] [https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-
peters...](https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peterson/)

[1] [https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-
chaos/](https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/)

~~~
electrograv
This is key: Continuing discussion is essential to scientific and social
progress -- _especially_ on topics in which you disagree or may even be
offended (if emotions were allowed to dominate), not to the exclusion of such
things.

This inversion from intellectuals _welcoming_ disagreement to _shunning_ it is
a terrifying movement to those who value science and truth-seeking, because in
a worst case scenario it could very realistically lower us into a new dark
age. Just the necessity of an "intellectual dark web" is itself an extremely
concerning reflection of today's intellectual climate, which is becoming
hostile to tenets of rationality and civilized discourse.

When we subtract dialogue and reason from the picture, all we are left with is
emotional conflict -- and rarely do two extremely conflicting emotional views
of a topic resolve automatically without the intervention or guidance of
rationality.

------
jsnk
The article really tries hard to paint Jordan Peterson (JP) as a controversial
figure who espouses fringe messages. The article uses adjectives like
"controversial" and "polarizing" to describe JP. His public presence is
"notoriety". His followers are said to be "something akin to a cult
following". He "appears on TV, including on Fox & Friends, President Trump’s
preferred morning show". WoW so edgy.

But is JP really the one who is controversial and polarizing?

\- JP is against the Pomo stuff that passes for scholarship now a days.
[https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en](https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en)

\- We have professors university calling for violence against his political
opponents. [http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-
professor...](http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-professor-
justifies-antifa-violence-and-jokes-about-dead-cops/)

\- We had a Antifa professor who nearly killed a guy hitting someone with a
heavy bike lock.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg)
(WARNING: GRAPHIC)

Is JP really the one who is polarizing and extreme here? The left academic
really dropped the ball not pointing out their own dirty laundry and cleaning
out their own cesspool of fake academics and violent thugs.

~~~
superquest
I think the article was pretty fair.

He is controversial and polarizing: many people hate him and many people love
him.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/)
and
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes/)
are kind of cultish. It's a very ironic cult, but a bit of a cult nonetheless.

------
ihsw2
In an environment where non-progressives are shunned, he refrains from
shunning them.

Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non-
progressives deserve to be demonized.

And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly
assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason.

We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cows
come home but it doesn't address the fact that people will _always_ seek an
icon to revolve around. The only solution to such a situation, like
insurgencies in war-zones, is de-escalation and re-integration (of militant
progressives and social conservatives into a cohesive society where they both
achieve political representation and fairness in the eyes of the law).

Unfortunately modern-day progressives (regressives) have no interest in this
and as such social conservatives will continue to gravitate towards those that
they don't fully understand but nevertheless find appealing.

~~~
optimuspaul
progressives have been shunned and demonized for so much longer. What did you
expect would happen?

~~~
tomsthumb
Without my agreeing or disagreeing, does that make the above posted ideas
incorrect? If not, why are they downvoted?

~~~
sincerely
Probably the way that poster threw in the "regressive" label for modern
progressives (who I'm guessing a lot of people might identify as) at the end,
if I had to guess.

~~~
tomsthumb
How would you describe the emerging subset of traditional liberals who are
beginning to embrace authoritarian stances in the context of authoritarianism
being largely incompatible with liberal ideals?

Edit: This is a sincere question. If a more useful description or label exists
I would like to know it.

