Jordan Peterson Must Be Re-Educated
 

https://nypost.com/2023/01/05/jordan...-re-education/

Dr. Jordan Peterson has been ordered by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo social media re-education or else he will lose his practicing license.

Geez, all because he told young people to clean their rooms?

This is because he retweeted some tweets that were critical of Justin Trudeau.

Of course. Challenging tyranny comes with serious consequences. But for some, it’s worth the effort.

Why I do think of Clockwork Orange?

This dude is an idiot

Priceless.

Jordan Peterson, the guy that sounds like he thinks outside the box but is actually just talking mostly common sense.

This re-educated thing sounds kinds scary. He seems to mean a lot to a lot of people, so I don't want to imagine Peterson being a mouthpiece for Trudeau and how that will affect people.

He’s a smart guy and should be allowed to voice his opinion. Guys like him don’t always need to be agreed with by everybody. He is thoughtful and brings a lot of interesting discussion to the table. Too many people have tried to silence him, it’s pretty ridiculous. He’s not a bad guy.

https://media.tenor.com/uQVdEH2txtAA...range-eyes.gif

Re-education is never pretty.

There are young people who claim that Peterson’s lectures actually saved their life, and I believe them, considering that the majority of the current generation are a bunch of robots that depend on social media to even function, regardless of the kind of input that they receive.

Author Ta-Nehisi Coates compared Peterson to Red Skull. I see him like a more stern version of Mr. Rogers who doesn’t sugarcoat the truth.

I mean he pretty much is.

And I found out he heard about that and made a joke about it, temporarily replacing the Hydra logo what that of a lobster.

Actually a lot of these crazy leftist ideologies are trying to use the same lobster analogy that Peterson tries to warn people about.

You don't just dunk the lobster into boiling water. You put it in lukewarm water and slowly turn up the heat. Trudeau is pretty much trying to stop Peterson from warning people that the water will indeed start to boil if we don't get out in time.

Same piece of **** who was glad that people died during 9/11 or something like that?
Knowing this, his opinion worth even less than ****, regardless of who Peterson is.

Yeah, an actual Marvel comic had Red Skull doing a podcast spreading hate while imitating (twisting) some of Peterson's phrases.

Like it's one thing to mock a scumbag like Trump, but to mock and vilify someone that's only guilty of 'I don't agree with him'?

They want everyone to be helpless victims who can’t think for themselves and look to the State for hope and salvation. That’s why Peterson is such a huge threat; his lectures are empowering and give people thicker skin.

Well, his daughter did, who's actually really talented and interesting to listen to of her own right.



And the Trudeau thing wasn't him retweeting stuff, it was him having to actually send letters directly to Trudeau. Trudeau didn't like that.

Yes, please. Anyone watch like 10 minutes of either video and still call him a dumbass. Let's hear the argument. Go.

Why do you think he is an idiot?

Trudeau can suck a lemon.

The way he treated the trucker freedom convoy and then had the nerve to make a speech about being against totalitarianism a few days afterwards.

Ever since his reinvention as a neocon,I can't stand the guy.

The same one. Who's supposedly still working on a black Superman movie.

This whole thing seems messed up and unfair. A bit surprising, really. Not sure what I'd do in this situation, but given I'm a wimpy type who hates conflict and confrontation, especially if on a monumental level, I'd probably pretend to be "re-educated" to placate them, and then go back to my old ways in a passive aggressive kind of way.

The only problem is how much can you pretend to be reeducated without actually being reeducated. It's like joining a cult pretending to follow along to expose them or something, how far can you go before you start believing it yourself.

I guess that could happen, but hopefully those in the situation would be strong-minded enough to not fall for that.

Calling Peterson an idiot is like calling Madonna a good actress.

He wears suits and has a veneer of intellectualism and more often than not deliberately debates people that are ill prepared for his style and/or generally poor at articulating their views. It's easy to see why rubes think he's a messiah but when he does get a decent opponent he just crumbles. That's what this is all about. Every so often he gets owned on twitter and goes on stupid rant. I'm not even hating on him (much) I think he has genuine mental health problems and things like that highlight he isn't stable which makes me feel almost sorry for him. Still he's the last person that young dissected men should be getting life advice from.

No one’s calling Peterson a messiah, but they are calling the people in the Canadian government, especially Trudeau, tyrants for all the Orwellian crap that they’ve been pulling for the last couple of years.

You don’t have to agree with Peterson. You don’t even have to like him. But frankly, I’m disturbed that you aren’t disturbed by this whole re-education thing. If someone called you mentally unstable and demanded that you be sent to a re-education camp, wouldn’t you want people to stand up for your individual rights? You can lick the boot all you want but in the end you’ll get stamped on anyway.

I wonder, then, if he is the last person on your list, who would be some of the top people on your list?

I'd be pretty concerned about his answers.

Also Peterson is a good dude, his most basic lectures are about getting your life in order. His whole 'clean your room' thing is pretty much about that.

If anything, he tries to inspires incels to stop hating women and waste their life assuming just having a girlfriend is somehow going to solve all your problems and to just go out there, work on yourself and be the best you can be. You know, set actual goals in life.

The problem is a lot of that goes against the woke narrative, which a lot of times consist of not working for or actually earning anything. Just gimme gimme, I'm entitled because oppression or whatever, and also you must accept me as is (even if you're 400 pounds and have zero life ambitions) or you're an ista-phobe. Ironically the last one is what incels also believe. Imagine that.

Peterson gets a lot of grift because of the audience he speaks to, but someone needs to reach out to that audience and speak with them. And they aren’t all bad apples anyway. Anyone could learn at least something from Peterson, whether they agree with him or not.

But people want to associate him with some of the twisted-souls he is trying to reach with his lectures. A lot of people are also just frightened by his thoughts because he tells a hard truth and doesn’t tend to sugarcoat. People are easily offended by a lot of the truths he shares, because the truth can be unpleasant at times.

Many have tried to paint Peterson as an extremism, right-winger, messiah to “incels”. People are scared of him.

He had stood up against laws which would prosecute you for “misgendering” someone verbally. I have to respect that. I have no intention of misgendering people but the idea of making that law is completely wrong.

Decent opponent? Like Cathy Newman the professional BBC interviewer, Prof Michael Dyson, Terri Butler Shadow Minister for Employment services, Anne McElvoy Professional BBC journalist, Helen Lewis Professional Interviewer, Mike Nguyen Professional Vice interviewer...

He had all these interactions and looked extremely competant. The closest that someone came to 'owning' him was Dyson and that was just because he is charismatic

Seriously, lol. Claiming these interviewers whom Peterson essentially demolished were “unprepared” speaks ill of the interviewer. If you invite someone to your show, with the aim of destroying their argument and then feign that you weren’t prepared, you’re a bit silly, don’t you think Galactus?

The problem is these people interview him with some made-up image in their mind of some right-winger that doesn't know what he's talking about. They're not prepared for someone that doesn't fit into some pre-established box they feel he belongs in, hence he doesn't answer or react the way they're prepared for. They interview him in hopes of some big 'ha! gotcha! i knew you were full of crap!' moment but that never comes.

People who make Peterson the automatic villain in their personal-superhero- narrative are the same sheeple that who walk around day-to-day swimming in their own narcissism and don't know it.

The guy is wearing the assaults of societies underbelly who refuse to hear his actual message and instead assign their own meaning to it. These are the people who would read this post and it would be incalculable to them and they'd just categorize it as "support for racism" or some other such peasant-headmath.

*Reads your post*

GASP!! You support racism????

Oh stOooopppppp lol! You'll give the easily challenged savants here some kind of straw to grasp onto....

Is this still about Peterson? More than half of it sounds like you're describing Obama.

I don't care for self-help gurus in general. The vast majority of them are grifters and the few that actually believe what they spout are even worse.

Even as a basic rule of thumb if you're looking for advice on how to become a better more well adjusted person it's best not to go to someone who clearly have issues themselves. A lot of his fans have noticed he doesn't seem well in his latest rants but they claim it's the stress of being cancelled when in truth he's kinda always been like that. The guy probably needs help himself not doling out his reactionary views disguised as advice. I'm not sure 're-education' is going to help him but for now he is still technically a doctor working at a university and should be held to certain standards. A doctor of medicine would also lose their licence if they were telling people to take the wrong medicines or treating their patients poorly.

Well yeah..it is silly. I include all the people Bahamut listed as people that while may be intelligent but were ill equipped to take on someone with Peterson's debating style. The mainstream media is built a certain way that has struggled with how to challenge newly emerging figures like him. A good example is how in 2016 a lot of US news networks sent people to interview white nationalist Richard Spencer. They assume that because his beliefs of how to make the US an ethno-state are clearly stupid and wrong it would require very little effort to show him up just like they do when they interview the crowd's at Trump's rallies but he would always run round them. His polished presentation and coating his views in a veneer of intellectualism just threw them. Peterson may not be a white nationalist but his own reactionary views are coated in the same way and it does effectively throw them off.

I actually think the people that most effectively challenge Peterson are the ones he isn't really knowledgeable about. Like that comedian that interviewed him and stumped him with the question of it is right to have laws prohibiting people to refuse serving people of different races why shouldn't the same be done for people of different sexualities, to which he just mumbled something I suppose you're right there should be a law for that. Strangely there is an actual rebuttal to that point (not one that I believe it but it's there) that he probably should have made but he couldn't really think when someone put the question to him so plainly. How about him publicly denigrating a plus sized model saying this will never be considered beautiful (forgetting that throughout history bigger women were seen as more attractive for important biological reasons) and then a bunch of teenagers told him he wasn't exactly a vision of beauty so he threw a hissy hit.

The law that he was railing against didn't include anything about verbally misgendering someone. It's possible he was deliberately misleading people about that or that he he himself was misinformed about it and like a true reactionary he went postal about something he hadn't even properly looked into or understood. Either way it shows he isn't really that smart.

The issue that many people have against him isn't that he reaches out to disaffected young men...it's what he specifically tries to teach them. Most of his ideology contradicts itself anyway; he's a huge advocate for individualism and personal responsibility but also blames everything on women, trans people, woke moralists etc. That's a convenient way to dismiss that his advice has all the effectiveness of Brian Griffin's Wish It, Want It, Do It. If you've done everything I've said and you still feel your life sucks it's everyone else's fault. Don't get me wrong I'd rather incels listen to him than someone like Andrew Tate but Peterson also advocates that women are inferior and males being in charge is just the natural order of things. There is not that much difference between their ideologies beyond the way the way the express it...and Tate also being a scum bag in general.

You sure you’re talking about Peterson here?

Males are in fact physically stronger than females and naturally they want to look after and protect the entire family because of their superior strength. What’s so controversial about that?

I mean, it’s awesome that women can vote now and are treated more like equals instead of handmaids who don’t get to make any decision at all. We’ve come a long way from that and it’s been great. However, science dictates that women are in fact inferior to men when it comes to doing physical work and working longer hours. On the same note, women have a much higher pain tolerance, which is why they are better suited to give birth. Both the male and female are capable of taking care of their children, even on their own and without the other spouse around to help them, but men in general take on the role of the protector of the family because they are in fact stronger. That’s why you don’t pit biological males against females in sports; the males are guaranteed to win, not because of sexism, but because of science, and no one should be a science-denier, right?

And obviously women don’t need men to survive or function, but there’s only so much they can do on their own, especially if they’re trying to raise a family. A stable household requires both parents, and typically the female is the nurturer while the male is the protector, but neither one is more important than the other. They make decisions together and fulfill each other’s needs. Do all men fulfill their duties and take good care of their wives and families? Sadly no. A lot of them abuse their wives and/or abandon their families, but there are women who are just as guilty.

Wow...uhhh...

Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist. Per his wikipedia page:
Unless you are one of those people who think that psychology and counseling are real are bunk and quack science he seems to be well trained to help people. My big question is...do you not like him because he speaks out against authoritarians or because he helps men?

Even if he is having issues *recently* that does not mean that his advice before is bad. I am not seeing much to indicate anything more then he is a bit quicker to call out authoritarians on the left. There is also no evidence that in his practice that he is mistreating patients or even his students when he was teaching. The closest that I have seen so far is that part of this entire kerfuffle was a complaint about a conversation where someone complained about something and he said they didn't have to stay on the planet. I doubt he was talking about suicide but even if he was that is a part of valid Canadian Medicine.

Are you suggesting that Peterson is one of the smartest guys in the room, or that professional interviewers, journalists and politicians are just morons? His "style" is sticking to the point, not letting people mis-represent him and being precise in his speech (according to him).

That's one of the things I like about him is that he knows that he does not have all the answers and if he does not have an answer he thinks is sufficient he will admit it.

I don't know comments he maid past his first one...but he didn't say that in the comment I have seen. He said "Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that." He was commenting about the cover of a sports/fitness magazine (Sports Illustrated) that stated "Be the change you want to see" and had an overweight model on the cover that is an extension of the beautiful at any size movement that is harmful.

From what I understand of it, his opinion was that it would have been interpreted that misgendering someone would be viewed as discrimination and a hate crime not to call people by their neo-pronouns which is a crime. Here is him talking about it.


You can encourage people to better themselves while acknowledging that authoritarians and obstacles to that betterment exist. At best, he encourages people to do their best to strive against authoritarians on the left and the right.

And the idea that he is some kind of male-exclusive practitioner is wrong. As he's talked about, he helps tons of women as patients. Particularly in advancing them in their careers and giving them strength.

So just to be clear... he's at the bottom of presumably a list of people who should be giving advice that males gravitate toward... but now you say you don't actually have anyone in mind at all who can give advice to males? I'm not understanding the input here. No one then, basically?

Peterson is a sophist paid to argue any position.

Yes, that's what it must be. Clearly.