Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson


Colpy
+6
#1  Top Rated Post
Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson

The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.
Caitlin Flanagan Aug 9, 2018
Rene Johnston / Toronto Star via Getty

Two years ago, I walked downstairs and saw one of my teenage sons watching a strange YouTube video on the television.
“What is that?” I asked.
He turned to me earnestly and explained, “It’s a psychology professor at the University of Toronto talking about Canadian law.”
“Huh?” I said, but he had already turned back to the screen. I figured he had finally gotten to the end of the internet, and this was the very last thing on it.

That night, my son tried to explain the thing to me, but it was a buzzing in my ear, and I wanted to talk about something more interesting. It didn’t matter; it turned out a number of his friends—all of them like him: progressive Democrats, with the full range of social positions you would expect of adolescents growing up in liberal households in blue-bubble Los Angeles—had watched the video as well, and they talked about it to one another.
The boys graduated from high school and went off to colleges where they were exposed to the kind of policed discourse that dominates American campuses. They did not make waves; they did not confront the students who were raging about cultural appropriation and violent speech; in fact, they forged close friendships with many of them. They studied and wrote essays and—in their dorm rooms, on the bus to away games, while they were working out—began listening to more and more podcasts and lectures by this man, Jordan Peterson.




The young men voted for Hillary, they called home in shock when Trump won, they talked about flipping the House, and they followed Peterson to other podcasts—to Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. What they were getting from these lectures and discussions, often lengthy and often on arcane subjects, was perhaps the only sustained argument against identity politics they had heard in their lives.
That might seem like a small thing, but it’s not. With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology. All of these young people, without quite realizing it, were joining a huge group of American college students who were pursuing a parallel curriculum, right under the noses of the people who were delivering their official educations.
Because all of this was happening silently, called down from satellites and poured in through earbuds—and not on campus free-speech zones where it could be monitored, shouted down, and reported to the appropriate authorities—the left was late in realizing what an enormous problem it was becoming for it. It was like the 1960s, when kids were getting radicalized before their parents realized they’d quit glee club. And it was not just college students. Not by a long shot.
Around the country, all sorts of people were listening to these podcasts. Joe Rogan’s sui generis show, with its surpassingly eclectic mix of guests and subjects, was a frequent locus of Peterson’s ideas, whether advanced by the man himself, or by the thinkers with whom he is loosely affiliated. Rogan’s podcast is downloaded many millions of times each month. Whatever was happening, it was happening on a scale and with a rapidity that was beyond the ability of the traditional culture keepers to grasp. When the left finally realized what was happening, all it could do was try to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a spoon.
The alarms sounded when Peterson published what quickly became a massive bestseller, 12 Rules for Life, because books are something that the left recognizes as drivers of culture. The book became the occasion for vicious profiles and editorials, but it was difficult to attack the work on ideological grounds, because it was an apolitical self-help book that was at once more literary and more helpful than most, and that was moreover a commercial success. All of this frustrated the critics. It’s just common sense! they would say, in one arch way or another, and that in itself was telling: Why were they so angry about common sense?
The critics knew the book was a bestseller, but they couldn’t really grasp its reach because people like them weren’t reading it, and because it did not originally appear on The New York Times’s list, as it was first published in Canada. However, it is often the bestselling nonfiction book on Amazon, and—perhaps more important—its audiobook has been a massive seller. As with Peterson’s podcasts and videos, the audience is made up of people who are busy with their lives—folding laundry, driving commercial trucks on long hauls, sitting in traffic from cubicle to home, exercising. This book was putting words to deeply held feelings that many of them had not been able to express before.


It’s hard to think of a best-selling self-help book whose author has not appeared on the classic morning shows; these programs—Today and Good Morning America and CBS This Morning—are almost entirely devoted to the subject of self-help. But the producers did their part, and Peterson did not go to their studios to sit among the lifestyle celebrities and talk for a few minutes about the psychological benefits of simple interventions in one’s daily life. This should have stopped progress, except Peterson was by then engaged in something that can only be compared to a conventional book tour if conventional book tours routinely put authors in front of live audiences well in excess of 2,500 people, in addition to the untold millions more listening to podcasts and watching videos. (Videos on Peterson’s YouTube channel have been viewed, overall, tens of millions of times.) It seemed that the book did not need the anointing oils of the Today show.
The left has an obvious and pressing need to unperson him; what he and the other members of the so-called “intellectual dark web” are offering is kryptonite to identity politics. There is an eagerness to attach reputation-destroying ideas to him, such as that he is a supporter of something called “enforced monogamy,” an anthropological concept referring to the social pressures that exist in certain cultures that serve to encourage marriage. He mentioned the term during a wide-ranging interview with a New York Times reporter, which led to the endlessly repeated falsehood that he believes that the government should be in the business of arranging marriages. There is also the inaccurate belief that he refuses to refer to transgender people by the gendered pronoun conforming to their identity. What he refuses to do is to abide by any laws that could require compelled speech.
There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?
It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind. When the poetry editors of The Nation virtuously publish an amateurish but super-woke poem, only to discover that the poem stumbled across several trip wires of political correctness; when these editors (one of them a full professor in the Harvard English department) then jointly write a letter oozing bathos and career anxiety and begging forgiveness from their critics; when the poet himself publishes a statement of his own—a missive falling somewhere between an apology, a Hail Mary pass, and a suicide note; and when all of this is accepted in the houses of the holy as one of the regrettable but minor incidents that take place along the path toward greater justice, something is dying.


When the top man at The New York Times publishes a sober statement about a meeting he had with the president in which he describes instructing Trump about the problem of his “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” and then three days later the paper announces that it has hired a writer who has tweeted about her hatred of white people, of Republicans, of cops, of the president, of the need to stop certain female writers and journalists from “existing,” and when this new hire will not be a beat reporter, but will sit on the paper’s editorial board—having a hand in shaping the opinions the paper presents to the world—then it is no mystery that a parallel culture of ideas has emerged to replace a corrupted system. When even Barack Obama, the poet laureate of identity politics, is moved to issue a message to the faithful, hinting that that they could be tipping their hand on all of this—saying during a speech he delivered in South Africa that a culture is at a dead end when it decides someone has no “standing to speak” if he is a white man—and when even this mayday is ignored, the doomsday clock ticks ever closer to the end.
In the midst of this death rattle has come a group of thinkers, Peterson foremost among them, offering an alternative means of understanding the world to a very large group of people who have been starved for one. His audience is huge and ever more diverse, but a significant number of his fans are white men. The automatic assumption of the left is that this is therefore a red-pilled army, but the opposite is true. The alt-right venerates identity politics just as fervently as the left, as the title of a recent essay reproduced on the alt-right website Counter-Currents reveals: “Jordan Peterson’s Rejection of Identity Politics Allows White Ethnocide.”
If you think that a backlash to the kind of philosophy that resulted in The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming. And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded. All across the country, there are people as repelled by the current White House as they are by the countless and increasingly baroque expressions of identity politics that dominate so much of the culture. These are people who aren’t looking for an ideology; they are looking for ideas. And many of them are getting much better at discerning the good from the bad. The Democratic Party reviles them at its peril; the Republican Party takes them for granted in folly.
Perhaps, then, the most dangerous piece of “common sense” in Peterson’s new book comes at the very beginning, when he imparts the essential piece of wisdom for anyone interested in fighting a powerful, existing order. “Stand up straight,” begins Rule No. 1, “with your shoulders back.”
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Caitlin Flanagan is a contributing editor at The Atlantic. She is the author of Girl Land and To Hell With All That .




Promoted Stories


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...terson/567110/
 
Tecumsehsbones
-1
#2
One might inquire how Ms. Flanagan knows what "dominates American campuses," but that'd be like questioning Mr. Stanley's story about Boushie.
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#3
According to the Saudis, we're holding Jordan Peterson as a political prisoner.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/...tical-prisoner
 
Dixie Cup
+6
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

One might inquire how Ms. Flanagan knows what "dominates American campuses," but that'd be like questioning Mr. Stanley's story about Boushie.


You are kidding right? WOW, what an ignorant post!
 
Ron in Regina
+3
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

One might inquire how Ms. Flanagan knows what "dominates American campuses," but that'd be like questioning Mr. Stanley's story about Boushie.


Seriously, are you even familiar with the story of Colten Boushie and Gerald Stanley?
 
DaSleeper
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Seriously, are you even familiar with the story of Colten Boushie and Gerald Stanley?

He certainly would have been rejected as a juror if he was Canadian!
 
Tecumsehsbones
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Seriously, are you even familiar with the story of Colten Boushie and Gerald Stanley?

Yes, I am, thanks.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie Cup View Post

You are kidding right? WOW, what an ignorant post!

Oh, right, you know it because you know it.

Wow, this crowd is big on epistemology.
 
Dixie Cup
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yes, I am, thanks.



Oh, right, you know it because you know it.

Wow, this crowd is big on epistemology.


And you are a good example, Unfortunately TB "big words" aren't going to help you get out of this one LOL It was a silly post and you know it!
 
DaSleeper
#9
Some people just prevaricate
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie Cup View Post

And you are a good example, Unfortunately TB "big words" aren't going to help you get out of this one LOL It was a silly post and you know it!

And you'll support your argument with LOLs. That being the best you can do.
 
Curious Cdn
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

And you'll support your argument with LOLs. That being the best you can do.

[snicker!]
 
White_Unifier
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson

The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.
Caitlin Flanagan Aug 9, 2018
Rene Johnston / Toronto Star via Getty

Two years ago, I walked downstairs and saw one of my teenage sons watching a strange YouTube video on the television.
“What is that?” I asked.
He turned to me earnestly and explained, “It’s a psychology professor at the University of Toronto talking about Canadian law.”
“Huh?” I said, but he had already turned back to the screen. I figured he had finally gotten to the end of the internet, and this was the very last thing on it.

That night, my son tried to explain the thing to me, but it was a buzzing in my ear, and I wanted to talk about something more interesting. It didn’t matter; it turned out a number of his friends—all of them like him: progressive Democrats, with the full range of social positions you would expect of adolescents growing up in liberal households in blue-bubble Los Angeles—had watched the video as well, and they talked about it to one another.
The boys graduated from high school and went off to colleges where they were exposed to the kind of policed discourse that dominates American campuses. They did not make waves; they did not confront the students who were raging about cultural appropriation and violent speech; in fact, they forged close friendships with many of them. They studied and wrote essays and—in their dorm rooms, on the bus to away games, while they were working out—began listening to more and more podcasts and lectures by this man, Jordan Peterson.




The young men voted for Hillary, they called home in shock when Trump won, they talked about flipping the House, and they followed Peterson to other podcasts—to Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. What they were getting from these lectures and discussions, often lengthy and often on arcane subjects, was perhaps the only sustained argument against identity politics they had heard in their lives.
That might seem like a small thing, but it’s not. With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology. All of these young people, without quite realizing it, were joining a huge group of American college students who were pursuing a parallel curriculum, right under the noses of the people who were delivering their official educations.
Because all of this was happening silently, called down from satellites and poured in through earbuds—and not on campus free-speech zones where it could be monitored, shouted down, and reported to the appropriate authorities—the left was late in realizing what an enormous problem it was becoming for it. It was like the 1960s, when kids were getting radicalized before their parents realized they’d quit glee club. And it was not just college students. Not by a long shot.
Around the country, all sorts of people were listening to these podcasts. Joe Rogan’s sui generis show, with its surpassingly eclectic mix of guests and subjects, was a frequent locus of Peterson’s ideas, whether advanced by the man himself, or by the thinkers with whom he is loosely affiliated. Rogan’s podcast is downloaded many millions of times each month. Whatever was happening, it was happening on a scale and with a rapidity that was beyond the ability of the traditional culture keepers to grasp. When the left finally realized what was happening, all it could do was try to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a spoon.
The alarms sounded when Peterson published what quickly became a massive bestseller, 12 Rules for Life, because books are something that the left recognizes as drivers of culture. The book became the occasion for vicious profiles and editorials, but it was difficult to attack the work on ideological grounds, because it was an apolitical self-help book that was at once more literary and more helpful than most, and that was moreover a commercial success. All of this frustrated the critics. It’s just common sense! they would say, in one arch way or another, and that in itself was telling: Why were they so angry about common sense?
The critics knew the book was a bestseller, but they couldn’t really grasp its reach because people like them weren’t reading it, and because it did not originally appear on The New York Times’s list, as it was first published in Canada. However, it is often the bestselling nonfiction book on Amazon, and—perhaps more important—its audiobook has been a massive seller. As with Peterson’s podcasts and videos, the audience is made up of people who are busy with their lives—folding laundry, driving commercial trucks on long hauls, sitting in traffic from cubicle to home, exercising. This book was putting words to deeply held feelings that many of them had not been able to express before.


It’s hard to think of a best-selling self-help book whose author has not appeared on the classic morning shows; these programs—Today and Good Morning America and CBS This Morning—are almost entirely devoted to the subject of self-help. But the producers did their part, and Peterson did not go to their studios to sit among the lifestyle celebrities and talk for a few minutes about the psychological benefits of simple interventions in one’s daily life. This should have stopped progress, except Peterson was by then engaged in something that can only be compared to a conventional book tour if conventional book tours routinely put authors in front of live audiences well in excess of 2,500 people, in addition to the untold millions more listening to podcasts and watching videos. (Videos on Peterson’s YouTube channel have been viewed, overall, tens of millions of times.) It seemed that the book did not need the anointing oils of the Today show.
The left has an obvious and pressing need to unperson him; what he and the other members of the so-called “intellectual dark web” are offering is kryptonite to identity politics. There is an eagerness to attach reputation-destroying ideas to him, such as that he is a supporter of something called “enforced monogamy,” an anthropological concept referring to the social pressures that exist in certain cultures that serve to encourage marriage. He mentioned the term during a wide-ranging interview with a New York Times reporter, which led to the endlessly repeated falsehood that he believes that the government should be in the business of arranging marriages. There is also the inaccurate belief that he refuses to refer to transgender people by the gendered pronoun conforming to their identity. What he refuses to do is to abide by any laws that could require compelled speech.
There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?
It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind. When the poetry editors of The Nation virtuously publish an amateurish but super-woke poem, only to discover that the poem stumbled across several trip wires of political correctness; when these editors (one of them a full professor in the Harvard English department) then jointly write a letter oozing bathos and career anxiety and begging forgiveness from their critics; when the poet himself publishes a statement of his own—a missive falling somewhere between an apology, a Hail Mary pass, and a suicide note; and when all of this is accepted in the houses of the holy as one of the regrettable but minor incidents that take place along the path toward greater justice, something is dying.


When the top man at The New York Times publishes a sober statement about a meeting he had with the president in which he describes instructing Trump about the problem of his “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” and then three days later the paper announces that it has hired a writer who has tweeted about her hatred of white people, of Republicans, of cops, of the president, of the need to stop certain female writers and journalists from “existing,” and when this new hire will not be a beat reporter, but will sit on the paper’s editorial board—having a hand in shaping the opinions the paper presents to the world—then it is no mystery that a parallel culture of ideas has emerged to replace a corrupted system. When even Barack Obama, the poet laureate of identity politics, is moved to issue a message to the faithful, hinting that that they could be tipping their hand on all of this—saying during a speech he delivered in South Africa that a culture is at a dead end when it decides someone has no “standing to speak” if he is a white man—and when even this mayday is ignored, the doomsday clock ticks ever closer to the end.
In the midst of this death rattle has come a group of thinkers, Peterson foremost among them, offering an alternative means of understanding the world to a very large group of people who have been starved for one. His audience is huge and ever more diverse, but a significant number of his fans are white men. The automatic assumption of the left is that this is therefore a red-pilled army, but the opposite is true. The alt-right venerates identity politics just as fervently as the left, as the title of a recent essay reproduced on the alt-right website Counter-Currents reveals: “Jordan Peterson’s Rejection of Identity Politics Allows White Ethnocide.”
If you think that a backlash to the kind of philosophy that resulted in The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming. And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded. All across the country, there are people as repelled by the current White House as they are by the countless and increasingly baroque expressions of identity politics that dominate so much of the culture. These are people who aren’t looking for an ideology; they are looking for ideas. And many of them are getting much better at discerning the good from the bad. The Democratic Party reviles them at its peril; the Republican Party takes them for granted in folly.
Perhaps, then, the most dangerous piece of “common sense” in Peterson’s new book comes at the very beginning, when he imparts the essential piece of wisdom for anyone interested in fighting a powerful, existing order. “Stand up straight,” begins Rule No. 1, “with your shoulders back.”
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Caitlin Flanagan is a contributing editor at The Atlantic. She is the author of Girl Land and To Hell With All That .




Promoted Stories


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...terson/567110/

The left dislikes Jordan Peterson probably for the same reason it disliked George Orwell: it's bad enough when the right criticizes the left, but how to respond when the left criticizes the left?

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

According to the Saudis, we're holding Jordan Peterson as a political prisoner.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/...tical-prisoner

Why does Soudi Arabia need to make stuff up when it could just bring up the fact that the UNHCR has officially criticized Canada for the separate school system conflicting with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? It could also bring up the matter of underfunding for universal compulsory education on indigenous reserves among other matters too.

To make stuff up costs Saudi Arabia its credibility.
 
Gilgamesh
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

The left dislikes Jordan Peterson probably for the same reason it disliked George Orwell: it's bad enough when the right criticizes the left, but how to respond when the left criticizes the left?



Why does Soudi Arabia need to make stuff up when it could just bring up the fact that the UNHCR has officially criticized Canada for the separate school system conflicting with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? It could also bring up the matter of underfunding for universal compulsory education on indigenous reserves among other matters too.

To make stuff up costs Saudi Arabia its credibility.

Saudi Arabia has never had any credibility.

It was invented 100 years ago by the British & French when they picked a small primitive tribe called Saud.

Apart from their treatment of women, they execute gays, and recently crucified a criminal (just for variety?) and recently had a mass hanging of 'terrorists' who actually were peaceful student protesters, mainly social media types.

Yes our govt was dumb in its actions but Saudi Arabia is a real shithole in the finest of Sharia traditions.
 
Curious Cdn
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Gilgamesh View Post

Saudi Arabia has never had any credibility.

It was invented 100 years ago by the British & French when they picked a small primitive tribe called Saud.

Apart from their treatment of women, they execute gays, and recently crucified a criminal (just for variety?) and recently had a mass hanging of 'terrorists' who actually were peaceful student protesters, mainly social media types.

Yes our govt was dumb in its actions but Saudi Arabia is a real shithole in the finest of Sharia traditions.

TE Lawrence was a major figure in engineering Saudi Arabia into existence.
Creating Chaos: Lawrence of Arabia and the 1916 Arab Revolt | HistoryNet
 
Jinentonix
+4
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

One might inquire how Ms. Flanagan knows what "dominates American campuses," but that'd be like questioning Mr. Stanley's story about Boushie.

Nah. In Canada it would be more like questioning why Boushie and company were cruising around with a firearm.

As for the thread title, the answer is easy. The ALT-left are afraid of Peterson because he's not the least bit intimidated by their stupid little games or their pseudo-science.
 
spilledthebeer
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson

The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.
Caitlin Flanagan Aug 9, 2018
Rene Johnston / Toronto Star via Getty

Two years ago, I walked downstairs and saw one of my teenage sons watching a strange YouTube video on the television.
“What is that?” I asked.
He turned to me earnestly and explained, “It’s a psychology professor at the University of Toronto talking about Canadian law.”
“Huh?” I said, but he had already turned back to the screen. I figured he had finally gotten to the end of the internet, and this was the very last thing on it.

That night, my son tried to explain the thing to me, but it was a buzzing in my ear, and I wanted to talk about something more interesting. It didn’t matter; it turned out a number of his friends—all of them like him: progressive Democrats, with the full range of social positions you would expect of adolescents growing up in liberal households in blue-bubble Los Angeles—had watched the video as well, and they talked about it to one another.
The boys graduated from high school and went off to colleges where they were exposed to the kind of policed discourse that dominates American campuses. They did not make waves; they did not confront the students who were raging about cultural appropriation and violent speech; in fact, they forged close friendships with many of them. They studied and wrote essays and—in their dorm rooms, on the bus to away games, while they were working out—began listening to more and more podcasts and lectures by this man, Jordan Peterson.




The young men voted for Hillary, they called home in shock when Trump won, they talked about flipping the House, and they followed Peterson to other podcasts—to Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. What they were getting from these lectures and discussions, often lengthy and often on arcane subjects, was perhaps the only sustained argument against identity politics they had heard in their lives.
That might seem like a small thing, but it’s not. With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology. All of these young people, without quite realizing it, were joining a huge group of American college students who were pursuing a parallel curriculum, right under the noses of the people who were delivering their official educations.
Because all of this was happening silently, called down from satellites and poured in through earbuds—and not on campus free-speech zones where it could be monitored, shouted down, and reported to the appropriate authorities—the left was late in realizing what an enormous problem it was becoming for it. It was like the 1960s, when kids were getting radicalized before their parents realized they’d quit glee club. And it was not just college students. Not by a long shot.
Around the country, all sorts of people were listening to these podcasts. Joe Rogan’s sui generis show, with its surpassingly eclectic mix of guests and subjects, was a frequent locus of Peterson’s ideas, whether advanced by the man himself, or by the thinkers with whom he is loosely affiliated. Rogan’s podcast is downloaded many millions of times each month. Whatever was happening, it was happening on a scale and with a rapidity that was beyond the ability of the traditional culture keepers to grasp. When the left finally realized what was happening, all it could do was try to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a spoon.
The alarms sounded when Peterson published what quickly became a massive bestseller, 12 Rules for Life, because books are something that the left recognizes as drivers of culture. The book became the occasion for vicious profiles and editorials, but it was difficult to attack the work on ideological grounds, because it was an apolitical self-help book that was at once more literary and more helpful than most, and that was moreover a commercial success. All of this frustrated the critics. It’s just common sense! they would say, in one arch way or another, and that in itself was telling: Why were they so angry about common sense?
The critics knew the book was a bestseller, but they couldn’t really grasp its reach because people like them weren’t reading it, and because it did not originally appear on The New York Times’s list, as it was first published in Canada. However, it is often the bestselling nonfiction book on Amazon, and—perhaps more important—its audiobook has been a massive seller. As with Peterson’s podcasts and videos, the audience is made up of people who are busy with their lives—folding laundry, driving commercial trucks on long hauls, sitting in traffic from cubicle to home, exercising. This book was putting words to deeply held feelings that many of them had not been able to express before.


It’s hard to think of a best-selling self-help book whose author has not appeared on the classic morning shows; these programs—Today and Good Morning America and CBS This Morning—are almost entirely devoted to the subject of self-help. But the producers did their part, and Peterson did not go to their studios to sit among the lifestyle celebrities and talk for a few minutes about the psychological benefits of simple interventions in one’s daily life. This should have stopped progress, except Peterson was by then engaged in something that can only be compared to a conventional book tour if conventional book tours routinely put authors in front of live audiences well in excess of 2,500 people, in addition to the untold millions more listening to podcasts and watching videos. (Videos on Peterson’s YouTube channel have been viewed, overall, tens of millions of times.) It seemed that the book did not need the anointing oils of the Today show.
The left has an obvious and pressing need to unperson him; what he and the other members of the so-called “intellectual dark web” are offering is kryptonite to identity politics. There is an eagerness to attach reputation-destroying ideas to him, such as that he is a supporter of something called “enforced monogamy,” an anthropological concept referring to the social pressures that exist in certain cultures that serve to encourage marriage. He mentioned the term during a wide-ranging interview with a New York Times reporter, which led to the endlessly repeated falsehood that he believes that the government should be in the business of arranging marriages. There is also the inaccurate belief that he refuses to refer to transgender people by the gendered pronoun conforming to their identity. What he refuses to do is to abide by any laws that could require compelled speech.
There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?
It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind. When the poetry editors of The Nation virtuously publish an amateurish but super-woke poem, only to discover that the poem stumbled across several trip wires of political correctness; when these editors (one of them a full professor in the Harvard English department) then jointly write a letter oozing bathos and career anxiety and begging forgiveness from their critics; when the poet himself publishes a statement of his own—a missive falling somewhere between an apology, a Hail Mary pass, and a suicide note; and when all of this is accepted in the houses of the holy as one of the regrettable but minor incidents that take place along the path toward greater justice, something is dying.


When the top man at The New York Times publishes a sober statement about a meeting he had with the president in which he describes instructing Trump about the problem of his “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” and then three days later the paper announces that it has hired a writer who has tweeted about her hatred of white people, of Republicans, of cops, of the president, of the need to stop certain female writers and journalists from “existing,” and when this new hire will not be a beat reporter, but will sit on the paper’s editorial board—having a hand in shaping the opinions the paper presents to the world—then it is no mystery that a parallel culture of ideas has emerged to replace a corrupted system. When even Barack Obama, the poet laureate of identity politics, is moved to issue a message to the faithful, hinting that that they could be tipping their hand on all of this—saying during a speech he delivered in South Africa that a culture is at a dead end when it decides someone has no “standing to speak” if he is a white man—and when even this mayday is ignored, the doomsday clock ticks ever closer to the end.
In the midst of this death rattle has come a group of thinkers, Peterson foremost among them, offering an alternative means of understanding the world to a very large group of people who have been starved for one. His audience is huge and ever more diverse, but a significant number of his fans are white men. The automatic assumption of the left is that this is therefore a red-pilled army, but the opposite is true. The alt-right venerates identity politics just as fervently as the left, as the title of a recent essay reproduced on the alt-right website Counter-Currents reveals: “Jordan Peterson’s Rejection of Identity Politics Allows White Ethnocide.”
If you think that a backlash to the kind of philosophy that resulted in The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming. And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded. All across the country, there are people as repelled by the current White House as they are by the countless and increasingly baroque expressions of identity politics that dominate so much of the culture. These are people who aren’t looking for an ideology; they are looking for ideas. And many of them are getting much better at discerning the good from the bad. The Democratic Party reviles them at its peril; the Republican Party takes them for granted in folly.
Perhaps, then, the most dangerous piece of “common sense” in Peterson’s new book comes at the very beginning, when he imparts the essential piece of wisdom for anyone interested in fighting a powerful, existing order. “Stand up straight,” begins Rule No. 1, “with your shoulders back.”
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Caitlin Flanagan is a contributing editor at The Atlantic. She is the author of Girl Land and To Hell With All That .




Promoted Stories


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...terson/567110/


The Caitlin Flanigan article reveals is how little real parental involvement too many of our kids have had to survive without for far too long!


Our govt and schools have been operating in a vacuum for too long!!


I think of all the WW2 veterans I used to know- and no paper pushers among them- a Battle of Britain Spitfire pilot, a gunner on anti submarine patrols who was judged to old for heavy bomber operations in Europe- at a time when U-boats carried massive anti aircraft defenses to pretect them when running on the surface, an officer from the Tribal class destroyer Restigouche- cut in half by torpedoes in a running fight with a swarm of German destroyers and light cruisers, a Lancaster bomber pilot, an artilleryman who survived the fighting against 12th SS at Carpequet, an American Ranger from Omaha Beach.



NO easy ride for these guys and they each came home with the same thought in mind- never to be really angry about anything ever again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Every single one of them is uncomfortable with strongly held opinions......they have done their time and paid the price and now want peace......at pretty much any price- and that opened the door to the socialist hordes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And now we must fight to get back to where we were and recover the best of our beliefs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The old labels- Conservative and LIE-beral no longer mean much in a world so full of Fake News!


So the kids are wandering........but as Churchill noted: "at age 16 a kid with a conscience will be a communist; but at age 26 a kid with good sense will be a capitalist"!


AS I have said before: ALL LIE-BERAL POLICY IS IN DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



WE now must keep to the honest path and push LIE-berals out of office before they do more damage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Walter
+2
#17
Fear and Loathing of Jordan Peterson
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...on_137836.html

Peterson is brilliant and humble.
 
Gilgamesh
+2
#18
I can't say I agree with everything he says, but mostly his comments are spot on & certainly worth thinking about.

It is no surprise that the usual mindless driveling Left cannot stand him.
 
Mowich
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Fear and Loathing of Jordan Peterson
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...on_137836.html

Peterson is brilliant and humble.


Great article, Walter. Thank you.
 
Tecumsehsbones
-1
#20
I liked when he said "Don't be dependent. At all. Ever. Period."

Yeah, a Canadian philosophy professor in Toronto who is not dependent. For his salary. For his health care. For water, power, and sewage.
 
White_Unifier
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I liked when he said "Don't be dependent. At all. Ever. Period."

Yeah, a Canadian philosophy professor in Toronto who is not dependent. For his salary. For his health care. For water, power, and sewage.

I bet he depends on air, water, and even food.
 
Walter
#22
Depends on someone to grow food.
 
spilledthebeer
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Depends on someone to grow food.


Ah- the illogic of the left!!!!!!!!!!!!


They hate Jordan Peterson because he points out character foibles that make the left ashamed of themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!




Here is an article illustrating just how screwed up and politically so called correct things are getting in Canada. With some comments of my own in brackets):

Wilfrid Laurier University apologizes to teaching assistant over reprimand


Canadian Press.Published: November 21, 2017. Updated: November 22, 2017 10:47 AM EST. Filed Under: Toronto SUN News/Canada

An Ontario university has apologized to a teaching assistant who was severely chastised for airing a clip of a debate featuring a controversial figure, saying the woman was not treated according to the institution’s values.

(HA! Oh yes- she WAS treated according to the values of the institution! The only reason for the apology was FEAR on the part of university staff who feared a major public backlash and loss of GRAVY!)

The president of Wilfrid Laurier University said the school is proceeding with a third-party investigation into the dispute with graduate student Lindsay Shepherd, but said recently revealed audio recordings of her interactions with her immediate superiors made it clear an apology was in order.

President says the “investigation” is proceeding? IN other words they ARE looking for a way to silence this woman without the bother of a public backlash against their reverse bigotry and grissw double standards!)

Shepherd said she discreetly recorded a meeting with three Laurier staff members in which she was roundly criticized for failing to condemn the views of polarizing University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, who has refused to use gender-neutral pronouns. She had aired a clip of a debate featuring the professor as part of a communications tutorial.

On the recording of the meeting, Shepherd is heard tearfully defending her decision to play the clip while staff accuse her of being transphobic and liken her failure to condemn Peterson to remaining neutral on the views of Adolf Hitler.

(OH right- using some made up title to refer to a person who is transitioning-making themselves UNRECOGIZABLE as either male or female- as the first and most vocal critic of Peterson has done is not quite in Nazi territory! Simply being referred to as Miss or Mr- WHILE YOU STILL HAVE ALL THE PROPER PARTS TO QUALIFY FOR THE LABEL is hardly genocide! That you are so unhappy with everything about your life and body is hardly the fault of others!)

“The conversation I heard does not reflect the values and practices to which Laurier aspires,” the university’s president, Deborah MacLatchy, said in a statement Tuesday. “I am sorry it occurred in the way that it did and I regret the impact it had on Lindsay Shepherd.”

Shepherd, 22, said she accepted and welcomed the apology, but felt it rang hollow coming on the heels of intensive media attention around her case.

(I say she heard that communication loud and clear- and fake!)

“Let’s not forget that this was their only option,” she said. “They were basically forced to do it out of public and media shaming.”

(Don’t forget fear of lost gravy!)

The saga began earlier this month when Shepherd led two tutorial groups of students taking a first-year communications course.

As part of a lesson on the complexities of grammar, Shepherd said she was trying to demonstrate that the structure of a language can impact the society in which its spoken in ways people might not anticipate.

To illustrate her point, she said she mentioned that long-standing views on gender had likely been shaped by the gender-specific pronouns that are part of English’s fundamental grammatical structure.

(Gender specific pronouns are part of MOST languages on this planet!)

The clip of Peterson debating sexual diversity scholar Nicholas Matte, she said, was meant to demonstrate ways in which the existence of gender-specific pronouns has caused controversy. A student complaint about the class prompted a meeting with supervisors.

(No- it is medical advancements that permit gender re-assignment that are putting up these problems for desperately unhappy people! And they are lashing out in their anger and frustration as it takes many years and much determination to reach a point where gender re-assignment is on offer- and this causes friction!)

In Shepherd’s recordings of her meeting with superiors, which she shared with The Canadian Press, she is heard arguing that she tried to present the situation neutrally in order to foster debate and discussion, and states that she herself does not support Peterson’s views on gender-neutral pronouns.

Shepherd’s supervisor Nathan Rambukkana is heard explicitly drawing parallels to white supremacist propaganda and is heard saying Shepherd should not have taken a neutral stance on the issue in class.

(IN other words- this student of”communications” is suffering from LIE-beral imposed thought control! LIE-berals do not want debate as they have long ago CLOSED THEIR MINDS to main stream Cdn views!)

In an open letter to Shepherd, Rambukkana apologized.

“While I still think that such material needs to be handled carefully, especially so as to not infringe on the rights of any of our students or make them feel unwelcome in the learning environment, I believe you are right that making a space for controversial or oppositional views is important, and even essential to a university,” he wrote in the letter.

“The trick is how to properly contextualize such material.”

(Yeah- is all a TRICK! A vile hypocrite one dreamed up by LIE-berals who are NOT comfortable with anything resembling free speach- that dissents from THEIR VIEW!)

Rambukkana also apologized for meeting with Shepherd in the company of two other colleagues, responding to criticism that such a setup demonstrated a power imbalance.

Shepherd argued, however, that Rambukkana’s caveat about contextualizing suggests Laurier is still opposed to hearing multiple perspectives on an issue, saying telling students what to think of any given opinion ahead of time cripples their capacity to form their own thoughts.

“It doesn’t matter how nicely you put it, it’s not OK to say that you can’t debate issues and you have to think a certain way,” she said.

(It certainly KILLS debate on any issue- which is of course EXACTLY what LIE-berals WANT! As an example- they are far more interested in discussing punishments for “Islamophobia” than they are in actually DEFINING it! If LIE-berals get their way- it looks like “Islamophobes” can look forward to being hauled into Human Rights- but too often Wrong Kangaroo courts- with the LIE-beral purpose being to intimidate into silence ANY critic of their many failed policies!)

In addition to the inquiry probing Shepherd’s case, MacLatchy said Laurier has also struck a task force looking at issues of academic freedom.

(Judging by the furor around U of T prof Jordan Peterson- the main interest of those concerned about “academic freedom” is finding the best way to channel and LIMIT it!)

“Laurier is committed to the abiding principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression,” she said.

“Giving life to these principles while respecting fundamentally important human rights and our institutional values of diversity and inclusion, is not a simple matter. The intense media interest points to a highly polarizing and very complicated set of issues that is affecting universities across the democratic world.”
 
Cannuck
#24
Why does the left hate Jordan Peterson? Probably the same reason the right hates Colin Kaepernick. Hurt feelings
 
MHz
#25
Really? Here I thought I was the only one on the planet capable of feeling that emotion enough that I actually say something. See how much lower I am than the collective who can hold all that in. Mind you they dish out rather than receive so i have to assume that plays a role on their ability to endure it so long.
 
spilledthebeer
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

The left dislikes Jordan Peterson probably for the same reason it disliked George Orwell: it's bad enough when the right criticizes the left, but how to respond when the left criticizes the left?



Why does Soudi Arabia need to make stuff up when it could just bring up the fact that the UNHCR has officially criticized Canada for the separate school system conflicting with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? It could also bring up the matter of underfunding for universal compulsory education on indigenous reserves among other matters too.

To make stuff up costs Saudi Arabia its credibility.


================================================== ================================================== ====


PITY POOR white unifier for his muddled bigotry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


UNHCR is in disgrace for its bigotry and friendly relations with despots and bankrupt socialists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Christian
#27
Thought Russia mostly scary Leftist nation across Europe it is my believe.
 
Walter
+1
#28
Go away, Avro.
 
Christian
#29
Partnership with car design Volvo of truth believers so I want say smoking marijuana now legal in the Canada pretty.
 
Christian
#30
The left dislike everything about white humanity.
 

Similar Threads

166
Jordan Peterson Fukks Up
by mentalfloss | Mar 3rd, 2018