Has the Left Flip Flopped on Free Speech?

My broad take on this.  The 12 part thing is, on its face, no worse than innocuous.  I knew nothing about the guy at the beginning of the thread but my early reaction was "this is an intellectual who's very self-consciously creating an affeted public persona" and that kind of thing always says "caution" to me regardless of the ideological stripes.   That reaction seems to be vindicated by the article written by the long time colleague.  

If I at, I think this is his biggest problem, and he is the cause of it.

“It is easy to make anyone look moronic or sinister when you control the means of their representation.“

His lack of clarity in his thinking forces us to interpret his thoughts in our own way. It’s either a mistake or deliberate, but either way, he has failed to take control of his representation. The blog post you linked to regarding his use of enforced monogamy did nothing but muddy the water. I haven’t yet watched the interview with Brand, and might not have the mental energy to do the whole thing, but every other debate or interview I have seen leaves me with more questions than before.

Does he still lecture at Toronto? I want to send him my Tufte books.

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Very long, but by far the best thing I have read on the current topic so far (present commenters excluded):

The Intellectual We Deserve (Current Affairs)

 You beat me to it! I was just about to post the same thing. Yeah, excellent piece.

 Thanks, that is a very good article.  The author puts into words what I feel reading (or listening, since the guy seems to rely on videos instead of essays) - a nagging feeling that he's deliberately being vague.  For example:
"But, having examined Peterson’s work closely, I think the 'misinterpretation' of Peterson is only partially a result of leftists reading him through an ideological prism. A more important reason why Peterson is 'misinterpreted' is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is 'actually saying.' People can have such angry arguments about Peterson, seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected."

 Re-posting this from last week, because I think this is consistent with Mr. Ridski's summary.

terp said:
Here's something that happened to be trending on my newsfeed during my morning commute.  The Shocking Truth About Jordan Peterson.  The writer articulates the situation quite well IMO.  Here are some highlights: 

Another highlight:

Here is the Achilles’ heel of the campaign to oust Jordan Peterson from the margins of respectable society: You don’t have to outsource your judgment to journalistic authorities in the age of the internet. You can see for yourself.

But when I do see for myself, it’s never enough, is it, for the person who has seen more than I have and who has reached an opinion that differs from mine (even if that person has stated a few times that I’m welcome to disagree). I could ask that person how much Marx, say, he had read before coming to conclusions about Marxism, but that would be beside my point, which is that while completely ignoring original sources is a problem, the expertise and insights of “mediators” are valuable tools on the path to understanding. And when we consider them — parsing their observations, reconciling contradictions, wrestling with our biases — that’s us exercising our judgment, not outsourcing it.

An irony about Dr. Peterson is that, while his looping prose can seem impenetrable, or fit the description that "his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected", he also has a reputation as a guru of how to write:

https://medium.com/practicecomesfirst/dr-jordan-b-petersons-10-step-guide-to-clearer-thinking-through-essay-writing-1ab79a94937

ridski said:

“It is easy to make anyone look moronic or sinister when you control the means of their representation.“

And the New York Times laments, in the wake of a mass shooting, that the underlying cause of such extreme events is that “boys are broken,” implying that the swamp that feeds such monstrous excrescences which must be drained — is masculine identity itself.

It was a guest column.

DaveSchmidt said:

And when we consider them — parsing their observations, reconciling contradictions, wrestling with our biases — that’s us exercising our judgment, not outsourcing it.

this is where I'm at.  I'm not a fan of watching videos of lectures anyway.  It's often pretty easy to manipulate an audience through a host of rhetorical techniques.  Plus, it can take a lot of time.

So I've read some comments from a number of people, some of whom appear to be admirers of Peterson. And even the admirers' summaries aren't persuading me that he has anything worth my time to watch or read.

I'm not here trashing him though because it wouldn't be fair to do so if I haven't made myself familiar with his work.

Having said all that, I don't see this as a free speech issue at all.  Free speech doesn't mean you get to insist that other people summarize your work in a way that you approve of.  The antidote to being misrepresented is to do a better job of representing yourself.

DaveSchmidt said:

But when I do see for myself, it’s never enough, is it, for the person who has seen more than I have and who has reached an opinion that differs from mine (even if that person has stated a few times that I’m welcome to disagree). I could ask that person how much Marx, say, he had read before coming to conclusions about Marxism, but that would be beside my point, which is that while completely ignoring original sources is a problem, the expertise and insights of “mediators” are valuable tools on the path to understanding. And when we consider them — parsing their observations, reconciling contradictions, wrestling with our biases — that’s us exercising our judgment, not outsourcing it.

 Indeed, if we have to read every one of his books and watch every one of his videos x number of times in order to express an opinion, why are we even having this conversation? 

ml1 said:

Having said all that, I don't see this as a free speech issue at all.  Free speech doesn't mean you get to insist that other people summarize your work in a way that you approve of.  The antidote to being misrepresented is to do a better job of representing yourself. 

Peterson’s warning about free speech, which he elaborates on with Russell Brand, is that postmodernism and political correctness are restricting it to a dangerous extent, particularly in academia. Leftist backlashes, for example, cause educators to have second thoughts about discussing taboo topics.

I’ve always been fond of second thoughts. Thank you, postmodernism and PC.

terp said:
... It's a good conversation.  It seems like Brand likes him, but does challenge him on some things quite fairly and earnestly IMO. 

Link

 I agree, thanks for sharing.

ETA: Good explanation of the '12 steps'. Neither vague or vacillating

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Having said all that, I don't see this as a free speech issue at all.  Free speech doesn't mean you get to insist that other people summarize your work in a way that you approve of.  The antidote to being misrepresented is to do a better job of representing yourself. 

Peterson’s warning about free speech, which he elaborates on with Russell Brand, is that postmodernism and political correctness are restricting it to a dangerous extent, particularly in academia. Leftist backlashes, for example, cause educators to have second thoughts about discussing taboo topics.
I’ve always been fond of second thoughts. Thank you, postmodernism and PC.

What is an example of a taboo topic? And who is in charge of the topic list?  

lord_pabulum said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Peterson’s warning about free speech, which he elaborates on with Russell Brand, is that postmodernism and political correctness are restricting it to a dangerous extent, particularly in academia. Leftist backlashes, for example, cause educators to have second thoughts about discussing taboo topics.
I’ve always been fond of second thoughts. Thank you, postmodernism and PC.

What is an example of a taboo topic? And who is in charge of the topic list?  

The example that Peterson gives in the Brand interview is sex-based differences in personality traits. In his example, the person in charge of the topic list is the professor who is deciding what to lecture about.

Disclaimer: My previous post, quoted above, is a glancing comment on one or two minutes of an hour-and-a-half interview, and not intended to encompass the totality of Peterson’s views on free speech.

tom said:

DaveSchmidt said:

But when I do see for myself, it’s never enough, is it, for the person who has seen more than I have and who has reached an opinion that differs from mine (even if that person has stated a few times that I’m welcome to disagree). I could ask that person how much Marx, say, he had read before coming to conclusions about Marxism, but that would be beside my point, which is that while completely ignoring original sources is a problem, the expertise and insights of “mediators” are valuable tools on the path to understanding. And when we consider them — parsing their observations, reconciling contradictions, wrestling with our biases — that’s us exercising our judgment, not outsourcing it.

 Indeed, if we have to read every one of his books and watch every one of his videos x number of times in order to express an opinion, why are we even having this conversation? 

 Because drummerboy posted a hit piece about Peterson.  I beleive he did this because the IDW was mentioned early in this thread and Peterson is considered a member.

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that you have to like Peterson.  However, it does seem that people are quick to form strong negative opinions based on very little and on what seem to be hit pieces.  They then seem to seek information to enforce that opinion .o

One of the issues with Peterson is that it's not so simple to put him in an ideological box.  Furthermore, his opinions are not articulated in sound bites like we've become accustomed to from other public figures.  Perhaps that partially explains the confusion in the Cathy Newmann interview; it seemed like she was trying to get soundbite representations of his views but failing horribly. Some seem to indicate that this is because he is evasive, but I don't think that's quite right.  He goes into the lions den with opposition and does explain himself.

It's one of the reasons I prefer to watch/listen to long form interviews like the previously posted Russel Brand over the typical television format.  You get an understanding of the interviewee's perspective and even how he or she got to that perspective.  

I have still not seen any mention of Dr. Petersen in the MSM. Does this mean that he is a marginal figure or that he is a monumental figure whose theories are being supressed?

terp said:

tom said:

DaveSchmidt said:

But when I do see for myself, it’s never enough, is it, for the person who has seen more than I have and who has reached an opinion that differs from mine (even if that person has stated a few times that I’m welcome to disagree). I could ask that person how much Marx, say, he had read before coming to conclusions about Marxism, but that would be beside my point, which is that while completely ignoring original sources is a problem, the expertise and insights of “mediators” are valuable tools on the path to understanding. And when we consider them — parsing their observations, reconciling contradictions, wrestling with our biases — that’s us exercising our judgment, not outsourcing it.

 Indeed, if we have to read every one of his books and watch every one of his videos x number of times in order to express an opinion, why are we even having this conversation? 

 Because drummerboy posted a hit piece about Peterson.  I beleive he did this because the IDW was mentioned early in this thread and Peterson is considered a member.
I'm not sure that anyone is saying that you have to like Peterson.  However, it does seem that people are quick to form strong negative opinions based on very little and on what seem to be hit pieces.  They then seem to seek information to enforce that opinion .o
One of the issues with Peterson is that it's not so simple to put him in an ideological box.  Furthermore, his opinions are not articulated in sound bites like we've become accustomed to from other public figures.  Perhaps that partially explains the confusion in the Cathy Newmann interview; it seemed like she was trying to get soundbite representations of his views but failing horribly. Some seem to indicate that this is because he is evasive, but I don't think that's quite right.  He goes into the lions den with opposition and does explain himself.


It's one of the reasons I prefer to watch/listen to long form interviews like the previously posted Russel Brand over the typical television format.  You get an understanding of the interviewee's perspective and even how he or she got to that perspective.  

 Is it available as a podcast? I literally don't have time to devote to 1.5 hours of sitting and watching anything right now.

Here you go.  You will miss their physical ticks though.  RB holds his pen vertically an awful lot and JP plays with his wedding ring an awful lot.

I know how you feel though.   I watched it over the weekend in like 6 sittings.

terp said:
Here you go.  You will miss their physical ticks though.  RB holds his pen vertically an awful lot and JP plays with his wedding ring an awful lot.


I know how you feel though.   I watched it over the weekend in like 6 sittings.

 Cool. Thanks.

More fodder for this discussion:

After Racist Tweet by Roseanne Barr, ABC Cancels Her Hit Show (NYT)

More appropriate to the discussion of protests by football players.

ridski said:



Does he still lecture at Toronto? I want to send him my Tufte books.

 lol. was thinking the same thing.

LOST said:
More appropriate to the discussion of protests by football players.

In the Russell Brand interview, Peterson says comedians who cast aside fears of being offensive — a risk worth taking in order to be funny — are models of free speech.

nohero said:
An irony about Dr. Peterson is that, while his looping prose can seem impenetrable, or fit the description that "his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected", he also has a reputation as a guru of how to write:
https://medium.com/practicecomesfirst/dr-jordan-b-petersons-10-step-guide-to-clearer-thinking-through-essay-writing-1ab79a94937

 Apparently, it's not a flaw, it's a feature.

terp said:

,,,

One of the issues with Peterson is that it's not so simple to put him in an ideological box.  Furthermore, his opinions are not articulated in sound bites like we've become accustomed to from other public figures.
...  

Well, interestingly a lot of it reads like the same psychobabble that new age practitioners of woo are so good at. It’s like he’s the right’s version of David “Avocado” Wolfe.

You sent me to Google since I had never heard of Wolfe. I learn something every day, but sometimes I'd be better off not knowing.

LOST said:
You sent me to Google since I had never heard of Wolfe. I learn something every day, but sometimes I'd be better off not knowing.

 I have hippy friends who repost his shite constantly on the Facebooks.

ridski said:

LOST said:
You sent me to Google since I had never heard of Wolfe. I learn something every day, but sometimes I'd be better off not knowing.

 I have hippy friends who repost his shite constantly on the Facebooks.

 I had to look him up too.

I guess I don't need to know anything beyond the top search result

ridski said:
However this thread morphs or ends, I’d just like to mention that everyone involved in it really needs to see Hannah Gadsby: Nanette, either before it ends in New York, or on Netflix when it comes out next month. It touches on many of the subjects mentioned in this thread and others and just generally should be seen by everyone.

 To repeat this... Hannah Gadsby's Nanette is out on Netflix, and if you haven't seen it yet I'd call it required viewing. I'm still thinking about it a month after having seen it live.

Sorry to revive the thread, but I was reminded of it when I saw this.

"This white T-Shirt features all of your favorite Intellectual Dark Web members in the iconic photo that was taken out at dinner. Whether you're a fan of Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, or Eric Weinstein this shirt is perfect for you."

You can purchase it at this link:

https://intellectualdarkwebstore.com/collections/jordan-peterson-merchandise/products/the-last-supper-intellectual-dark-web-short-sleeve-t-shirt

I guess wearing that shirt is the equivalent of a secret handshake. 

ml1 said:
I guess wearing that shirt is the equivalent of a secret handshake. 

 To some. To others it's more like "Kick me, I'm Stupid" .