You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit! I made it onto Dutch TV! [dTube]
I have interviewed him before. At this point, I find his entire shtick boring and my audience generally speaking isn't hugely interested in hearing from him again.
It's 'schtick', what kind of Jew are you??
I gotta say after watching that interview I'm very disappointed to hear this as your feelings towards the idea.
I'm not a big fan of him, actually I wouldn't call myself a fan, but the broad handwaving of the left over him, oftentimes LITERALLY INTERPRETING HIS IDEAS AS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE'S SAYING, is no small frustration.
In his Q&A Kyle Kalinski for example gave his thoughts on Dr. Peterson's 'positions' and then proceeded to regurgitate the Doctors verbatim opinion as his own.
Okay, apparently I'm in spam mode, furthermore: after reviewing the Doctor's positions and ideas I'm rather shocked that you'd claim this. You frequently, hell more than once like every video you make espouse the core values he's advocating. You bring up the primacy of free speech at least every video, and you do the same for identity politics/cults. Did you lose these values overnight?? You don't seem to have become bored of them in the last two months of videos I've been watching.
I should point out that I think he goes too far in a lot of regards those regards, so when I say I think you're unjustly dismissing his ideas, it's not for any love of them.
I should also point out a lot of his popularity on the Right is due directly to how he's being unreasonably dismissed... that could disappear in an instant if people would just take him seriously, and his popularity would implode... IMHO.
In the video I linked there's a bit where David says something like: don't you think your other ideas would be more acceptable to the general public, if, say, an individual in your class wanted to be called by a gender-neutral pronoun and you agreed to do that? And Peterson's response is basically, no, because I am on a crusade about principles and refuse to compromise them for this actual human in my class that might be upset. Also, something about how the push to change language is Marxist so it needs to be fought against, clearly. Uhhhh, right.
Like, don't get me wrong, principles are great a lot of the time. They tell you how to prioritize around large groups of individuals! But, at the end of the day they should serve individuals, not the other way around.
Yes, I saw the link, thank you for that.
I think he's 100% in the right there.
What if I told you I wanted to be referred to as 'Megatron, Supreme leader of the Decepticons' without abbreviation? If you're
"Also, something about how the push to change language is Marxist"
A gross strawman argument. I'm sure you'd doing it by accident, and not on purpose, but this is absolutely NOT his position. Social marxism is analogous to Marxism, not actual Marxism. It's closer to a far Right ideology like Fascism.
"Peterson's response is basically, no, because I am on a crusade about principles and refuse to compromise them for this actual human in my class that might be upset."
Do what, the ends justify the means? That's Right wing Totalitarian talk. Right is Right, and Wrong is Wrong.
Also isn't that question the same one where David himself labels such a thing as changing his position for as 'diabolical'? That is: the question is merely devil's advocate, and not something Dave believes? Do you now think David is being similarly unreasonable?
Furthermore: I think that's a jaundiced interpretation of what Jordan means. His concern is with the legal compulsion 9/10 at least. I'm not sure I've ever seen him say otherwise.
Both he and @davidpakman start out the interview agreeing completely on the legal position. I understand his concern with the legal position, I just have a big problem with him conflating it with the individual or semi-professional positions, as if they're somehow related to the broader legal fight.
I have no problem calling you 'Megatron, Supreme leader of the Decepticons'. Or like, I might apologize and not do it on the grounds that it's hard to say without abbreviation, but not on the grounds that, if I do this one thing for you, then somehow I'm directly helping the movement that will push it into law.
" as if they're somehow related to the broader legal fight"?
Aren't they though? I seem to recall pretty much every american, left or right, insisting that this is true. I'm not as puritan as most Americans, but I believe that this DOES cross a line.
Respectfully: this is exactly my problem with responses to him. Albeit you're far more courteous than most of the people I've talked to on the subject of his work, but literally every point you've brought up is a greatly discoloured interpretation of his actual views, which I should stress: I strongly oppose in more ways than not.