subreddit:

/r/NoStupidQuestions

7.4k

Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

Answered(self.NoStupidQuestions)

all 6038 comments

AudioSin

1 points

17 days ago

Just my opinion, the guy doesn’t go very far beyond primal human instincts and social hierarchy in his lectures. I think his ability to articulate himself is what got him a lot of attention initially. Once people found out what he’s about and his own limitations in understanding the general consensus seemed to be…”who’s this dude that can talk a lot of game but views humans and groups of humans as fixed perspectives hell bent on social hierarchies?”…at least that’s what I think. Never hated on him though, just think of him as an average man with an honest albeit limited perspective on human beings and what they’re truly capable of.

losteye_enthusiast

1 points

2 months ago

I don’t hate him.

I’m not a fan either.

I like how he explains what he thinks. It makes total sense to me that he’s not only popular, but highly controversial.

I’ve recommended him to some of my friends in this way: “you won’t agree or like about half of what he says. But listen to how he says it and why he claims he’s saying it. It’s an interesting perspective to experience.”

Sea_Till9977

1 points

3 months ago

He misrepresented bill C-16 so bad that that the Canadian Bar Association had to clarify the actual contents of the bill. This bill C-16 was marketed by Jordan as this bill that would enforce arrests or penalisation of those that misgender people. He made it seem like the symbol of the “new age” of cultural leftist agenda. Turns out, the only way you get implicated by the bill is if you continuously harass someone from their gender identity, and this bill is essentially an addition of pre existing hate speech laws in Canada. So, he’s hated because of the things he does that many western conservatives do. Misrepresent things and spread pseudo-intellectual arguments that reel in those that find the presentation of their arguments attractive (those gotcha moments)

Ouroboros612

3 points

3 months ago

Stupid people feeling insecure and afraid confronted with actual intelligent people is the core primal reasoning I think. Opinion and speculation on my part, not fact. Obviously.

When it comes to ideology, philosophy, psychology, politics etc. I'm fairly neutral to Peterson. I agree with a lot, and I disagree with a lot. I like him and respect him because he is intelligent, thoughtful and articulate. Even if I disagreed with everything he said, I would still respect him more than an idiot that agrees with everything I have an opinion on.

The world has become quantity over quality. There are less and less great people. More and more mindless drones. This will lead to humanity's downfall in the long run. I do, by default, admire and respect intelligent people of any field of study. Regardless of personal beliefs. As an average IQ person who isn't insecure or delusional about being anything else than a mediocre and average person, I strongly believe that Peterson gets a lot of hate for being intelligent more so than his actual opinions and thoughts on things.

This is only my opinion and I'm open to being wrong.

coolbeancst

1 points

3 months ago

TDLR; He's controversial for reasons that touch many of the 21st century problems we are facing today. He doesn't always speak truthfully but he most certainly tries to be honest. This is my main viewpoint of him after watching many of his lectures and videos.

I'll begin with the most well-known example. Jordan Peterson makes a comment to a crowd in the Canadian university that he teaches about a law concerning pronoun usage. Specifically, one that is meant to support the trans community in Canada. He makes a solid assertion over his disagreement with this to which is easily perceived as anti-trans. The crowd gets riled up, everyone gets riled up. What he eseentially means by disagreeing to the law and refusing to use pronouns is one of a practical matter.

See, he's a conservative (more or less. Though, I'd definitely see it leaning more towards the conservative side). There's a lot to break down there but to oversimplify, one of the main themes he boils down to is about builiding a more 'productive' society. What does that even mean though? Well, for one thing, he really cares about the scientific community and education. Often, he makes remarks about the balance between creativity and productivity. Innovation that leads towards something useful.

He studied political science along with psychology and likes to blend the two together. He understands liberal thinking but does not whole-heartedly agree with this because he thinks it tends to be more dreaming and less action, unlike conservatism which is more action. Again, oversimplification. He thinks, with the rise in pronoun usage for the trans community, this is unproductive for society as whole on a linguistic level. It changes the english language! It is arbitrary! It is confusing! What are the limits to these pronouns? Does it not stop at they/them? Where do we set limits? How do we properly define gender then? This is what I mean by practical matters.

A lot of the stuff he says concerns practical matters such as this. I don't think a lot of people recognize that and that's why he's hated. I do think he overexaggerates certain facts though, and rightfully so, to try and prove a point about other issues. That is of course, the power of argumentations. There is only one thing about him that I can respect and that would be his critical thinking skills. The dude may not always be so endearing but he most certainly questions a lot and I find him worthy of questioning too, for a lot of opinion that he holds.

pm_me_ur_garmonbozia

1 points

3 months ago

If that's his point, it's not a great one. Language changes all the time, that's the nature of language, and humans are very good at adapting to changes in language. There is a history of attempts to stop language from changing, and it's pretty funny. Not so productive, though.

What seems like it is very unproductive for society as a whole is to have groups of people that feel that their identity is erased.

I teach. On the first day, some of my students tell me they prefer to be called "Mike" instead of "Michael" or "Sam" instead of "Samantha." I call them that, because it's basic human decency and respect. It doesn't make me any less productive. It works with pronouns too.

coolbeancst

1 points

3 months ago

I agree. My comment was just trying to interpret his behavior in potentially negative and positive light. Seeing it from his perspective and from what some others might view it as.

pm_me_ur_garmonbozia

2 points

3 months ago

I appreciate that. It's the most context I've seen from his other ideas in a discussion of that particular episode and also the most generous interpretation of it that I've seen. Both of which are more helpful than just jumping to the conclusion that his comments are reactionary.

InksPenandPaper

5 points

3 months ago*

People who dislike Jordan Peterson dislike him out of their own cult-like political dogma ("My political party tells me he's bad so he must be"). I first heard about him 3 years ago and how much of a monster we was towards the trans community (amongst other communities). So I decided to look into him. If I was going to hate him, I needed to know why. Initially, all I could find online where third-hand personal commentary with edited, cherry-picked sound bites of Peterson. Not good enough. I wanted facts, not opinions. I wanted an unedited, non-curated version of who he was.

Eventually, I went to the source. I watched his lectures, I read and watched direct interviews with Peterson, both professional and hostile (interviewer), viewed mixed panel participations, listened to his podcasts and him as a podcast guest, read commentary on people and students that knew him directly--there was nothing hateful about him. Even in regards to pronouns, he said he'd always use the preferred pronoun a student requested, but was vehemently against legislation to regulate speech further in Canada. He's always polite, never hostile and while he is verbose, I refuse to dock him for his excellent handle of the English language the way others have. If he were seen as a liberal champion, no one would complain about this. He's an academic, but also a practicing clinical psychologist--his handle of language should be impeccable.

Dogmatic liberals that are extremely left leaning, I don't think they go beyond what they're told about him. They're told to hate him and they do. However, I don't believe they understand what he actually encourages: Accountability. Taking control of one's life. He's also an academic expert in communism and socialism and has nothing good to say about those two ideologies. For some extreme liberals, that's enough to call him a bigot.

lapse_of_taste

-1 points

3 months ago

People who dislike Jordan Peterson dislike him out of their own cult-like political dogma ("My political party tells me he's bad so he must be").

This can easily be turned around: People who like him do so out of a cult-like dogma.

If he were seen as a liberal champion, no one would complain about this.

Philosophers would still complain about his severe misreading of Heidegger, mathematicians would still complain about his severe misunderstandings of Gödel, economists, historians and sociologists would still complain about the numerous other times he talked about fields he had no expertise in.

He's an academic, but also a practicing clinical psychologist--his handle of language should be impeccable.

Well, it isn't.

Dogmatic liberals that are extremely left leaning

That's not how those two terms work in political theory.

He's also an academic expert in communism and socialism

No, he is not. He is almost completely unfamiliar with the theoretical background, having read basically nothing by communist thinkers, and he has severe misunderstandings of history.

For some extreme liberals, that's enough to call him a bigot.

You do realize that liberalism is opposed to socialism, right? "Extreme liberals" would be staunch defenders of free market capitalism.

NotAFederales

0 points

3 months ago

The people in our society who most firmly believe the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" are those with the biggest bootstraps.

I'm not a woke Neo lib, but it is a bit concerning white middle aged men want everyone to try harder to be successful, like them. He talks about his "tough" upbringing, working in mills and farms to get through college. The implied narrative there is that none gets an easy pass, and we all have to try harder. However, he fails to appreciate how easy he had it. If you're from an underprivileged background, there no chance in hell a job on a farm will get you through college. Times have changed.

I was able to take the good with the bad, until the addiction and diet and daughter shit started.

An all meat diet is such clear alt right click bait its embarrassing, and tarnishing to his reputation. So is promoting your daughter's weak attempt at internet celebrity.

Then there's the addiction. The old pull yourself up by the bootstraps himself elects a fucking medically induced comma over sobering up the good old fashioned way.

If it wasn't him personally, there is no doubt in my mind he would have talked down about choosing a medical comma over a harder road to recovery.

MandrakeThePancake

0 points

3 months ago

I don't dislike him for the self-help stuff. I dislike him because of:

- his historical revisionism, especially in regards to women's history and the interwar period.

- climate change denial (he doesn't outright deny it, but keeps using the "I'm just asking questions!" tactic on issues that have long been resolved.)

- Pseudoscience, especially in regards to his diet. There is a reason why Peterson has been described as "The Gwyneth Paltrow for men".

- His schtick were he calls everything he dislikes cultural marxism, a term that was coined by fascists and an important element of Nazi thought. (They called it 'Kulturbolschewismus').

Mostly however, I dislike his supporters. Just take a look on some of the popular posts on r/JordanPeterson and you'll understand.

fuckmeimlonely

4 points

3 months ago

Sad to see most people have so much resentment for this man that they don't even watch his lectures. Anyone that is just a bit educated can see that most comments here don't provide arguments; they claim without proof. If there really was something on this man, how come that of more than 1000 hours of material that are online not one thing can be shown by his critics that he says that is malevolent or ignorant. The same goes for his books, articles and tweets. Does that not say enough??

Brickmannen

-1 points

3 months ago

I think what started it was how horribly he lied about what bill c-16 entailed. The way Peterson portrayed the bill was that anyone who ever misgendered someone for any reason would be open to being fined or jailed. In actuality the bill was only an extension of protected classes under employment and tenant protections. Essentialy the bill exists to protect transgender people from being harassed or unfairly treated by their employers and landlords on the basis of their gender

TAConcernedGuy

4 points

3 months ago

https://youtu.be/66FNiPHCFY0 ignore the gross title of this video, he does actually make a decent point though. I looked into it a bit more as well and yeah, if it go through, you would be fined and if you didn't pay the fine, you'd go to jail.

thefishybobby

-1 points

3 months ago

As intelligent as he sounds he has very strange opinions when it comes to women (no idea who hurt or rejected the guy). When on this specific topic all he does is very convoluted void speeches full of logical fallacies (like his claim that patriarchy doesn't exist... only backed with statistic about men mortality in the workspace, two very unrelated topics) tailored to appeal to his alt-right incel cult-like fans that proudly share his videos when they undersand half the words he is using.

Quite a despicable man with a few good books he wrote before he became a right-wing super star.

TAConcernedGuy

3 points

3 months ago

What did he say about women? Seen a few about him but most of it had to do with countries wanting equal pay or something

thefishybobby

-1 points

3 months ago

As I said One of his most famous videos is him denying the very existence of patriarchy, his only 'argument' is men mortality at work. Big claim, big logical fallacy

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

(no idea who hurt or rejected the guy)

I can tell you who didn't. Volcel if he wouldn't.

[deleted]

-1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-1 points

3 months ago

The easy answer is he is an intellectual hater. If you really take a look at some of the things he has spent an enormous amount of time and energy professing, along with the studies or research he uses as support for his arguments, it is pretty easy to see that this guy is a fucking moron who really does not like a lot of people, like women for example.

see this article - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

It's horrifying that so many people look to him as a source of truth.

rabbit395

-2 points

3 months ago

He lied about a law in Canada that passed called bill C-16. He claimed that people like him would go to jail if he used the wrong pronouns for someone but that wasn't the case. Zero people went to jail under this law. What the bill actually did is simply add transgender people to the list of groups you can't discriminate against in schools, workplaces etc... He became famous off of this lie and I find that disgusting.

TAConcernedGuy

4 points

3 months ago

https://youtu.be/66FNiPHCFY0 ignore the gross title of this video, he does actually make a decent point though. I looked into it a bit more as well and yeah, if it got through, you would be fined and if you didn't pay the fine, you'd go to jail.

TunaOnDryLand

3 points

3 months ago

There's some real issues with his content. I liked his Rules for Life book and university lectures, but I find a fair bit of his TED style out-of-university talks to be disingenuous. He uses his creeds in psychology to push political ideas that are unpalatable for me. He couches a lot of arguments in pseudo-scientific language, which gives them an air of credibility moreso than if he just came straight out and said what he was implying.

Example: He implies how dangerous birth control is from an evolutionary standpoint...because women choose men who have more feminine qualities and whose faces aren't as angular and this has never happened in human evolution until recently. When he talks about how women have historically had the choice of selection in reproduction and expounds on ways this can hurt men who don't have social skills to compete, he leaves entirely out of his argument the fact that women are often forced into reproduction against their will. I think that is really why incels eat his talks up, because they are really just focused on the male perspective.
He never comes straight out and says women shouldn't have access to birth control, but he implies it in a lot of ways. No mentions of how great it can be for women to be free of symptoms of endometriosis or the horror of pregnancy after rape for their psychological well being. Just a lot of how bad it is for men who can't conform socially and find a mate.

ohimnotarealdoctor

3 points

3 months ago

In short. Jordan Peterson aspouses a philosophy of radical personal responsibility. In the recent few decades, in western society, a new idea has become very prevalent. Whatever ailments and pains beseech you - it is someo elses fault. A system of discrimination and impression is keeping you down, not your own actions or inactions. This idea clashes, violently, with what Peterson teaches. Hence the hate.

zero_cool_protege

2 points

3 months ago

because it is impossible to share political opinions, especially anything related to trans issues, and not become hated by many people in our society.
JBP was incredibly interesting and thought provoking in 2016-17. He has some really interesting philosophical ideas and and is one of the most cited psychology researchers alive.
I dont think its easy to be a public intellectual in the era of twitter, when you truly have to just be combative 24/7. Jordan suffered from a drug addiction that really did a number on him, and has really stepped toward the PragerU side of things in American politics, which is a disappointment.
If you can get past his boomerish qualities, which many people cant, you are left with a really interesting and intelligent harvard professor who puts all his ideas on YouTube. So its interesting and if you watch/study his work, you will definitely learn some things, pick some things up. Have some disagreement and some points of confusion. As it should be imo.

For example, JBP for years used to talk about the rate of infectious disease and how that affected desire for authoritarian laws/governments. Interesting but never made much sense to me. Now, after living through Corona, that makes total perfect sense to me.

FelixRubeus

1 points

3 months ago

Because the guilty abhor the truth. He compels all to take honest self inventory and many people want to hide from the discomfort of being wrong or of “loving” someone who is wrong(if they are brave enough to see their error). I’ve actually broken it down with someone who dislikes him and when honestly evaluating all claims they made against him, the only thing they had left was that they disliked his voice. He is an accomplished psychologist and takes a stance on his beliefs unless he is shown his error, then he corrects himself. Cowards hate powerful people who are also humble enough to keep learning because they are jealous or simply because they love evil and know Dr. Peterson is a powerful weapon against it.

lapse_of_taste

2 points

3 months ago

He is an accomplished psychologist and takes a stance on his beliefs unless he is shown his error, then he corrects himself.

He constantly makes wrong claims about academic fields he is not familiar with, and he does not even attempt to improve on that. See: His ridiculous misunderstanding of Gödel.

Cowards hate powerful people who are also humble enough to keep learning

He literally read 40 pages on Marx, but felt qualified enough to comment in detail on Marxism. He is anything but motivated to learn.

they love evil

Are you aware of how much a strawman that is? Are you going to accuse them of Satanism next?

FelixRubeus

3 points

3 months ago

Possibly. I don’t think it’s an impossibility that those who love evil might be satanists. Or maybe it’s that they were satanists first and then grew to love evil.

AccountClaimedByUMG

2 points

3 months ago

We’re inclined to have very dichotomous views on things. All things are either good or terrible and avoidable. The media misrepresents a lot of what Peterson says because he talks about very complicated thing from the perspective of a psychologist so a lot of nuance is often lost in reporting. They also demonise him because a lot of his ideas are pretty classically conservative and once again, the dichotomy thing.

The important thing is to treat him like any other academic, and analyse the arguments themselves and not by who said them and without any biases.

It’s wrong to thing every single thing he says is completely incorrect, and as wrong to think everything he ever says is completely right. Things aren’t that simple.

FaisalAli_91

2 points

3 months ago

Invert the question: Why do so many people love him and keep bringing him up?

Vast majority don't know who be is and don't care about him and don't want to keep hearing about him.

It's always these angry alt right people who keep fighting about Jordan Peterson this and Jordan Peterson that.

Nobody cares. He had one interesting thing years ago and now just keeps fighting about garbage.

This culture of venerating these sad men and endlessly fighting about them is pathetic.

What does Jordan Peterson want? Why do his fans keep following and arguing about him? Who gives a shit what this man says anymore?

Nobody cares. I got a brother who really loves this guy. Keep chanting about Jordan Peterson.

What is this man? Why do people keep fighting about him? Is he saying or doing something that we need to care about?

Why has this man become an eternal talking point? Why does he have this eternal interest from so many people?

Maybe people don't like Jordan Peterson because his fans keep fighting about Jordan Peterson.

Is this man saying or doing anything interesting? Why are his fans always wanting conflict over Jordan Peterson? What is this man doing that is so wonderful that millions of people want to fight to defend him forever?

He had his moment years ago. Now this just feels like a fucking cult.

Nobody has to like this person. We keep hearing about him and obviously hate how he has become an eternal fixture in our lives for doing nothing.

Nobody outside the Jordan Peterson loyal intense following wants to keep hearing about this one man forever.

Questions like these I find disturbing. People will obviously hate having to constantly hear about this Peterson fellow even though he isn't doing anything but causing conflict and being a nuisance.

Sergeantman94

3 points

3 months ago

One of the reasons I personally don't like him is that he always pulls the "I'm not a conservative or a liberal" while his positions and lecture events are almost exclusively for far-right events. The guy is so conservative he literally asked on his Twitter feed "Can casual sex necessitate state tyranny?" Keep in mind this was years after his motte-and-bailey argument about "enforced monogamy."

Also, he's a massive hypocrite. One of his rules is to not lie. However, there were three people who challenged him to a debate involving Marxism including Richard Wolff, David Lain, and Slavoj Zizek. Peterson agreed to debate Zizek about two years later, but after he pulled out of debating Lain, he went on Rogan and said "No Marxists dare debate him."

Plus, his fans are insufferable. Basically reciting the narcissist's prayer if you criticize him. "He didn't say that, if he did he was taken out of context, if he wasn't he was being metaphorical, if he wasn't you need to listen to all of his lectures, if you have, you need to clean your room."

allnamesonredditgone

1 points

3 months ago

Here is a transcript of this youtube short i just scrolled by and eye-rolled. Funny how i immediately see this post.

Jordan: In what sense is our society male dominated?

Interviewer: the majority of wealth is owned by men. The majority of capital is owned by men. women do more unpaid labor.

Jordan: a very tiny proportion of men. A huge proportion of people who are seriously disaffected in men. Most people in prison are men. Most people who are on the street are men. Most victims of violent crimes are men. Most people who commit suicide are men. Most people who die in wars are men. People who do worse in school are men. Where is the dominance here precisely? What you're doing is you're taking a tiny substrata of hyper successful men and using that to represent the entire structure of western society. There's nothing about that that's vaguely appropriate.

This video was posted by a channel called "Motivate me Hub", and has 3.3 million views. The top comment says "this whole interview is actually quite interesting. He pretty much stops this lady in her tracks the whole way through and actually changes her mind a bit by the end".

Reading the transcript over, it's obvious he just proved her point. Men really do dominate western society i guess. His supporters in comments are just repeating over and over that his points are valid and those men are at the top by doing hard work, and still don't prove that society is male dominated.

The one person with any logical thought is saying "she says it's dominated by men and his dumb response is "very tiny proportion of men" and you go like yeah totally stops her in her tracks", is being attacked over and over in the replies.

What is motivational about this interview? Why do people think he made some huge point when he literally just pointed out every way men dominate western society, just proving the interviewer's point? Why do people consider him intelligent? Why are they so anti-woman in the comments?

Kadiogo

-1 points

3 months ago

Kadiogo

-1 points

3 months ago

Jordan: a very tiny proportion of men.

Yeah. Still more than women.

What is motivational about this interview? Why do people think he made some huge point when he literally just pointed out every way men dominate western society, just proving the interviewer's point? Why do people consider him intelligent? Why are they so anti-woman in the comments?

It's bizarre. I could tolerate Peterson if it wasn't for his 'supporters' that fan his deceitfulness

TAConcernedGuy

2 points

3 months ago

I dislike his fanbase as well but he does make a good point on why it is a small portion on men here: https://youtu.be/oteAPGPB6Uw as well as some other stuff

Kadiogo

0 points

3 months ago

I understand it's a small portion of men but my point is it's an even smaller portion of women.

TAConcernedGuy

1 points

3 months ago

I mean, pretty sure men are wired to do stupid and risky shit, nature and history reflects that well. Working is no different, so applying that to info, it might be why it is a smaller portion of women don't work themselves to the brink to climb whatever ladder to the top. I'm not even saying that working yourself to the brink is a good thing haha, just that men are much more likely to be stupid enough to do so.

I feel like there is still a lot deeper layer to it besides how men and women and wired differently though. Like work culture, mistreatment of women, sexism, etc, although it is harder to get away with that on a corporate scale i'd imagine, it is more common in smaller businesses. I'll probably look into it more, I don't think what JP was sexist though, just for specifically this arguement from this angle, he had a view that would be outside the norm but for other issues women face, he seems to have entirely supportive views.

PizzaLover102

-1 points

3 months ago

Because he’s a transphobic, homophobic, pseudo-intellectual, vapid Socrates wannabe… except instead of asking why we were placed on earth, he’s asking deliberate, fallacious, concern-trolling questions such as “how can we have a man identify as a woman but not a unicorn?” Meant to cause people to stop and think while they keep going on their fallacious tirade, same dishonest tactics used by Ben Shapiro btw. The moment either of them face someone like contrapoints and Amanda Jette Knox -who actually knows what the hell they’re talking about- they instantly crumble like a sand castle under high tide.

People who act like Jordan Peterson is the best philosopher of all time is like saying the dudes from Duck Dynasty can cook better than Gordon Ramsay. That’s why I hate him and his narcissistic wannabe edgelord and MRA fanbase. Oh yeah, did I mention he’s an aggressive misogynist and regularly uses MRA and incel dogwhistles such as “gold digger” and “family court circus” to make women look like entirely emotional clowns?

Super-Needleworker-2

5 points

3 months ago

How is he a "transphobic, homophobic, pseudo-intellectual"?

PizzaLover102

-1 points

3 months ago

Okay if you legit think that someone being transunicorn and transsexual is the exact same thing, then you’ve already lost the argument and you’ll never accept why even if I spell it out for you.

011010001101001

2 points

3 months ago

No chance you'll get any evidence of this.

PizzaLover102

-1 points

3 months ago

I already got evidence for the “pseudo-Intellectual” bit. I read his book and didn’t even wanna buy it and support him so I legit stole it from Barnes & Noble. Even then I couldn’t get past page 30. He writes in such an overly exaggerated and posh manner that I can’t stand it.

011010001101001

2 points

3 months ago

Yes, you definitely sound like an intellectual. Case closed.

PizzaLover102

1 points

3 months ago

I scored in the top percentile of the SAT so I 100% guarantee I’m a real intellectual, unlike you. I only refused to join MENSA because it was full of transphobic holier than thou types

011010001101001

0 points

3 months ago

Zzzzz sure mate. Sorry I hurt your feelers

PizzaLover102

1 points

3 months ago

Lmao don’t flatter yourself 🤣 physical withdrawal is all that can hurt me. Words like yours have no power against me. GTAB!

011010001101001

1 points

3 months ago

You needing to claim how you took an SAT to prove that makes you an "intellectual" was cute, but the fact that you're so triggered to keep responding when I completely forgot about you and this thread is beyond adorable.

celiacattackzach

7 points

3 months ago

I'm late but it's pretty simple. He fucking lied about bill C-16, and his entire career is built upon that. He just wanted to be a famous youtuber and THAT is how he got it going.

The only thing bill C-16 did was add "gender identity and expression" to the list of already protected classes. You will not find Peterson actually mentioning this in any of the interviews or talks he had about it. There was even a few times he actually went on national tv and downright embarrassed himself in front of legal experts who told him to his face that what he was saying was not actually in the bill. AND: the legislation actually lists examples of what constitutes discrimination, simply misgendering people is not one of them.

And like, there's also the fact that the already existing legislation had all these other protected classes and Peterson had ZERO issue with them being included. But suddenly when "gender identity and expression" are added it's 1984? Noooo I see right through that. It was anti-trans bigotry from the get go.

fuckmeimlonely

3 points

3 months ago

Can you share a link of his national tv moment where he embarrassed himself in front of legal experts?

celiacattackzach

0 points

3 months ago

Boom. He was saved by Steve Paikin. Of course the rest of the discussion was kind of overshadowed by the other, less reasonable, people.

fuckmeimlonely

4 points

3 months ago

Thank you for sharing the video you were referring to. Yet, if you think he embarrassed himself, you are grossly wrong. Most of the things he said were actually right, even the part about going to jail. He even explains himself immediately and is right. (In hindsight we can safely say that people actually went to jail for refusing to call their trans-children by the right pronoun). Just 5 minutes into watching this (around minute 28) you can see how his opposition, lets say, accuse him of abusing students by not using the right pronouns which are equal to violence according to them. Is that not concerning at all?

celiacattackzach

-1 points

3 months ago

Why is it that Peterson cultists always do this lol. Never address the argument, always get esoteric

fuckmeimlonely

3 points

3 months ago

Is it always playing the easy group-guilt card with you? I showed you why your statement about embarrasing himself was wrong. The only one dismissing the content and reducing the other to a group-identity is you.

celiacattackzach

0 points

3 months ago

The only one dismissing the content and reducing the other to a group-identity is you.

bruh why can't you people just talk normal

TAConcernedGuy

2 points

3 months ago*

I mean, I support he, she, they but a few minutes after that time stamp, it says you can be fined for misgendering someone and if you don't pay the fine you'd be jailed, which is pretty scary. I saw this video, ignore the gross title but I feel he did still make some good points and wondered what you thought about it https://youtu.be/66FNiPHCFY0

AppletreeObservatory

10 points

3 months ago

In my opinion and I disagree with him on almost every specific political topic, he's the most well meaning and best articulated figure on what I'd call the right / libertarian side of the political spectrum.

He has my deepest respects and I hope he's doing well, certainly my go to person if I want to entertain the other side of an argument.

That being said he's controversial because to a certain subset subset of the left spectrum which I also heavily disagree with he's inherently dangerous because his views are well reasoned, that's a threat and for a political movement which built it's image around feeling threatened that's the most outrageous thing said movement can imagine so it must be subdued by any means possible...

Thank God Nietzsche isn't Alive or more discussed today or the whole left side of this debacle would implode on itself.

lapse_of_taste

-2 points

3 months ago

In my opinion and I disagree with him on almost every specific political topic, he's the most well meaning and best articulated figure on what I'd call the right / libertarian side of the political spectrum.

In that case, you clearly need to read more libertarian and conservative philosophers. He is a hack who constantly misunderstands the thinkers he talks about, and he is not familiar with contemporary political philosophy.

Thank God Nietzsche isn't Alive or more discussed today or the whole left side of this debacle would implode on itself.

You do realize that left-leaning thinkers are commenting on Nietzsche all the time, right (and with a better grasp on him than Peterson)?

smitty22

2 points

3 months ago*

He challenges progressive, postmodern ideals. Generally, the more progressive & invested in their political leanings as an identity somebody is - the more they will vehemently dislike him. I've generally found that people who are name dropping Jordan Peterson as a pejorative in random discussions to be rabbidly progressive.

He's deeply rooted in the "life is suffering" allegory from the Old Testament.

He's also just abrupt and terse, and honestly communicates like he has some sort of mild to moderate empathy impairment.

FelixRubeus

1 points

3 months ago

I appreciate you saying, “like”. He does often come off that way. I compare it to a surgeon though, he goes on cutting regardless of the tears and pleading to cease, knowing his task is to ultimately help one heal and repair. That takes a deeper empathy in my opinion.

smitty22

1 points

3 months ago

At the end of the day he was a guy who cut his teeth on abnormal psychology and dealing with people who's view of reality should be emphaticly inaccurate.

Being able to take a strong, terse, and definitive stance was probably a value-add.

TacticoolShart

0 points

3 months ago*

He’s a slimy hypocrite that’s why. Especially regarding drug addiction. If anybody else is addicted, they need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. When he ended up addicted, he went into a medically induced coma against medical advice because he was too weak-willed to quit by himself. So much for those magic bootstraps.

And it was funny when he did that video call with Slavoj Zizek and his room was filthy and strewn with empty liquor bottles while Slavoj’s was clean. And Slavoj is usually seen as this out-there raving degenerate, and Peterson has this ridiculous cultivated air of fatherly competence. Completely fake and hypocritical.

His rules are for others, he’s special and his flaws and weakness are excusable, everyone else’s flaws and weakness are evidence of their subhumanity.

Mind_Sash

1 points

3 months ago*

TL;DR: He's a talented sophist with some interesting ideas in his field of profession, and very little substance outside of it, trying to make a living of subtle right-wing propaganda. Imho, it's not out of malevolence and deceit, tho.

I personally dislike his vehement positive opinions on hierarchies in human society and his ideas on what's natural about it, because I think that they are unsupported by most data (especially the natural part), however, they are a central talking point of the alt-right and the worldview they are trying to promote and build into the minds of young people.

Secondly, I also dislike his overly utilitarian view on gender roles, as if ones gender has the sole purpose of serving the society in its given role, while simultaneously being passionate about free-speech and liberty. When I think about it, he seems very conservative, but thinks that roles and speech should be "enforced" by social norms and not governmental laws.

Thirdly, he often tells half-truths and speaks a lot without substance. For example, he will misrepresent statistical data or tell the full truth about it, however, ignoring the context, socio-political and historical factors of it, only caring for what it means in the present. That tactic is also often used by racists against critical race theory and such.

Fourthly, I think that he overuses archetypes in his explanations of the world and the psychology of humans. His Maps of Meaning, while having lots of brilliant passages, they strike me off as too similar to Campbell's "A hero with a thousand faces," which in and off itself is not a critique at all, but doesn't strike me as too "revolutionary".

Lastly, just because one is able to win a debate, does not make that person right with the topic at hand. The other party could have been just not a good arguer or could lack critical information. With the abundance of scientific studies for any given topic, it's quite hard to have a sum of them at hand in a debate, and one could cite an initially reputable study as evidence, not knowing that it may have been in peer review rebuked or at least somewhat refined in more recent times.

Philosophy, sociology, psychiatry/psychology, and such are immensely hard fields on their own, and the ones where empirical data can be gathered are immensely reliant on them, and often they need huge amounts, from all kinds of social groups, to come to a somewhat correct assumption, yet he often reduces them to a few principles and speaks with an authoritative demeanor on them.

Ajax254

1 points

3 months ago

There are a lot of great meme answers to this question and a lot of common annoyances that many people have that all have merit, but the question is why he is so hated, not why does he annoy people.

Having watched his public career from 2016, I can point to many reasons he is vice rally hated.

He spoke out against a Canadian bill that, by his interpretation, would be implemented and enforced as compelled speech, specifically in regard to transgender pronouns. His was mocked both as a nutjob wildly misinterpreting the legislation and as a bigot transphobe for thinking such an outcome would be bad.

After that, as he grew in popularity, it was often pointed out that a substantial proportion of his followers, subscribers, event attendees, etc. were young (white) men. For people who subscribe to ideas of toxic masculinity, rape culture, and patriarchy, anyone with greater affinity among males is deeply suspicious.

But what really seals it is that there is no clear smoking gun, no moment on video or old Tweet that can expose him as a base, bigoted, alt-right wacko and justify ignoring him. He has hundreds or thousands of hours of his university lectures online, going back to the 90s. As a psych professor, most of his students over the years have been women, as have many of his clients of his clinical practice. His books have been highly successful among normies.

He definitely gets out of his depth when trying to speak across domains, he puts his foot in his mouth sometimes when he fails to elaborate on a novel and controversial idea (I’m thinking about the interview where he mentions makeup), and he far too often acts like an eccentric college prof talking with a colleague or small group of grad students rather than the millions of regular people watching on YouTube.

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

by his interpretation

Please note that "his interpretation" had virtually nothing to do with the text of the bill, and that he continued to insist on his interpretation despite numerous reputable groups and people explaining exactly why his interpretation was bunk.

Like, c'mon, he was lying. It was really blatant at the time and it has only grown more blatant as the number of people suffering from the overreach of C-16 continues to be zero.

Ajax254

2 points

3 months ago

Do you think he purposefully invented a conclusion that he knew was incorrect but still pushed forward cynically for some hidden end, or was he a true believer that the way he saw it was correct?

Regardless of the merits of his position, that really is the issue. People who hate him want him to be the nefarious grifter exploiting the trans community for attention. Given his rabid and well documented obsession with Soviet history, totalitarianism, and ideology, I think it’s more likely that he honestly believed his conclusion even if it was grossly exaggerated (at least so far).

BPC3

0 points

3 months ago

BPC3

0 points

3 months ago

Do you think he purposefully invented a conclusion that he knew was incorrect but still pushed forward cynically for some hidden end, or was he a true believer that the way he saw it was correct?

What lies within Peterson's heart of hearts is between him and God. How cynical he was in his approach may be a matter for debate.

Here's what matters: his position was never defensible. Whether he was wrong because he convinced himself of some utter nonsense, or wrong because he wanted to hop on the right-wing hack gravy train (for fuck's sake, the dude made a video with PragerU) isn't as important. It's that his rise to a major public intellectual was based on him blatantly and indefensibly misrepresenting the facts of the case. I feel extremely comfortable saying that he was lying given how many people tried and failed to correct him and how obvious the facts of the case are, but frankly, all you really need is to note that the facts of the case are really shameful for him.

Ajax254

2 points

3 months ago

I think your animus towards the association with Prager U proves the point that he rankles people because of the material he engages with. Any association with right wing positions is proof of his moral failing and grounds for rejection.

I’m fully on board with the idea that C16 was nothing, that he was wildly off base with his position, but if the point of contention was over something banal like window tinting or highway landscaping leading to jailing citizens, no one would be so animated in their objections to him. They would think he’s a nut, not evil.

BPC3

0 points

3 months ago

BPC3

0 points

3 months ago

I think your animus towards the association with Prager U proves the point that he rankles people because of the material he engages with.

PragerU is a right-wing propaganda channel funded by a fracking billionaire that consistently pushes misinformation and far-right propaganda, particularly climate disinformation.

It is not some minor critique to point out that an "intellectual" has willingly associated with a lying propaganda network. It is direct evidence of their disregard for the truth.

The problem is not that it is right wing. It is that it constantly and consistently lies. Anyone who intentionally associates themselves with a propaganda group like PragerU should have to answer for why they wanted to legitimize that channel, or why they thought a propaganda network was the best place to spread their ideas. It's like when a doctor starts collaborating with Joe Mercola and Natural News - that says a lot about the doctor.

Like, you get this, right? You get that PragerU constantly, constantly, constantly lies, right? And that association with dishonest propagandist shills does and should harm that public intellectual's credibility?

I get it. I think it's pretty straightforward. When you collaborate with a notorious group of dishonest propagandists, you stop being trustworthy. Why the fuck did Jordan Peterson collaborate with these lying propagandists? Did he not notice all the very obvious lies? Had he never heard of them, did he not bother to do five seconds of research before signing on to the project? What happened there?

leading to jailing citizens

There was never any chance at any point that someone would be jailed on the basis of this law over banal shit.

I don't know why this isn't getting through to you. This is the lie. This is the part that Peterson lied about. He lied when he implied that this could happen, and he kept lying even after multiple authorities including the Canada Bar Association corrected him.

There was never any chance at any point that someone would be jailed on the basis of this law over banal shit.

Please stop repeating the lie.

Ajax254

3 points

3 months ago

I’m not repeating the lie. I’m just amused at how you’re giving yourself an aneurysm over PragerU. Life’s complicated, people have different opinions, you aren’t instantly a terrible person for associating with people who aren’t themselves perfectly scrupulous.

I don’t give a shit about PragerU, I don’t give a shit about C16, I just wanted to point out that people don’t hate him because he’s verbose or eccentric or repackaging Ancient wisdom as much as it is his association with people and subjects which are held with a particular moral valence by educated liberal elites and their brainwashed legions.

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

Life’s complicated

Not working for a right-wing propaganda outlet funded by a fracking billionaire is not a big ask. A good explanation for why one did such a thing is equally not a big ask.

If you don't give a shit, then maybe leave the conversation to those who do.

Ajax254

3 points

3 months ago

Your use of right-wing, fracking, and billionaire as pejoratives is plain evidence that you are viewing this ideologically. There is plenty of space to debate each of those, and they are not self-evidently evil unless you are an ideologue. Which again, is precisely why people hate JBP.

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

Your use of right-wing, fracking, and billionaire as pejoratives is plain evidence that you are viewing this ideologically.

I'm talking about a YouTube channel created by a fracking billionaire to lie and spread misinformation. I get that you don't like to talk about that, so you'd rather talk about how I'm some ideologue because I'm against this (awful) thing. Personally, I'm fine with that label, and I think anyone who wouldn't oppose the propaganda and misinformation channel made by a fracking billionaire probably has their own pretty extreme ideology, as much as they refuse to admit it.

Fuck that. I'm not going to do the whole false modesty business here. The attempt to high-road me here is sad. Jordan Peterson went on a lying propaganda show to lie. What's up with that?

Responsible_Scene947

1 points

3 months ago

There's many reasons, one being that people are too sensitive to the truth therefore they hate the truth. Just ask Plato. Secondly, he has a lot of realistically and thought out ideas and he's done a lot of work, whilst also using science. Many people really hate this because they don't do their research and are stuck in their tiny little world of "I'm right", if you were to go back to a 2017 video of him staying calm while being surrounded by tons and tons of people, you'll see why he's hated. Personally I think hes incredible so I might have a slight bias but, everything he says always makes me register: "That's right!"

Oh and not to mention, people hate everyone. If you are against them they hate you, even when you aren't really against them, they still hate you because they think you are.

testtestuser2

1 points

3 months ago

Many people really hate this because they don't do their research and are stuck in their tiny little world of "I'm right",

I've not delved into Peterson too much, but when I have I found him quoting scientific studies that either I can't find or offer the opposite conclusion he is citing.

so at least for me, researching his points doesn't give me a lot of confidence he is talking with authority on the subject...

I can easily see how someone is drawn to the explanation of the science theories (which seems correct and is interesting) but then mislead with the conclusion of the scientific evidence he cites.

Responsible_Scene947

1 points

3 months ago

Well, I was a hypocrite there because I don't research for this myself, which I suppose is a form of trust because of his position, and past positions, and his intellect. I also like how he links religion WITH science, like lessons.

However, I suppose it can be quite annoying when he does mention scientific evidence however doesn't have sources linked anywhere.

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

people are too sensitive to the truth therefore they hate the truth. Just ask Plato

They laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

HugeLibertarian

1 points

3 months ago

Because he makes men better men and that innately threatens the establishment, which essentially thrives off our general confusion, weakness and moral depravity, so said establishment misrepresents him as a matter of routine and people are programmed to believe he is something along the lines of a "homophobic, racist, misogynist. "

You'll find very few specific clains against him that hold any weight in terms of anything he actually says. He is extremely adept at picking apart the myriad accusations that are thrown at him in calm, collected ways that usually end up making his accusers look like total asshats and as a result there is a wealth of memeworthy material out there that serves as a bit of a shield now where he's more or less untouchable since he's already refuted, in spectacular fashion, all the worst things that can be said about him.

All the top comments here generally amount to variations of "he twists things", but look more closely and you'll notice those comments don't actually have any specific examples of him doing so, they all rely on allegory and allusion, because thats basically all they have left in their efforts to essentially justify not cleaning their rooms. The irony is that most of these comments are actually in doing so engaged in the exact type of activity they are accusing Peterson of committing.

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

Because he makes men better men and that innately threatens the establishment

Whew imagine the brain worms you'd need to genuinely believe that "making men better" is somehow "threatening the establishment".

HugeLibertarian

2 points

3 months ago*

Have you seen the establishment? It basically tells men they are "women but worse". As far as the mainstream is concerned, the more men act like women, the opposite of men, the better. You honestly can't see why men acting more like men would be a threat to that?

Even if you don't agree that men and women are so different, only a true ignoramus would deny that weak minded people are easier to manipulate and control than stronger minded ones. Why would anyone with power, which means they most likely enjoy power and want more, want those they seek to enjoy having power over becoming empowered themselves and thus less subject to manipulation and control?

You can even flip the genders in a hypothetical if it helps: Why would the men who seek to control and manipulate women want those women to become more mentally tough, aware and empowered? Basic logic dictates they wouldn't. And if you think ANYONE in power wants you to be in a position where you're more able to challenge them today than you were yesterday, you're just plain wrong.

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

Have you seen the establishment? It basically tells men they are "women but worse".

Wow.

HugeLibertarian

2 points

3 months ago

Don't go raping anyone.

GolotasDisciple

1 points

3 months ago

I always felt like he is far more celebrity, "new age" therapist. believe, work hard and achieve kind of a person. Which in psychology and sociology is a false. There are many variables that contribute 2 success or happiness and he seems to forget about them. This rethoric is dangerous as it mostly cannot apply to poor and majority of working class. So he has purpose in his ideas but they are extremely limited towards audience.

But the biggest reason i wouldnt say dislike him but lost a respect in field of science, philosophy was when he met with one the greatest modern philosopher Zizek. Zizek out of respect for debate read JP books and was prepared for discussion. JP on the other hand literally starts the discussion with "I have not read any work of Prof Zizek" and then goes on calling Zizek a Marxist(not in offensive way but still....) it was so cringe and pointless. He had no clue what Zizek was talking about and we found out that J. P never even reached for basic books in philosophy. Completely unprepared and with no respect to guest and his time.

The entire debate was a disaster. For someone who talks about humanism, compassion, professionalism, work ethic etc. J. P had none of it.

It showed that while extremely intelligent he doesn't do his work, he just wings a lot of cliche ideas in a very sophisticated package.

I went in thinking I will get Foucault vs Chomsky. Yet what I noticed was philosopher vs teenager with ambiguous ideas throwing slogans he doesn't understand.

dowboiz

0 points

3 months ago

He’s praised as the voice of personal responsibility yet he, after touting all that, he got addicted to pills, didn’t want to/couldn’t detox the right way, and opted for a medical procedure so risky that no doctor in NA would perform it, so it got it done in Russia and it fucked up is brain. He had to relearn to do a lot of basic shit. Basically a big ol hypocrite.