As I am a follower of men's and boys rights I discovered Jordan Peterson a couple of years ago in a radio interview where he was nearly weeping about how teenage boys grow up under the line of never being told they are the denizens of rape culture and part of the patriarchy and how damaging that is.  To many, he popped up to some sort of fame for refusing to follow the government order to control language in addressing transgender people.  Not that he wouldn't do it on a personal level but that he did not agree with the government putting into law.  Then he wrote his second book. Fast forward to his interview with Channel 4 and he became a bit of an internet celebrity.

I proactively participate in a boy's organization called the Boy's Brigade.  I believe a lot in being a mentor in boy's lives. A buddy of mine in the UK discovered Jordan thanks to me and he is engrossed in the bible conversations that he feels are highly accurate.  He also appeals to me as I am very literal and try to choose my words very carefully.   And I am a fanboy of evolutionary biology and his evolutionary psychology falls run in line.

He doesn't identify with the far right or the far left.  He almost deliberately tries to be a centerist in a crazy way.  He denies and denounces being far right but he is often thrown into that bucket by the left.  Somehow being an intellectual speaker spitting self-help has drawn him into a buttload of controversy.  Maybe it is his style of language.  He does seem to choose language that draws some ire.  Maybe it is just because he doesn't fit the norms of the culture.   He had become a highly polarized individual and often interviewed.  

Have you listened to him speak or seen him interviewed?  Do you have an opinion outside of some news source reporting on how they feel about him or his words?

I will be seeing him speak next week and I am adding to the hype of seeing such a highly publicized intellectual speaker.

I watched a lot of his interviews, my friend is a huge fan and went to Sydney to see him, I would have went but tickets sold out super fast.
(He also went to see Milo Yiannopolous) I enjoy some of his stuff, but he just comes across to humourless at times, I know he’s talking about serious issues but it gets a bit boring after awhile compared to his peers, that being said I listened to all 3+ hours of his podcast on Joe Rogan which I almost never do.

I first heard about Jordan Peterson through his first podcast with Joe Rogan. This was around the time when that YouTube video of him arguing with transgender people at some college campus went viral. He's a wizard with words, e's extremely well-educated, he knows his field incredibly well, and he has a fiert passion that's rare among academics. He comes across as the kind of person who would win any side of any argument.

I agree with most of his views. I think his best work is his mentoring/psychology/self-help. I believe that's his main area of work, and only relatively recently he started with all the "social justice" crusades, or whatever you want to call it. Now it seems the guy has a strong opinion on everything, but he puts all his psychology lectures online, so he's bound to talk about topics besides his main area.

I like the guy, but don't seem him as some kind of idol or messiah or bringer of change. I haven't looked at any of his videos I went down the YouTube rabbit hole of Peterson soundbites. That was a few months ago.

His comments suggesting that maybe women shouldn’t wear make up to work to avoid sexual harassment was the only statement of his that didn’t seem that well thought out, but otherwise seems like he could argue against the existence of gravity and win.

I first heard of him when he started appearing on news programs because he refused to use those ridiculous transgendered pronouns and found a lot of his talks quite appealing to me. I'm sure most people saw the highlights of his assassination of Cathy Newman. If you ever wanted to know what would happen if Braun turned on his former partner Nicholas... that would be the result. Not pretty. I'm glad he got popular because men certainly need someone out there to openly acknowledge their issues rather than ignoring them.

I don't know enough about the guy to make up my mind, but what theend said about how he speaks is a reason why I'm put off by him at first glance. His recent comments in that NY Times article about "enforced monogamy" are a good example.

In the wake of a shooting where it came out that one of the main targets was a girl that turned down a boy who wouldn't take no for an answer, that's a really, really bad choice of words. Does he actually mean we should enforce monogamy? Or does he mean something else? Not a good look.

This shooting was a situation where he could have maybe done some good if he actually believes what he says about boys and young men, but he chose to go the route that can be interpreted as finger pointing at women instead of the young man who obviously had mental issues so severe he thought his only discourse was killing the girl and her classmates.

How many of us have been turned down by a girl more than once? How many of us then decided to pick up a gun and kill 10 people? How would encouraging society to continue to put monogamy on a pedestal help that at all?

May 22, 2018 17:08:58 GMT theend said:

RT ,are you familiar with Incels? And the killings in their names.

I'm familiar. By killings are you referring to the van attack in Toronto?

Sorry, I deleted it because my sentence sounded off. But yes.
Actually 4 killings

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

not just the van attack. It is an odd and puzzling thing.


I am sorry I did not want to hijack away from Jordan with Incels or false correlate.  I was more correlating the latest shooter with incels.

Yeah I didn't mean to hijack either, that's just been on my mind since the shooting and his interview both happened around the same time and it's what everyone seems to be talking about in reference to him.

I don't know when I'll get time to listen to that Joe Rogan interview but I'm interested in giving it a listen. I like that Rogan can sit down with just about anyone and have a decent chat with them. Rogan is open-minded almost to a fault, but is one of the better people to have a discussion with someone like Peterson because he is very unbiased and yet will also call people on bullshit when he hears it.

I'm inclined to not like Peterson or agree with him on most things, but I'm also well aware that I'm in a left-leaning bubble when it comes to my sources of news and opinions. Peterson has earned a lot of the criticism he gets but I still try to listen to people like him directly before I make up my mind. Like with the transgender thing. I agreed with him on that. Then I almost never heard of the guy again until the past couple weeks, and he's been saying some insane shit, so now I have to rethink my feelings towards him.

I saw him on Rogan once, he gave me serious grifter vibes and I've done an adequate job ignoring him ever since. It's getting more difficult to do so, though, as he's become a bit of a lightning rod.

What's a grifter?

He sounds like a fucking whackjob from what I've read. Another smart person that hates women and the idea women are being treated on-par with men.

He's the exact opposite of the voice I'd want young men, like my two sons, to look up to growing up.

Just to give an example ... any man that says forced monogamy is a solution for male violence is a fucking whackjob.

May 22, 2018 21:56:58 GMT Emperor said:

What's a grifter?

Con man.

Given I had barely paid attention to the guy since his transgender thing and hadn’t read his recent interview, I decided to do a little digging before I made up my mind.

I’m with KJ. Guy’s a whack job and a terrible voice for young men.

Here he is implying that if men had the underlying threat of physical violence when dealing with “crazy women” they might resolve issues better, much like when men get in an argument (which isn’t true, many men I know, myself included, don’t “know” a conversation could end in a fight)



I read he did a book tour with Ben Shapiro. So fuck him for that.

He believes white privilege is a lie and that all women’s studies and various ethnic studies should all be scrapped.

And I read the NY Times article and you all should too. There’s no defending him after this: mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.amp.html

Highlights:
-I was not surprised to learn he is from northern Alberta, and that the prairies are where many of his fans are. For those of you that don’t know, northern Alberta is Canada’s Mississippi.

-our patriarchal society exists because men are more competent than women (has nothing to with literal millennia of oppression)

-violent attacks happen because men don’t have partners, referring to the Toronto van attack (and this was before the Texas shooting but it counts too, I imagine). Like no married man has ever violently attacked anyone. Hitler was married!

-witches are real

-so are dragons? He’s trying to be metaphorical but fails.

-the reporter laughs at his absurdity and he blames that on her being a woman.

-“It made sense in a primordial way when he breaks down Adam and Eve, the snake and chaos,” Mr. Arar says. “Eve made Adam self-conscious. Women make men self-conscious because they’re the ultimate judge. I was like, ‘Wow this is really true.’”

LOL...never met a self-conscious woman in my entire life! Nope, never!

I stopped here because I got fed up. Go ahead and read it though. The man is terrible.

He's one of those people that the first things I was seeing of his, I agreed with a good chunk of it, but then it was one of those things that as I continued looking into him was like "Aww, he's off his rocker, there goes that reasonable voice I thought I found."

I think a man like this rises to prominence solely due to a certain group of men feeling uncomfortable with the notion of women being empowered. It’s no different than white nationalists who feel empowered by a Richard Spencer because people of color are finally trying to level the playing field.

There’s nothing more fragile than the white, straight male ego.

It seems, the perception of Jordan Peterson, as a polarizing individual vastly changes in what is reported on him versus people who actually read or listen to him. Taken out of context and put into a context he can definitely be perceived one way over the other.


There is always plenty of room to defend someone after someone writes an article about someone.  One biased article as opposed to actually reading his book or listening to his teaching.  It is like listening to Fox News on their opinions about what CNN does or doesn't report.

For every one article negative you can find one positive.  And vice verse.  It is easy to do that as opposed to listening to the source themselves.  Or lazy.  Kind of the Cliff's notes.

May 23, 2018 13:02:01 GMT theend said:

It seems, the perception of Jordan Peterson, as a polarizing individual vastly changes in what is reported on him versus people who actually read or listen to him. Taken out of context and put into a context he can definitely be perceived one way over the other.


There is always plenty of room to defend someone after someone writes an article about someone.  One biased article as opposed to actually reading his book or listening to his teaching.  It is like listening to Fox News on their opinions about what CNN does or doesn't report.

For every one article negative you can find one positive.  And vice verse.  It is easy to do that as opposed to listening to the source themselves.  Or lazy.  Kind of the Cliff's notes.

You go ahead and tell me which of his quotes RT and I referenced are taken out of context.

May 23, 2018 15:34:31 GMT KJ said:

May 23, 2018 13:02:01 GMT theend said:

It seems, the perception of Jordan Peterson, as a polarizing individual vastly changes in what is reported on him versus people who actually read or listen to him. Taken out of context and put into a context he can definitely be perceived one way over the other.


There is always plenty of room to defend someone after someone writes an article about someone.  One biased article as opposed to actually reading his book or listening to his teaching.  It is like listening to Fox News on their opinions about what CNN does or doesn't report.

For every one article negative you can find one positive.  And vice verse.  It is easy to do that as opposed to listening to the source themselves.  Or lazy.  Kind of the Cliff's notes.

You go ahead and tell me which of his quotes RT and I referenced are taken out of context.

where have you quoted him?  especially with context?  

in the purely simple notion, isn't every quote out of context?  Unless I guess you reference his full original work or something like that.  It's like taking any bible quote of of the bible. Isn't it all out of context?  Unless you consider, the author, time and space, rest of the content etc?  Just on the theoretical.  Not exactly pertaining to this.  But to say something is in context seems impossible to prove.  It seems everything is out of context.  Unless you get away from reporting on reporting.  Like a commenting on an article.  Here, let's go for inception.  



a guy commenting on the person who commented on the commentary of a writer.  and then we can comment on that.  Of course, you could just dismiss him by his identity that you identify him as and not much else.


or we can stereotype an entire state like Mississippi like the evil Jim Henson, Oprah and William Faulkner.

Fuck your devil's advocate bullshit without every answering a question is exhausting.

I can't answer your question if you never quoted him.

Ok, the video clip with Camille Paglia was a live exploration, free association, thinking out loud conversation. A 2-minute clip from a close to 2 hr conversation.



How is 2 minutes of a free association live exploration not taken out of context. Is any context to how the conversation started or what the basis is included? Is the conversation a brainstorming situation? We don't know. It kind of is actually.   He provides wild ideas out there for consideration to people.  

But how is it presented? Out of context. And then RT gives it a context and a narrative.

We REFERENCED his comments; we didn't list them verbatim:

Highlights:
-I was not surprised to learn he is from northern Alberta, and that the prairies are where many of his fans are. For those of you that don’t know, northern Alberta is Canada’s Mississippi.

-our patriarchal society exists because men are more competent than women (has nothing to with literal millennia of oppression)

-violent attacks happen because men don’t have partners, referring to the Toronto van attack (and this was before the Texas shooting but it counts too, I imagine). Like no married man has ever violently attacked anyone. Hitler was married!

-any man that says forced monogamy is a solution for male violence is a fucking whackjob.

-the reporter laughs at his absurdity and he blames that on her being a woman.

-“It made sense in a primordial way when he breaks down Adam and Eve, the snake and chaos,” Mr. Arar says. “Eve made Adam self-conscious. Women make men self-conscious because they’re the ultimate judge. I was like, ‘Wow this is really true.’

Ok, so you change the rules of the game. I gotcha. So they are no longer quotes or quotes you made.

Not sure on the Mississippi reference. I am not familiar with stereotypes of the area. I mentioned Oprah, Jim Henson and William Faulkner. Are you comparing him to them?

Where did he say that a patriarchal society exists? Can you support this?

"-violent attacks happen because men don’t have partners, referring to the Toronto van attack" - Ok? I am not sure where you are contradicting this. That is pretty much what the guy who did it said right? I am not following. Elliot Rodger pretty much literally said this in his youtube video.

Mr Arar said something that he took away from a lecture. So that should directly reflect on Jordan Peterson? Not be hearsay.  Who is Mr Arar?

Here is another reaction to that article. Feel free to make generalizations and swear at it.

I think many suffer with naturalistic fallacy when it comes to people speaking on people like Peterson. 

thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/the-left-and-the-right-arent-hearing-the-same-jordan-peterson/

Man PW is leftist, Peterson is probably the most level headed speaker I listen to, others I like listening are much further to the right 😂.

May 23, 2018 17:48:32 GMT System said:

Man PW is leftist, Peterson is probably the most level headed speaker I listen to, others I like listening are much further to the right 😂.

I was thinking the exact opposite: the trinity of you, Ness and the end are incels at the fringe.

And I didn’t change “the rules” ... I literally used the words referenced quotes ... *shrug*

May 23, 2018 17:48:32 GMT System said:

Man PW is leftist, Peterson is probably the most level headed speaker I listen to, others I like listening are much further to the right 😂.

I suggest Malcolm Gladwell too.

I guess some would call the NYT articles slander.

pjmedia.com/trending/new-york-times-womansplains-jordan-peterson-slandering-him-as-pro-patriarchy/

This shows that the witches part was taken out of context.

It appears that some of Peterson's videos/speeches from recent months are controversial. More so than in the past, anyway. As I said before, I don't follow the guy religiously so I'm not up to speed with what he says and does all the time. I do agree with theend's point that second- or third-hand articles that are about him or summarise a long interview may distort his message by cherry picking the most controversial statements, often out of context. I haven't read the article RT posted or watched the full video source so these claims are baseless, it's just the impression I get.

To offer something more concrete: I did watch the short video RT posted initially. I think this is a case where his choice of words was quite poor and perhaps justifiably prompted people to interpret it in a different way than what he may have intended. My interpretation is that if two people are arguing and it becomes heated, one person may start being physical or provoke the other person to be physical towards them (e.g. by standing too closely, screaming in their face). If the argument is between two males (or two females) then it's "OK" for one of them to defend themselves physically if his opponent is being aggressive. If instead it's male vs female, and the female initiates aggression, then it's not so clear if it's "OK" for the male to react physically. Therefore the female may feel that she can get away with these...nefarious tactics. Of course Peterson is not saying this about all females, only the "crazy" ones (poor choice of word). That's different than saying that a man can "control" (his word, another poor choice) a woman with some implicit threat of violence. In that case, the man is the aggressor. In the former case, the "crazy female" is the aggressor.

I don't know if I explained that any better than Peterson did, or whether I just made it more confusing.

Pretty much boils down to this tweet: