Thanks again
@EVH.
Quite a bit has been said in here since my last post so I'll try to keep this as succinct as possible. I also want to apologise again for introducing Mao into a discussion that was predominantly about the Soviet Union. I watched four or five of his videos in a row and clearly mixed them up a bit.
So what you're saying is that playing identity politics will in no way shape or form turn go as far as they have done in the past?
I can't tell whether you're being ironic or not when you use the phrase "so what you're saying is…"
Either way; I'm saying that the kind of "identity politics" that Peterson is speaking out against is a far cry from the rise of Communism in Russia 100 years ago. To try and suggest that they are analogous is disingenuous and ignores both history and context.
He calls them "Social Justice Warriors" and "Lefties" and I interpret that as Feminists, Black Lives Matter and similar groups (and because it's America, anyone remotely left of centre). These groups are asking for a reduction in the inequality in society (of which there is plenty of evidence). They are not asking for a Communist state, nor are they calling for "equality of outcome" as the Right so often put it. If he's referring to AntiFa then he has a point, but they are no more credible (and have no more chance of implementing their agenda) than Neo Nazis.
[As an aside — if he means that actual Tumblr SJWs then it's even more of a joke because no one takes them seriously.]
I think he's overemphasising a fear that plays into the preconceived concerns of his intended audience, but that in reality doesn't really exist. You may call me complacent for holding that view but, in turn, I will call you paranoid.
So what your saying is that having left leaning views doesn't make you Stalin the same that having right leaning views doesn't make you Hitler.
Absolutely, I always despair when a potentially interesting debate breaks down into Stalin vs. Hitler name calling.
So what you're really saying is, you don't think the current trend of controlling what can and can't be said by mob rule is anything to be worried about.
As above, I think it's a problem that's being overstated and the perception of the issue is exacerbated by the rise of Social Media and 24-hour news. I don't see it as "the rise of Cultural Marxism" which will ultimately end in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
His agenda is to make people aware that they can still think for themselves, and that it is OK to do so.
I think his agenda is to promote his own interests by getting media interviews and selling books.
Just one last thing while I'm responding to this line of questioning:
I've said above that I'm not worried about the rise of the far Left, and that's true in the context of a minority of feminist and civil rights activists asking to be treated fairly.
What I genuinely see as a problem is the rise of inequality in the West since the 1970s. History has shown that when inequality reaches the kind of levels that we're close to today, it provides the foundations for civil unrest, revolution and war.
Who knows if we'll see a "Franz Ferdinand" moment in our lifetime, but a flashpoint such as that, in an environment of inequality such as we have today, increases the potential for conflict. If something along those lines did happen, then it's quite possible that radicals from the Left or the Right could gain momentum and seize power. However, if that were the case, it isn't going to be a few feminists or black equal rights activists that are the ones to worry about.
@Irish_Tom
I’m surprised you have that view of him from the interview. I don’t recall him targeting ‘the left’ at all. I thought he came across as pretty liberal. He is, however, attacking specific ideas that are seemingly entrenched in modern politics (such as the idea that everyone’s wishes should be respected to the point of absurdity).
It wasn't the interview with Cathy Newman that led me to that view, it was the "Tyranny, one step at a time" video where he explicitly calls out SJWs and "Lefties". I know you're reading his book so I'd be really interested to hear what you think about it (and him) when you've finished. I know you're still only a few chapters in but I'd love to know if he goes on a "Lefty bashing mission" at any point.
@Irish_Tom So you're saying we should organise society along the lines of lobsters?
To claim Christianity wrote the manual on morality is, shall we say, misleading. Maybe I've got it wrong, but that's how it's come across.
I think you're bang-on and this is the kind of thing I was talking about in my earlier posts.
Either he’s intentionally misrepresenting the case for personal motives, he’s happy to quite vocally publically talk about things he doesn’t understand properly, or his lectures are dark.
Unfortunately, that means you basically can’t trust anything he talks about without fact checking it first, but he’s eloquent so if he talks about things that fit your narrative then I’m sure he’s a great guy to listen to.
Bingo.
I think this is part of the reason why he's so popular. He isn't saying anything groundbreaking. However, it is refreshing to see and hear, someone in the public eye with common sense.
You may be on to something with that.
I've watched a few more of his videos (and
@Nitefly talked about his book in another thread) and he seems to have two sides. Some of his videos talk about young men having more confidence and believing in themselves, that kind of thing. These are mostly what I would call the "psychologist" videos. He then has these pseudo-intellectual rants about "the Left" or Feminists or Post Modernism (I really don't know what his problem with Post Modernism is).
As discussed above, it's those rants that sound good initially but fall apart when you question what he's actually saying — he makes unsubstantiated links between history and religion and the "evils" of the modern world and it just seems cynically aimed at (predominantly) American men with (predominantly) right-wing views.
As
@Amp34 says "you basically can’t trust anything he talks about without fact checking it first, but he’s eloquent so if he talks about things that fit your narrative then I’m sure he’s a great guy to listen to."
One final thought: does anyone else find it ironic that he decries identity politics and then proceeds to label "SWJs" and "Lefties" (and academics) as Marxists.
