It's only recently that Peterson has formally denounced the alt-right. Before, he was on JRE saying things like "as far as I can tell, Kekistan is a defense of comedy," when it was obvious to everyone else that it was blatant nazi propaganda. Only when the alt-right became emboldened enough to attend his lectures and start asking pretty direct questions about the Jewish question, globalist conspiracy, etc. that he finally saw what his audience was becoming and sorted himself out.
Most people on the left don't think that JBP is a nazi, or alt-right, or whatever is the inverse of the "postmodern neomarxist" boogeyman. People on the left are critical of JBP because of his blatant misreadings of Marx, Deleuze, Foucault, his confusion about Bill C-16, etc. His overly broad equivocation of postmodern critiques of power and Marxian class theory is the basis of his incredibly nasty attacks on these so-called "postmodern neomarxist feminists" yet he has published no real thesis.
He can't even be said to be critical of leftist ideologies because he never puts forward any real arguments, and all he does is signal that the left are evil.
And I'm saying all of this as a leftist who has supported Bret Weinstein from the beginning. I accept the postmodern feminist criticism of identity politics and agree that SJWs and their constant search for categories is harmful to the left. I would love for Peterson to put forward an actual, rigorous criticism of leftist ideology, but frankly he doesn't seem to have one.
> I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.
I think he did pander a bit, but then realized how far to the right many of those followers were, so drew a clear line in the sand that pissed off and alienated all the fascists and racists (something about ethnic nationalism being an "idiotic ideology" or words to that effect). Peterson is no alt rightist.
However, if you look at places like /r/JordanPeterson, most of his followers were more alienated centrist and liberals than the alt rightists even before he made clear exactly how he felt about the far right/alt right.
> I don't know why the alt right likes him, but my guess is that he's a great speaker who presents something like a very moderate version of alt right opinion.
I think it's predominantly because his position on free speech, personal freedom and the academy intersect with some alt-right (itself no longer a useful term, IMO) perspectives on the culture war(s). That deepens a bit further with his work and comments on religion and philosophy. There's a kind of 'the enemy of my enemy' about it. But I think both aspects are easily misunderstood and/or mischaracterised by his superficial support as much as it is by his detractors on the extreme left etc. Meanwhile, I would be surprised if those on the most extreme fringes of the alt-right - ethno-nationalists, white supremacists, neo-reactionaries etc. - ever took to Peterson, based on his espoused views and/or his work on the psychology of tyrannies (notably the Third Reich) and the caution he urges as a consequence of that.
To me, he's fairly precise in talking about what he thinks (which may be right or wrong) and I think that's where it's easy to misunderstand what he's saying, which may have a specific, implicit point (and eventually ends up misinterpreted and misrepresented as something wholly different). Despite that, I've picked up on a tendency to offer views in the realm of civil rights and academia that are more off-the-cuff since gaining public attention. Sometimes these can come across as unusual or even pandering, and I think he's at his best when he's not being wheeled out as some sort of 'conservative' oracle (he's neither). The increasingly combative tone also doesn't seem fitting for someone who rose to prominence on the basis of presenting himself and his views relatively thoughtfully and reasonably.
I think this critique of him is fair. I would have less of a problem with the SJW-types if they showed any interest in combating the more extreme/hostile elements in their own side. I should expect the same from the right, and though Peterson does mention his opposition to the alt-right from time to time, he could do with a fair bit more of it.
Jordan Peterson is a psychology professor and classical liberal. He has a big following of alt-right nutbags but isn't himself alt-right as far as I'm aware.
[edit: originally included Stefan Molyneux in my defense but having taken a look it seems he's started putting out much more alt-right content].
Peterson is a vocal proponent of race "science" and regressive anti-feminist social structures. He's as right as they come, and he's "alt-right" because he's devoted his career to re-framing these ideals in ways that shake off the stigma they now carry.
How Jordan Peterson isn’t even remotely on the right apart from him saying it? Any action leaning on the left for him has some evil Marxist influence for him. Also his theories on “Masculinity“ have nothing to do with classical left and right and are de-facto alt-right.
Peterson is one of tre most repulsive figures in modern (political/philosophical) discourse, in my eyes. His strawmen only make sense if you either know nothing about any most modern theorists or philosophy in general or if you need some narrative to sustain your beliefs that (((something))) went wrong. In short, besides being absolutely no authority on the issue, extremely emotional most of the time, he's constantly trying to push the story that "his side" is the rational, sane and logical , while everyone he opposes can be put into a nice linear group from Marx over Lenin & Stalin to Derrida and the rest of the "post modernists". And at the risk of being dismissed as a paranoid, I'm going to point out that there is a certain anti-semitic undertone to all of this, just like with the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy, that has surprising parallels to Peterson's story. It might not be his main point, or any point part of his actual argument at all, but his proud fanbase of "Kekistanis, Pepe memers, alt-right Nazis"[0], sure might.
And regarding this said fanbase, the fact that they're de facto paying him ~$60.000 a month[1] to play their intellectual "red piller", will probably not help him become more objective, if you ask me.
As a great antidote I'd recommend Rick Roderick's lectures[2], since already back in the 80's the same arguments were being put out against these alleged horrible post modernists, treating them as some destoryers of civilisation. In short, he's a hack.
I feel like Jordan Peterson has been treated pretty unfairly by the media. This article is by far the most fair. I remember coming across his lectures many years ago and went through all of them and found them really fascinating. I'm an self-proclaimed progressive, liberal, feminists, whatever, so I was pretty damn shocked when he became this alt-right figure head, because, well, I couldn't comprehend why they thought that way.
His lectures are far from politically divisive, they are actually quite interesting. Hell, one of his classes on mythology so closely mirrors the Monsters & Myths series on Netflix, that I believe the lecture partially inspired the show.
My person opinion is that a lot of young guys watch his stuff because it's interesting and insightful, but pull the wrong message from it. Part of the blame lies in the prevalence of clips and montages of his lectures that cherry-pick parts of his lecture and present it out of context.
For example, his controversial statement about women being neurotic and too agreeable. The context was that he had a professional female client who was having difficulty getting ahead at work because she was too nice to people, and what he did to help her was put her through assertiveness training to help her develop skills that did not come naturally to her. The premise is that women are more agreeable and neurotic, thus they may not naturally develop these skills.
I will admit to not having followed him recently, so it's completely possible that there's a video clip out there of him being a total alt-right asshole.
[First off: JBP supporters who are downvoting the parent, come on, you know better. That's not how you do things.]
> Isn't Jordan Peterson also famous for being a proponent of racial IQ theories?
If he is, it's remarkable that I've been able to miss that over listening to his course lectures since 2015 on top of the more recent bible/other lectures.
My personal location on the political spectrum right now is pretty partisan Democrat, largely out of the opinion that the Republican Party and most of the conservatism in the US is a dumpster fire, and in particular that the GOP is almost completely incapable of doing policy in the public interest. I say this to make it entirely clear that I'm hardly "far right." :)
And I still think taking in Peterson's stuff has been probably the single best thing that's happened to me for sharpening my thinking over the last few years.
I also think there are some reasonable arguments that he's wrong about a number of things, and I think you should be suspicious about how some of his ideas are functioning in certain political conversations. I see lower-resolution versions of his thinking being pressed into service of conventional conservative partisan narratives. But I strongly suspect that the solution, if there is one, is going to be engaging with the political ideas and trying to criticize them as effectively (and intellectually) as he advocates for them. Ad hominem attacks aimed at his status are only going to feed the beast.
And to the extent that you think progressivism or liberalism or centrist technocratism or whatever are based in reason and argument (and I do), it would be a gift if Peterson's thinking became more prominent, even where it might be wrong. You can engage reason and argument with reason and argument. It's pretty hard for me to tell how to engage Trumpism.
And finally -- Peterson is super popular in large part because he's primarily working in the realm of applied personal philosophy. He's done a lot of compelling work to distill the interpretation of religious narratives, philosophical thinking, and psychology into some concrete guidance that's digestible for those of us culturally centered in western modernity. I think it'd be a rare person who can't find some of what he has to say interesting and useful.
Peterson is definitely a gateway drug. There's a gradual progression from "conservative left-wing" (e.g. Carl Benjamin, who for a long time self-identified as "left-wing"), "anti-SJW"/antifeminists and centrists to the alt-right and actual nazis.
I'm sure Peterson sees himself as a conservative and a moderate, just as I'm certain Carl Benjamin used to think of himself as "actually a leftist". But the "moderates" and "centrists" obsession with "SJWs" has shifted the Overton window and some former alt-right creators have recognised this and since reoriented themselves.
Peterson and Harris are useful figureheads because they register as moderates or centrists if not liberals in most people's minds, but they're extremely close to conspiracy nuts like Paul Joseph Watson, race realists like Stefan Molyneux, or people like Ben Shapiro.
I used to watch a lot of YouTube "skeptics" (mostly former YouTube atheists who left that movement over the "Atheism+" debate) and I experienced the progression first-hand, with anti-SJW panic, Buzzfeed obsession and other nonsense resulting in self-described centrists aligning themselves with the right by seeking out the more presentable right-wing extremists (and maybe a few center-left moderates "for balance"). Quickly there were videos about race realism, white genocide, and even "the Jewish question".
Luckily I managed to jump off that train but it wouldn't have take much to nudge me over that "centrist" stop gap (especially with Peterson and Damore normalising the rational disconnect I experienced).
Also it's worth mentioning that even at my most "centrist" I never got as much hate online from "SJWs" for incredibly dumb statements as I got from "liberals" as I shifted back to the left. Leftists just blocked me. "Liberals" trolled me, downvoted me and drowned me out with vapid memes (all in the name of "free speech").
EDIT: Case in point, here's YouTube atheist CultOfDusty who joined the alt-right until he realised that put him in the company of people supporting Mike Pence, who stood against everything he believed in. Note that he's still "anti-SJW" but other YT atheists don't make that distinction and have since tried to slander him by taking him out of context or putting words in his mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thliETccJss
Jordan Peterson repeatedly and strongly denies the existence of any white hetero cis male privilege. He also refuses to acknowledge trans people and gay marriage, he somehow ties feminism to Muslims because "women desire strong men", and he lashes out against any art that challenges traditionalist perceptions of the world and society, tying it all into his "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory.
His list of absolutely nonsense racist, bigoted and misogynistic statements is basically endless, it's in everything he says.
He leans on the MRA/MGTOW side of things, which has a clear and documented link to the alt-right right, a neo-fascist movement.
Regarding trad right, that is simply an ideology of exploiting the working class for the benefit of capitalists, to the overall detriment of society and life in general.
I disliked Peterson before it was cool. He's just a charlatan taking advantaged of disfranchised young white men like every other pseudo alt-right movement.
I can think of perhaps no better example than this interview of why I like Peterson.
He's criticized as "on the right" because he disagrees with feminism, neoliberalism, and marxism (it's more cultural marxism, which he calls neomarxism). That is a reactionary label, and it doesn't fit, which is precisely the problem with modern politics.
A decade, maybe 15 years ago, Peterson would've been right in the middle of the liberal camp. So would people like Dave Rubin. Today though, the modern left is falling in line with these feminist and marxist ideas even though they fundamentally contradict his long held liberal principles. People like me who aren't in some extreme position are described as malicious by these ideologies. I know it's nonsense because I can actually see what's in my head, and what they claim is true about me and about an entire class of people based on gender or race, is utterly false. The obvious response is "that's nonsense", but of course we're talking about people who are throwing labels of "racist" and "sexist" at anyone who dares disagree, so that's not a good enough response. We must be defensive, yet the irony of saying someone is bad because they're male or because they're white and then using those labels seems to be a little out of reach.
Watch this interview. Nearly every response she makes to him "so you're saying" is trying to ascribe some feminist or marxist ideal of how the world works to what he's said, and he simply repeats what he says. He goes to great lengths to explain his issues with these ideologies in various lectures, but you can see it here as a prime example, condensed into a comical and pathetic 30 minute interview. Everything wrong with today's left. It's not liberal anymore, she tried so hard to make him look like the bad guy, like he has bad evil wrong thoughts.
It's no wonder the situation regarding diversity at Google is so precarious, and this Damore lawsuit is just one of many to come if this mentality continues. I like Peterson because he opposes it and for good reason, not just in such as simplistic manner as ridicule and memes as you see from the right.
There are all of these claims for a reason. He's pseudo-scientific, he's hypocritical, he dangerously misrepresents things he doesn't agree with ideologically (C-16), he cites and uses the work of racists in his lectures and yes, he is anti-women. There is a reason why the alt-right flock to him.
> Peterson's book sales are skyrocketing, and not among convinced rightists.
That's because Peterson is a leftist. He has contrarian viewpoints on exactly two topics: pronouns and communism. Other than that, he's as left wing as they come. He's a great example of how bad the political discourse has gotten. The left won't even allow dissenting opinions among their own people.
I'm sad that some enthusiastic well meaning lefties often associate Peterson with the extreme right. If anything, this man is radically centrist. It's just that he debunks extreme right wing arguments in 5 sentences instead of the 2 hour long talks he uses to address what he calls neo-marxism.
I think people like him might very well help keep disgruntled young men away from the extreme right, by offering a moderate alternative.
We should celebrate that long, balanced arguments get so much mainstream attention, even if we don't agree with them.
Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual because he pretends to have a deep understanding of Marxism and postmodernism, but when pushed, he admits that he hasn't even read the people he criticizes. He uses his position as a professor to give himself authority but his ideas wouldn't last 3 seconds in an environment where people had any background in the things he's talking about. There are people who are criticized unfairly for being a pseudo intellectual but Jordan Peterson isn't one of them. Any set of criteria for what constitutes a pseudo intellectual will include people like JBP unless you exclude people with academic jobs.
As for whether I dislike his ideas, I can't really get too worked up about most of what he says. It's sort of trite and he seems to have a very mildy authoritarian personality and his views on gender seem to be pretty unimaginative, but this is true about a lot of people. He seems to have some helpful advice for young people (take responsibility for yourself, etc.) that some people say they really need to hear, so it's not all bad. But at the same time, he's also a charlatan when he talks about political theory.
Most people on the left don't think that JBP is a nazi, or alt-right, or whatever is the inverse of the "postmodern neomarxist" boogeyman. People on the left are critical of JBP because of his blatant misreadings of Marx, Deleuze, Foucault, his confusion about Bill C-16, etc. His overly broad equivocation of postmodern critiques of power and Marxian class theory is the basis of his incredibly nasty attacks on these so-called "postmodern neomarxist feminists" yet he has published no real thesis.
He can't even be said to be critical of leftist ideologies because he never puts forward any real arguments, and all he does is signal that the left are evil.
And I'm saying all of this as a leftist who has supported Bret Weinstein from the beginning. I accept the postmodern feminist criticism of identity politics and agree that SJWs and their constant search for categories is harmful to the left. I would love for Peterson to put forward an actual, rigorous criticism of leftist ideology, but frankly he doesn't seem to have one.
reply