The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[21 Savage]

Hello fellow JP stans. I come to you in search of help and guidance. I just finished a 5 hour long JP binge (we've all been there haven't we?) and as much as I loved and enjoyed it, I now feel a bit confused and uncertain of what I should do. See I was reading this article of 32 rules for men (I'm a man haha no neomarxist trans here) that Dr. JP had written and I dont fully grasp what he means, which makes sense considering his incredibly high 145+ IQ compared to my measly 128.

I'm going through the rules one by one and I feel like I've got them on lock, my sacred fire is definitely burning. But now that I've reached rule #6 I dont know what to do. Im looking for more experience JP stans to help me out, what are you tips for how to start building the crystal palace? I skipped a head a little bit and consulted the ancestral spirits but to my dismay they responded with silence. I suppose the order of the list is very important.

So far I've tried cleaning my room, I wrote essay that I posted to the JP subreddit about why women should not be encouraged to have careers and I've donated numerous times (increasing amounts) to Dr. JPs patreon page and yet the crystal palace doesnt seem to have begun construction yet. What am I doing wrong?

How do I build the crystal palace?

 

[TheGreatA]

It says the guy was charged, which we all know the old saying about indicting ham sandwiches. Do you know the outcome?

It also seems this case is a bit different. The guy being charged is a member of Parliament and was using the statement on his Facebook page. Are you of the opinion that our leaders (those in authoritative positions) whose inflammatory language could very well have large scale consequences (inciting riots, lynch mobs, etc), should be able to direct hate speech at anyone they please?

I'm not going to debate whether or not what he said qualifies as hate speech, that's a separate issue. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend it was, like he said "I'm calling on all my constituents to kill all transgenders", which C16 now protects, do you think adding gender to discrimination is wrong?

He was fined but it's tough to find English-speaking articles. There are some mistakes in all of them (he never actually made a post calling for a "Muslim-free" Finland, that was another guy who was fined also).

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ti-muslim-agitation-on-facebook-idUSKBN14O1IG

I don't think him being a member of Parliament changes anything. Every citizen ought to be held to the same standard. I also don't think anything he said was "hate speech". It was just speech.

I'm of the belief that we are better off with such speech being unrestricted, no matter how vile, than introducing the possibility of restricting any other kinds of speech. It's not really that difficult to address arguments calling for genocide, by means other than judicial punishment. Calls to kill or maim specific individuals should fall in line with any other type of planning or inciting done to kill individuals, instead of needing a category of its own, as vague as "hate speech".

It could actually be counter-productive if we cannot, as individuals, resolve amongst ourselves why it is wrong to call for the genocide of others, but rather come to expect the punishment handed out by the state to do the arguing in our stead.

 

[helltoupee]

I can't recall the details exactly, but it adds 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' into the protected class groups so if you don't comply then you are 'discriminating against a protected class' which is a thought crime.

Also for clarity, 'Fred' and 'Susan' are nouns and this is referring to pronouns. So it would be more like saying if someone wanted you to use 'Xer' and you didn't want to and instead used 'he' or 'she'

In terms of how someone could get punished, I think the process is that a human rights violation is lodged against you and then you are brought in front of a panel, or something like that. But it affects institutions also because employers become afraid they will violate these rules (which are not clearly defined) so they become enforcers of the new ideology.

It makes them protected against hate speech/discrimination, not just referring to someone as a he or a she. There is a large difference.

Me saying you look like you are 50, when you are actually 20, is not hate speech. Me publishing flyers calling for the death of all 50yo's is hate speech. Similarly, you saying John looks like a she more than a he wouldn't qualify for "human rights violations" or "hate speech".

JP is exaggerating things.

 

[IDL]

It makes them protected against hate speech/discrimination, not just referring to someone as a he or a she. There is a large difference.

Me saying you look like you are 50, when you are actually 20, is not hate speech. Me publishing flyers calling for the death of all 50yo's is hate speech. Similarly, you saying John looks like a she more than a he wouldn't qualify for "human rights violations" or "hate speech".

JP is exaggerating things.

Ah, but by referring to someone as a he or a she when they insist that you use Xer instead is 'denying their identity' which is classified as a protected class, you see. This can be viewed as an act of hate.

What you consider to be an act of hate is irrelevant. It's what charges can be used against you in terms of interpreting it as an act of hate. That's the problem with hate crime, is that it is totally open to interpretation.

And to be clear, the activists that push for this stuff do believe that it is hate and violence.

 

[helltoupee]

He was fined but it's tough to find English-speaking articles. There are some mistakes in all of them (he never actually made a post calling for a "Muslim-free" Finland, it was another guy who was fined).

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ti-muslim-agitation-on-facebook-idUSKBN14O1IG

I don't think him being a member of Parliament changes anything. Every citizen ought to be held to the same standard. I also don't think anything he said was "hate speech". It was just speech.

I'm of the belief that we are better off with such speech being unrestricted, no matter how vile, than introducing the possibility of restricting any other kinds of speech. It's not really that difficult to address arguments calling for genocide, by means other than judicial punishment. Calls to kill or maim specific individuals should fall in line with any other type of planning or inciting done to kill individuals, instead of needing a category of its own.

It could actually be counter-productive if we cannot, as individuals, resolve amongst ourselves why it is wrong to call for the genocide of others, but rather come to expect the punishment handed out by the state to do the arguing in our stead.

While I can appreciate the slippery slope you are alluding to, I can also understand the other side of the argument. As I asked you in my previous post, do you think it should be perfectly ok for the President, or a member of Parliament, to have the complete freedom to publish/call for "Death and dismemberment to all <blacks> <whites> <gays> <Christians> <Muslims> <Trannies> <etc>!!"?

 

[helltoupee]

Ah, but by referring to someone as a he or a she when they insist that you use Xer instead is 'denying their identity' which is classified as a protected class, you see. This can be viewed as an act of hate.

What you consider to be an act of hate is irrelevant. It's what charges can be used against you in terms of interpreting it as an act of hate. That's the problem with hate crime, is that it is totally open to interpretation.

And to be clear, the activists that push for this stuff do believe that it is hate and violence.

Are you of the opinion that all hate crimes should be abolished? What if Trudeau openly calls for "Death to all Christians"? Is that ok?

EDIT: As to your first line, I don't think you are understanding the bill correctly. Me referring to he as a she is not an act of hate, anymore than you referring to your grandmother as an old bag (age discrimination) is an act of hate (in the eyes of the law).

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Hello fellow JP stans. I come to you in search of help and guidance. I just finished a 5 hour long JP binge (we've all been there haven't we?) and as much as I loved and enjoyed it, I now feel a bit confused and uncertain of what I should do. See I was reading this article of 32 rules for men (I'm a man haha no neomarxist trans here) that Dr. JP had written and I dont fully grasp what he means, which makes sense considering his incredibly high 145+ IQ compared to my measly 128.

I'm going through the rules one by one and I feel like I've got them on lock, my sacred fire is definitely burning. But now that I've reached rule #6 I dont know what to do. Im looking for more experience JP stans to help me out, what are you tips for how to start building the crystal palace? I skipped a head a little bit and consulted the ancestral spirits but to my dismay they responded with silence. I suppose the order of the list is very important.

So far I've tried cleaning my room, I wrote essay that I posted to the JP subreddit about why women should not be encouraged to have careers and I've donated numerous times (increasing amounts) to Dr. JPs patreon page and yet the crystal palace doesnt seem to have begun construction yet. What am I doing wrong?

How do I build the crystal palace?

 

[TheGreatA]

While I can appreciate the slippery slope you are alluding to, I can also understand the other side of the argument. As I asked you in my previous post, do you think it should be perfectly ok for the President, or a member of Parliament, to have the complete freedom to publish/call for "Death and dismemberment to all <blacks> <whites> <gays> <Christians> <Muslims> <Trannies> <etc>!!"?

Yes. Perfectly ok in the sense that there will be no judicial punishment for it (a fine, a prison sentence, etc.). Punishment as far as being seen as a total asshole who will never win another election in their life? That's another thing entirely.

I think we have reached the point of civilization, where we no longer need the state to enforce certain limits on speech, to prevent malevolent agendas from spreading. I would hope that we have reached the point where we, as men, can no longer merely be "incited" to genocide others, by an authoritative figure, "abusing" their power.

I could, of course, be absolutely wrong about that, and we might only be a couple of spoke lines away from going on a mass murder spree. Therefore I can understand why such laws would be imposed. I'm not a hard-liner in that regard. But I would hope that there is enough trust between each other, a social pact of sorts, a shared understanding, that there is no longer a need for the state itself to intervene with the speech of the individual.

The individual has grown to be an adult, and no longer belongs in the kindergarten.

 

[IDL]

Are you of the opinion that all hate crimes should be abolished? What if Trudeau openly calls for "Death to all Christians"? Is that ok?

I'm not sure about that example. I'd be curious as to how that sort of thing was prior to hate crime legislation and infrastructure. I don't think it's OK for Trudeau to call for the death of Christians personally, but we're just talking legal framework here. I do get the valid concern (grain of truth) nestled into what I view as something very open to abuse (and I think it has always meant to be a conduit to bypass the existing legal system to enforce ideology, but that is an aside).

As to whether I think it should be abolished, hard to say. I think it will cause more harm than good over the long run, I can say that, as the authoritarianism behind it grows. I'd need to know more about law to say whether or not I think it should be abolished all together (as in, what existing legislation would take up the slack). At the very least, it should be limited and kept an eye on.

 

[helltoupee]

Yes. Perfectly ok in the sense that there will be no judicial punishment for it (a fine, a prison sentence, etc.). Punishment as far as being seen as a total asshole who will never win another election in their life? That's another thing entirely.

I think we have reached the point of civilization, where we no longer need the state to enforce certain limits on speech, to prevent malevolent agendas from spreading. I would hope that we have reached the point where we, as men, can no longer merely be "incited" to genocide others, by an authoritative figure, "abusing" their power.

I could, of course, be absolutely wrong about that, and we might only be a couple of spoke lines away from going on a mass murder spree. Therefore I can understand why such laws would be imposed. I'm not a hard-liner in that regard. But I would hope that there is enough trust between each other, a social pact of sorts, a shared understanding, that there is no longer a need for the state itself to intervene with the speech of the individual.

The individual has grown to be an adult, and no longer belongs in the kindergarten.

You make some good points, however I think you are underestimating the potential power that a leader holds in antagonizing violence.

Sometimes free speech must be tempered. It's the same thing with yelling "I have a bomb" on an airplane.

As my father once told me, you are perfectly free to swing your arms in any direction you want. But the point where your arm meets another person's face is where that freedom ends. Hate speech, especially by a person in a position of authority, has a very real potential to violate someone else's freedom to live peacefully, or to even live at all.

 

[helltoupee]

I'm not sure about that example. I'd be curious as to how that sort of thing was prior to hate crime legislation and infrastructure. I don't think it's OK for Trudeau to call for the death of Christians personally, but we're just talking legal framework here. I do get the valid concern (grain of truth) nestled into what I view as something very open to abuse (and I think it has always meant to be a conduit to bypass the existing legal system to enforce ideology, but that is an aside).

As to whether I think it should be abolished, hard to say. I think it will cause more harm than good over the long run, I can say that, as the authoritarianism behind it grows. I'd need to know more about law to say whether or not I think it should be abolished all together (as in, what existing legislation would take up the slack). At the very least, it should be limited and kept an eye on.

I think we partially agree. I can understand the perspective from both sides. Over the long run, I'm not too sure that existing discrimination law has led to a net negative effect on society as whole, although I do understand the theoretical proposal that it could.

One thing that people often forget is that coming together as a society necessitates certain compromises.

 

[IDL]

EDIT: As to your first line, I don't think you are understanding the bill correctly. Me referring to he as a she is not an act of hate, anymore than you referring to your grandmother as an old bag (age discrimination) is an act of hate (in the eyes of the law).

So the question is: Can misgendering someone (using he or she instead of Xer) be considered descrimination.

According to Canada's humans right commissioner:

"Refusing to address a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, is discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code (employment, housing, and services like education)"

http://torontosun.com/2016/11/13/hu...-hir/wcm/0254ab55-ade7-40f4-b1f3-553b75b10842

That seems fairly definitive, yes? In that it can be considered discrimination in the eyes of the organization that would enforce it.

Not just walking down the street by the looks of it, but in Peterson's position (education) and any other 'social area covered by the code' it does.

 

[TheGreatA]

You make some good points, however I think you are underestimating the potential power that a leader holds in antagonizing violence.

Sometimes free speech must be tempered. It's the same thing with yelling "I have a bomb" on an airplane.

As my father once told me, you are perfectly free to swing your arms in any direction you want. But the point where your arm meets another person's face is where that freedom ends. Hate speech, especially by a person in a position of authority, has a very real potential to violate someone else's freedom to live peacefully, or to even live at all.

I think that power is very real. But I also think that we, as a collective, understand more about power structures and how they affect us, than ever before. The individual really has no excuse not to know, compared to, say, a hundred years ago.

It should be our responsibility to process that information, and decide whether we act upon it or not.

You certainly need some sort of a guiding structure in countries which have seen genocides and wars in recent times, and the state can provide that. But here in the West, we've come pretty far from the World War 2 days. As a Finn, we've never really experienced any genocides or such things, so the reality of something like that happening because of a drunken politician tweeting after a terrorist attack, are pretty low. Traditionally, we've never really been a people that could be "riled up" by authority. That's why, to the common man, being punished for something like that comes off as a fairly radical, even Orwellian move on the part of a state, one that hardly seems necessary. Much different than if we lived, for example, in a post-World War 2 Germany, where people did buy into authority figures.

I do think that a President calling for the dismemberment of, for example, a group of Muslims, can already be addressed without hate speech laws. That's pretty much an open threat or a conspiracy to kill people.

 

[helltoupee]

So the question is: Can misgendering someone (using he or she instead of Xer) be considered descrimination.

According to Canada's humans right commissioner:

"Refusing to address a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, is discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code (employment, housing, and services like education)"

http://torontosun.com/2016/11/13/hu...-hir/wcm/0254ab55-ade7-40f4-b1f3-553b75b10842

That seems fairly definitive, yes? In that it can be considered discrimination in the eyes of the organization that would enforce it.

Not just walking down the street by the looks of it, but in Petersons position (education) and any other 'social area covered by the code' it does.

So it's basically saying exactly what I said. You can't deny rent/employment/education to someone simply because they are a she who looks at themselves as a he, just as you can't refuse the aforementioned for someone saying they are a Christian. That's discrimination, and a bit different than calling someone a pronoun on the street (as the whole "regulated pronoun/forced speech" argument implies).

Look at it this way. If a man walks into a prop. mgmt. office and says "I'd like to rent a home" and he happens to be wearing a cross, I can't say "no, I'm not renting to you because you are a Christian - in fact I think you look more like a Muslim, so screw off". C16 is mandating that if a girl walks into your office and you say "sorry, I'm not renting to you because you look like a man", it's prosecutable as discrimination. Same thing. It's not saying you have to refer to people as specific pronouns. It's saying you can't use your own personal judgement as to what someone looks like to discriminate them.

 

[helltoupee]

I think that power is very real. But I also think that we, as a collective, understand more about power structures and how they affect us, than ever before. The individual really has no excuse not to know, compared to, say, a hundred years ago.

It should be our responsibility to process that information, and decide whether we act upon it or not.

You certainly need some sort of a guiding structure in countries which have seen genocides and wars in recent times, and the state can provide that. But here in the West, we've come pretty far from the World War 2 days. As a Finn, we've never really experienced any genocides or such things, so the reality of something like that happening because of a drunken politician tweeting after a terrorist attack, are pretty low. Traditionally, we've never really been a people that could be "riled up" by authority. That's why, to the common man, being punished for something like that comes off as a fairly radical, even Orwellian move on the part of a state, one that hardly seems necessary. Much different than if we lived, for example, in a post-World War 2 Germany, where people did buy into authority figures.

I do think that a President calling for the dismemberment of, for example, a group of Muslims, can already be addressed without hate speech laws. That's pretty much an open threat or a conspiracy to kill people.

Fair enough. Heading to the bar for some fights. Thanks for keeping the conversation civil.

 

[IDL]

So it's basically saying exactly what I said. You can't deny rent/employment/education to someone simply because they are a she who looks at themselves as a he, just as you can't refuse the aforementioned for someone saying they are a Christian. That's discrimination, and a bit different than calling someone a pronoun on the street (as the whole "regulated pronoun/forced speech" argument implies).

Look at it this way. If a man walks into a prop. mgmt. office and says "I'd like to rent a home" and he happens to be wearing a cross, I can't say "no, I'm not renting to you because you are a Christian - in fact I think you look more like a Muslim, so screw off". C16 is mandating that if a girl walks into your office and you say "sorry, I'm not renting to you because you look like a man", it's prosecutable as discrimination. Same thing. It's not saying you have to refer to people as specific pronouns. It's saying you can't use your own personal judgement as to what someone looks like to discriminate them.

No, we were specifically referring to misgendering someone. Not denying them housing or anything like that.

It is saying that the act of misgendering someone is discrimination against a protected class, and thus is a thought crime according to the tribunal that enforces this stuff.

You didn't think that it could be considered as such, but it looks like it can indeed.

 

[ocean size]

I have also noticed the disgusting snobbery over Peterson's Patreon. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything he says or does, but those that criticize and attack him are convinced that makes him pure evil.

"Ugh, Peterson is making $50,000 from his Patreon. What a hateful asshole (sneer)."

I don't think he was saying anything out of line there, that wouldn't be reciprocated in atleast some of Nietzsche's works.

Nietzsche said a lot of things, some of which might seem contradictory to one another.

There's no way to interpret Nietzsche in a way that is pro-Christian. He did absolutely disagree with Christianity's principles. But he also begrudgingly respected those who stuck to their principles, instead of meekly following an ideology of someone else's.

I wouldn't be surprised if the end result of Peterson's "intellectual quest" is the abandonment of a Christian identity. I reckon he holds onto that because he believes there to be a lot of power in the metaphors, that are still relevant in today's climate, perhaps especially relevant. But he's starting to reach a cross-roads on where it's becoming increasingly difficult, for him as any kind of a modern intellectual, to separate the metaphors from the "real".

It would ultimately be much easier for him to defend his ideas from a secular platform, rather than relying on Christian metaphors.

I didn't get past the first minute but describing Fritz's view as against the institution of Christianity and not the core principles as slave morality is misleading at best. That doesn't mean he never said anything positive about it though

I'd be surprised if he did abandon Christianity. He seems to like the motifs and mythology in that Cambellian way that where they add subjective richness or part of the human experience. Perhaps he'd decide Christianity need not be elevated over other myth though but it is certainly woven into the fabric of western consciousness.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm not entirely sure why even those who deem themselves to be strongly on the "scientific" and "atheist" side of the debate, would think any differently. It ought to be fairly obvious that our scientific understanding of the world is far from complete. It ought to be fairly obvious as well, that those gaps will need to be filled with what we believe to be our best understanding of the situation at hand, moral codes which have positively contributed to the development of prospering societies.

If we simply leave those gaps unaddressed, then the void may be filled with ideologies which might argue, for example, that the destruction of other competing bio-organisms is to our ultimate benefit. Which may ultimately prove out to be completely, utterly wrong, as we gain a more complete understanding of nature, yet it is not necessarily something that one could fully argue against from a scientific/amoral perspective, based on our current understanding of the situation, unless the moral implications of doing something like that are taken into account.

Personally I believe there's a limit to human rationality. You can never teach a cat algebra, I think there are somethings out there in the universe that are to us what algebra is to a cat. Incomprehensible.

 

[IDL]

Personally I believe there's a limit to human rationality. You can never teach a cat algebra, I think there are somethings out there in the universe that are to us what algebra is to a cat. Incomprehensible.

That is probably true. And to take your point to its farthest reaches, you could say that the only way for any single human to understand the universe fully, would be to hold it all inside their mind.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I have also noticed the disgusting snobbery over Peterson's Patreon. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything he says or does, but those that criticize and attack him are convinced that makes him pure evil.

"Ugh, Peterson is making $50,000 from his Patreon. What a hateful asshole (sneer)."

Spoiler

I think its rational to consider his Patreon. Funding sources can very well influence someone. We consider this when it comes to lobbyists, why not Patreon?