this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
81 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1454 readers
85 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Jordan Peterson
He causes no harm to the people who don't like him but he has helped thousands of young men sort their lives out and get their shit together. This has objectively made a huge positive impact in the world.
He became popular by harming people.
He became popular by resisting government mandate on speech. He haven't harmed anyone. He's literally a clinical psychologist whose job is to help people.
Didn't he lose the right to be a psychologist because he was harming people?
A quick google didn't provide me with any information on that but I'm sure you will.
"An Ontario court ruled against popular clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson and is upholding an order for him to receive social media sensitivity training or lose his license to practice medicine... The court declared Dr. Petersonβs activities as harmful to the public and damaging to the profession of psychology, with his statements threatening to erode public trust... ...He has not worked in clinical psychology since 2017,"
Article from August 2023 https://leaders.com/news/public-speaking/jordan-petersons-appeal-denied-requires-training-for-medical-license/
Behind the bastards podcast on JP https://youtu.be/v9zjjj8NP3g?si=_YSIx7AjAH4p-g3O
I don't see it saying anywhere that he has lost his licence or harmed anyone. He doesn't even do clinical work anymore.
Agree he hasn't lost his license yet, as that is currently what is being threatened if he does not comply with the court order. Hasn't actually happened yet, just will if he doesn't.
As for being harmful... I don't know how to spell this out any simpler than the quote so I'll just make it easier to read I guess?
**THE COURT DECLARED DR. PETERSON'S ACTIVITIES AS HARMFUL TO THE PUBLIC AND DAMAGING TO THE PROFESSION OF PSYCHOLOGY **
I'm really not what there is to misunderstand, he is under threat of losing his license because his actions are HARMFUL TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PROFESSION OF PSYCHOLOGY
First you said that he became popular by "harming people" but the article you linked states; He became famous in 2016 after criticizing Canadian Bill C-16, claiming that the bill would enforce speech codes and harm free speech.
Then you implied he lost his license to practise clinical psychology which also has not happened (atleast yet)
Now you're saying that posting controversial comments on social media is "harmful to the public"
"The complaints against him include making "misleading" statements about COVID-19; mocking a plus-size Sports Illustrated model; and calling a surgeon a "criminal" for removing the breasts of transgender actress Ellen Page."
Source
So while I don't disagree that saying stupid shit on social media can potentially be harmful to some individuals that is still not in any way unique behaviour to JP so considering the original argument I still disagree with the claim that the world would be a better place without him. He's like Elon Musk; people don't like him as a person so they're actively looking for the most insignificant faults in his behaviour and then act like he's some horrible human being. It's recreational outrage pure and simple.
It's been two people bud. Other guy took over for me and I don't see a need to repeat the information, he did a better job than what I would've done.
Your statement is correct in he became popular because of his voice on C-16.
Listen I don't care to spell out every detail on why his statements ARE harassment. I don't feel like you care to listen. That's fine, no one expects you to be superman. It's okay to not be right sometimes. You don't have to change, you'll just be left behind. Good luck gamer.
The other guy is on my block list so it's only you I'm hearing from. Ad hominem also isn't changing anyone's mind. Making this about me is just wasting both of our time.
You do realize blocking people on here only deafens the blocker to them, right?
What's your point? What else would blocking be for than to stop me from seeing messages from the people I've blocked?
Just from how you worded it, you sounded like you put them aside is all. Many people don't know that blocking on here isn't what they're used to. Not that I think either one is in the best spirit of discussion.
My capacity to pay attention to things is limited so I prefer to not waste it on stuff that isn't important or interesting. When an user demonstrates incapability for civil discussion I choose to dismiss them entirely. I'm perfectly aware that by doing so I'm also filtering out a ton of potentially valuable content but I simply don't care because there's an effectively infinite amount of it.
Just young men?
Mostly young men. That's his audience.
There is a certain reason I ask that, this empowerment comes off as weaponization.
Care to elaborate on this? I've listened probably 20 hours of him talking but I don't remember him saying anything like this. To me his core message seems to be that stop blaming the world for your issues and instead look in the mirror and sort your own life out first. He even became famous as the "clean your own room before you go out fixing the world" dude.
I said that euphemistically, but he's quite famous for his teachings regarding the community known as incels which he describes as having been failed by society, mentioning his notion that they would be satisfied if society was built according to ideal conditions, which implies what they want should be a given, with incels being predominantly men, most of whom are self-convinced into thinking their situation is more than happenstance and almost never based on their own prior social conduct.
The belief in inherent entitlements and obligations, especially when they're not even balanced, is the biggest reason society has succumbed so hard in the first place, which he even says when it doesn't involve the interests of his target audience, yet in any discussion on sexuality, including asexuality, which his dismissal of is feeding into some of how we're treated in the world, you'll find him bringing up this train of thought.
The quote you linked is not from Jordan Peterson but a random twitter user called "TYL80737692"
If you want to know JP's thought on incels you can look it up and hear it from the man himself rather than look for someone to intrepret it for you and add their own spin to it.
From the comments of the first video: "It's ironic that mainstream media slandered Jordan Peterson as "King of the incels" when he routinely tells men that if women don't find them attractive - it's not the women's fault - but men's fault, and it's each man's responsibility to fix it."
I did, and I'm who I linked to on Twitter (forgot Twitter replies are often unattainable). The comment on the first video goes against his own words in other parts of his wisdom. You don't have to even be politically aligned against him to gather that it's a populist game, he is the Dr. Phil or Supernanny of politics.