Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie

[Retireatee1]

This entire thread was worth it for that parody video, lost_in_the_endless_aisle

Yeah that was great!

[Margie]

I am kind of surprised that people here would dislike everything a person says and be proud of it.  Seems very short sighted. 

I have watched a lot of JP because I have teenagers and young men in my life and some of them do resonate a bit with him.  I wanted to be able to have reasonable conversations about it with them.

I love that he always tells people to be the best they can be.  His "start with cleaning your room" speech was a very easy way for them to think about it.  Clean up your life makes sense.  Get yourself focused, etc.

We have been focusing so much on 'girl power' that we have made some boys feel cast aside.  Take a look at your local elementary school it is a pink ghetto.  We would never allow it to be full of all male teachers but we seem OK with the opposite. 

Anyhow, I do not agree 100% with what JP says but I usually go away thinking a bit more about a topic.   However, I also don't get up in arms about someone who has a different opinion then mine; rather I usually find those people the most interesting because I am forced to consider their thought. 

[MudPuppy]

pink ghetto

Can you elaborate about this? Specifically the word ghetto in this context?

[Metalcat]

I am kind of surprised that people here would dislike everything a person says and be proud of it.  Seems very short sighted. 

I have watched a lot of JP because I have teenagers and young men in my life and some of them do resonate a bit with him.  I wanted to be able to have reasonable conversations about it with them.

I love that he always tells people to be the best they can be.  His "start with cleaning your room" speech was a very easy way for them to think about it.  Clean up your life makes sense.  Get yourself focused, etc.

We have been focusing so much on 'girl power' that we have made some boys feel cast aside.  Take a look at your local elementary school it is a pink ghetto.  We would never allow it to be full of all male teachers but we seem OK with the opposite. 

Anyhow, I do not agree 100% with what JP says but I usually go away thinking a bit more about a topic.   However, I also don't get up in arms about someone who has a different opinion then mine; rather I usually find those people the most interesting because I am forced to consider their thought.

There's a difference between believing that someone is fundamentally morally reprehensible and wanting nothing to do with them and insisting that every single thing they've ever said is wrong.

Some of the most loathesome people in the world have said correct, intelligent, or insightful things at some point, but that doesn't mean that you have to want to listen to them to have any respect for them.

I, for one, want nothing to do with promoting or supporting Peterson. So no, I have no interest in seeking out the things he's said that might sound reasonable to me. Not when there is a GIANT world of wisdom from people I can actually respect out there. I don't need to further the fame and financial success of someone who I find morally repugnant.

And I *do* seek out to understand opposing opinions and perspectives, but when I come across something that makes my skin crawl and makes me feel ill, that's it, I'm done with wanting to understand that person anymore, especially someone who spouts as much intensely frustrating gibberish as Peterson does.

Also, not in response to you, but to the pp who said that people can get along despite differing positions. I totally agree with this, most of my closest professional friends have opposing political opinions to mine, but you bet your ass I am NOT and NEVER WILL BE friends with people who hold positions and opinions that I feel are morally repugnant and actively dangerous to vulnerable populations.

In my opinion, that's called having moral integrity.

[Margie]

pink ghetto

Can you elaborate about this? Specifically the word ghetto in this context?

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have said ghetto...I used to work in health care and the ladies were always referring to it as that!   I just meant it is almost all female for the most part.  I really think schools should have a good mix of teachers; men, women, all races etc.  It is so feminine now it is not a good representation of society.   High school seems to be a much better mix.

Anyhow, didn't mean it as an insult.  Sorry if I caused any offence. 

[MudPuppy]

I see what you are saying, but I think there’s more to the story than just a gaggle of women. I think it’s interesting that pink collar jobs like nursing and teaching are notoriously underpaid and employers/society use the “caring” aspect of the job as a tool to manipulate those in those jobs. Would the pay and manipulation be there if the jobs were at least (number pulled from my ass) a 40/60 split?

[LetsRetireYoung]

The youtube comments on Peterson's video are interesting. (Here is the link again so you don't have to go all the way back to the 1st page. :) ) Some people are pro, many are against. The little life stories they post are very interesting... I feel so terrible for the guy that got diagnosed with leukemia at age 58. :(

Setting aside my personal dislike for Peterson, I disagree with his cartoonishly simple views on retirement. What he described might (and that's a big "might") be true for the stereotypical expats (usually men) that move to Thailand and spend all their time drinking cheap booze. Even then, we don't know all the details about their lives. Maybe they write music at night, who knows? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There are so very, very many different flavours of early retirement... His argument is a straw man, since he paints all of us early retirees with a very broad brush. In particular, his comments about fighting with your family after spending more time with them - that sure sounded like he was projecting. O_o

Personally, I've retired 6 months ago, and I'm loving it. :) The very notion of sleeping as much as you want every night, without any alarm clocks... That is amazing. It's free but it feels positively luxurious. Right now, I'm focused on writing, while also slowly working my way through all the books/movies/shows/games I never had time for. (Yes, there is an actual list. :P ) In 9.5 months, I'll join a giant community service organization that requires 12 months of residency first, and that'll be a great adventure. In a couple of years, I'll become a snowbird, spending 6 months per year in fun foreign countries, and that'll be a blast! I do not anticipate ever becoming so bored that I'll turn into a Petersonian carricature...

As the saying goes, "Only the boring are bored."

Jordan Peterson says a lot of shit.

ETA: I'm also really sick of wealthy middle aged white men in positions of significant power and autonomy, who do high level, highly influential work that garners enormous respect and dignity dictating to people that they should want to keep working their shitty, abusive, dehumanizing jobs where they have very little power over their own day to day existence.

Seriously, fuck right the fuck off with that noise.

Not sure anyone could have said it better. These are my exact thoughts on him as well

+1!

[Tinker]

I don't think most of us would consider somebody who does nothing but drink on a tropical beach all day a model retiree. 

without a mutual understanding of what retirement entails, discussing it's merits and pitfalls seems futile

Wow, just reading the wiki page on him. His views on masculinity and chaos being associated with feminism are pretty messed up.

pretty sure he didn't write that wiki page representing his supposed views

[Metalcat]

I don't think most of us would consider somebody who does nothing but drink on a tropical beach all day a model retiree. 

without a mutual understanding of what retirement entails, discussing it's merits and pitfalls seems futile

Wow, just reading the wiki page on him. His views on masculinity and chaos being associated with feminism are pretty messed up.

pretty sure he didn't write that wiki page representing his supposed views

Maybe not, but his views said by his own mouth and written by his own hand tend to be viewed as pretty heinous by many. So it's not like he's an uncontroversial figure when representing himself.

[Tinker]

Jordan Peterson was on Joe Rogan's podcast recently discussing the fantasy of retirement. 

Circling back to original post: i believe the most recent podcast would be from 2018.

[mm1970]

pink ghetto

Can you elaborate about this? Specifically the word ghetto in this context?

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have said ghetto...I used to work in health care and the ladies were always referring to it as that!   I just meant it is almost all female for the most part.  I really think schools should have a good mix of teachers; men, women, all races etc.  It is so feminine now it is not a good representation of society.   High school seems to be a much better mix.

Anyhow, didn't mean it as an insult.  Sorry if I caused any offence.

I see what you are saying, but I think there’s more to the story than just a gaggle of women. I think it’s interesting that pink collar jobs like nursing and teaching are notoriously underpaid and employers/society use the “caring” aspect of the job as a tool to manipulate those in those jobs. Would the pay and manipulation be there if the jobs were at least (number pulled from my ass) a 40/60 split?

Yeah, our elementary school has 10-15% male teachers (basically, 3), and a male principal.

However, this appears to be a result of the fact that elementary teachers get paid less.

I do not think it is intentional on the side of the schools or the districts.

(Junior high and high school are much closer to 50/50.)

[StarBright]

I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.

It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.

Yeah, someone snipped a section from a rambling podcast and slapped a silly title on it. This isn't really an argument about retirement at all.

He's basically saying that if you are seeking greater satisfaction in life you're more likely to find it by engaging in worthwhile tasks on behalf of the people around you rather than by simply sipping drinks in a trouble-free paradise. The latter is great once in a while but as a lifestyle it's likely a false utopia. Not sure this would be particularly controversial if it wasn't Jordan Peterson saying it.

Agreed. Also, if you're the type to FIRE, how long can you really sit on a beach?

I volunteer as tribute!

[Metalcat]

I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.

It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.

Yeah, someone snipped a section from a rambling podcast and slapped a silly title on it. This isn't really an argument about retirement at all.

He's basically saying that if you are seeking greater satisfaction in life you're more likely to find it by engaging in worthwhile tasks on behalf of the people around you rather than by simply sipping drinks in a trouble-free paradise. The latter is great once in a while but as a lifestyle it's likely a false utopia. Not sure this would be particularly controversial if it wasn't Jordan Peterson saying it.

Agreed. Also, if you're the type to FIRE, how long can you really sit on a beach?

I volunteer as tribute!

I'm not great at sitting on a beach, but if I could still walk, then I can kill A LOT of time walking along the water and listening to audiobooks.

[TempusFugit]

I've read his two latest books (Twelve Rules and Beyond Order) and I found what I think are some pretty good ideas within. I don't necessarily agree with (or understand) everything he says, but that's ok. I don't understand and agree with everything anyone else thinks, either. 

Sorry that his views on some topics seem to be so repulsive to some folks. It strikes me as a bit over-reactive when people call him a repulsive human being, morally reprehensible, etc.  Hey, maybe he is, I don't know the guy, but I'm not sure what you saw or read that takes you to that conclusion about someone you don't personally know either. 

I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice.  It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone. 

His thoughts on retirement as taken from that interview are, I think, quite accurate.  Maybe most if not all of us think "well, duh", but just as with financial advice, there are a lot of people who need the 'obvious' stuff pointed out. 

Of course I haven't read all of the literature and just like almost everyone else I have to defer to authority on lots of things in fields in which I certainly have no expertise.  It seems reasonable when he makes the case that human happiness is highly correlated with having some meaningful 'purpose' in our lives. Maybe that's our work, maybe it's something else, but for the vast majority of people it isn't sitting on the beach every day. Is his example simplistic, sure. Sometimes to make a point people use an extreme example.  I'm sure there are people who really do picture their retirement like that, just like there are people who think the key to financial security is to hit the lotto numbers.   

His writings on social hierarchies is reasonable, in my view.  This relates to his rejection of equity of outcome as either a desirable or achievable goal.  People are not born with equal strengths or desires.  His writing regarding the culture of grievances is equally logical, in my view.  There comes a point of absurdity when you follow it to a logical conclusion where virtually everyone is in some sub-sub-category of 'oppressed' or 'marginalized' and we're just all at each other's throats all of the time seeking payback for our oppression. 

[Telecaster]

I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice.  It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone. 

JP says lots of things that are obvious and not terribly original.  And that seems to be how he operates.  He says things that everyone agrees with and aren't controversial on any level, and everyone nods their heads and agrees.   Then he moves onto positions that can only be described as crackpot.  His views on atheism for example are just dumb.  There is no other way to describe it.  There's no high level of understanding here.  He just isn't that smart.  He's effective in that he always has an answer in his back pocket, but the his answers take a loooooooong time to explain and aren't very compelling when you boil them down.  At least on more advanced topics.

If I may make a metaphor, on one of his Joe Rogan appearances, he said that he has a diet of 100% beef, and that diet has eliminated his health issues.  But in essence, what he did was an elimination diet, but once he solved his health issues, he didn't start adding foods back in to see what the real culprit is.  In his mind everything "not beef" is the problem, when in reality something(s) other than beef is the problem.  But he doesn't start adding foods back in to see what the real problem is, he's content with his answer that everything not beef is the problem. 

[TempusFugit]

I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice.  It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone. 

JP says lots of things that are obvious and not terribly original.  And that seems to be how he operates.  He says things that everyone agrees with and aren't controversial on any level, and everyone nods their heads and agrees.   Then he moves onto positions that can only be described as crackpot.  His views on atheism for example are just dumb.  There is no other way to describe it.  There's no high level of understanding here.  He just isn't that smart.  He's effective in that he always has an answer in his back pocket, but the his answers take a loooooooong time to explain and aren't very compelling when you boil them down.  At least on more advanced topics.

If I may make a metaphor, on one of his Joe Rogan appearances, he said that he has a diet of 100% beef, and that diet has eliminated his health issues.  But in essence, what he did was an elimination diet, but once he solved his health issues, he didn't start adding foods back in to see what the real culprit is.  In his mind everything "not beef" is the problem, when in reality something(s) other than beef is the problem.  But he doesn't start adding foods back in to see what the real problem is, he's content with his answer that everything not beef is the problem.

Even if your opinions are right, it doesn’t make him a horrible person worthy of the vitriol he seems to get from some quarters.  Its not like he’s out there stomping kittens or something.

[MudPuppy]

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting animal cruelty charges. I’ve so far only read people who don’t want to give any further attention on any platform and one person (me) who wouldn’t rely on him as a sole contributor for an ice cream decision.

[Metalcat]

I've read his two latest books (Twelve Rules and Beyond Order) and I found what I think are some pretty good ideas within. I don't necessarily agree with (or understand) everything he says, but that's ok. I don't understand and agree with everything anyone else thinks, either. 

Sorry that his views on some topics seem to be so repulsive to some folks. It strikes me as a bit over-reactive when people call him a repulsive human being, morally reprehensible, etc.  Hey, maybe he is, I don't know the guy, but I'm not sure what you saw or read that takes you to that conclusion about someone you don't personally know either. 

I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice.  It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone. 

His thoughts on retirement as taken from that interview are, I think, quite accurate.  Maybe most if not all of us think "well, duh", but just as with financial advice, there are a lot of people who need the 'obvious' stuff pointed out. 

Of course I haven't read all of the literature and just like almost everyone else I have to defer to authority on lots of things in fields in which I certainly have no expertise.  It seems reasonable when he makes the case that human happiness is highly correlated with having some meaningful 'purpose' in our lives. Maybe that's our work, maybe it's something else, but for the vast majority of people it isn't sitting on the beach every day. Is his example simplistic, sure. Sometimes to make a point people use an extreme example.  I'm sure there are people who really do picture their retirement like that, just like there are people who think the key to financial security is to hit the lotto numbers.   

His writings on social hierarchies is reasonable, in my view.  This relates to his rejection of equity of outcome as either a desirable or achievable goal.  People are not born with equal strengths or desires.  His writing regarding the culture of grievances is equally logical, in my view.  There comes a point of absurdity when you follow it to a logical conclusion where virtually everyone is in some sub-sub-category of 'oppressed' or 'marginalized' and we're just all at each other's throats all of the time seeking payback for our oppression.

If you don't know why some of us find Peterson morally reprehensible, then either you yourself hold opinions that IMO are morally reprehensible, or you aren't aware of the more offensive things he has said, especially about women.

So I don't take kindly to you telling me that I'm over reacting if you don't even know the more controversial positions he holds.

You can't read his most benign work and then say that we're all being ridiculous about the things he says. That's just nonsense.

[StashingAway]

If you don't know why some of us find Peterson morally reprehensible, then either you yourself hold opinions that IMO are morally reprehensible, or you aren't aware of the more offensive things he has said, especially about women.

So I don't take kindly to you telling me that I'm over reacting if you don't even know the more controversial positions he holds.

You can't read his most benign work and then say that we're all being ridiculous about the things he says. That's just nonsense.

OR, you possibly have been presented with an inverted summary of his views. It's quite easy for the internet to quote Peterson and misrepresent his opinions, which happens more than not. I, have not seen anything he's said about trans people as particularly malicious. He hasn't said particularly much about the subject, other than that preferred pronouns were the vehicle for compelled speech that he was worried about (turns out he stood on a hill that didn't exist, but that's another subject)

I am completely open to be proven wrong. I welcome the learning experience in good faith conversation. I've mis-read situations like this before.

I don't particularly like Peterson- his philosophy doesn't make any sense to me and is too melodramatic, although he does present some interesting conversation when in "clinician" mode. But my (anecdotal, perhaps naive) perception is that people who have a particularly seething vitriol toward him have had that view curated for intentionally by dishonest sources.

[MudPuppy]

I would not presume that she made her opinions based on second or third hand sources, much less disreputable ones. It’s not like his videos aren’t littering youtube.

[Metalcat]

If you don't know why some of us find Peterson morally reprehensible, then either you yourself hold opinions that IMO are morally reprehensible, or you aren't aware of the more offensive things he has said, especially about women.

So I don't take kindly to you telling me that I'm over reacting if you don't even know the more controversial positions he holds.

You can't read his most benign work and then say that we're all being ridiculous about the things he says. That's just nonsense.

OR, you possibly have been presented with an inverted summary of his views. It's quite easy for the internet to quote Peterson and misrepresent his opinions, which happens more than not. I, have not seen anything he's said about trans people as particularly malicious. He hasn't said particularly much about the subject, other than that preferred pronouns were the vehicle for compelled speech that he was worried about (turns out he stood on a hill that didn't exist, but that's another subject)

I am completely open to be proven wrong. I welcome the learning experience in good faith conversation. I've mis-read situations like this before.

I don't particularly like Peterson- his philosophy doesn't make any sense to me and is too melodramatic, although he does present some interesting conversation when in "clinician" mode. But my (anecdotal, perhaps naive) perception is that people who have a particularly seething vitriol toward him have had that view curated for intentionally by dishonest sources.

Interesting assumption. And clearly, you don't know me.

Entirely incorrect in my case. I sought out Peterson's content with no bias against him. I knew nothing about him except that he was a prof at UofT and I saw some quotes from him that actually seemed somewhat interesting and someone had spoken highly of him, so I sought out to see what he had to say.

My disdain for him comes from listening to a lot of what he has to say, himself, which is something I thought I had previously made clear in this thread.

My disdain for Peterson is earned by him and his words.
So as I said, you either hold the same positions as he does, or you haven't heard a lot of his more offensive content.

But no, I don't just pointlessly get offended by people because someone else told me to and cherry picked and twisted their work to portray them as offensive. I have more intellectual integrity than that. I am tremendously rigorous when it comes to concluding that I think someone is fundamentally offensive. I actively seek out to understand the basis of their position and see the other side, only then do I feel comfortable writing someone off as morally offensive.

So maybe you talk to a lot of people who don't engage in intellectual rigour when they take a position of offense to someone's works, but that's not me.

I do not respect Peterson, and I firmly think the world would be better off without him because ANY value he has ever had in any of his messaging is not particularly original, so the world could easily do without him and still get the same benefit, and it would be spared his much more gross bullshit.

I DO NOT think the world is better off for having Peterson's "wisdom" in it.

[StashingAway]

Entirely incorrect in my case. I sought out Peterson's content with no bias against him. I knew nothing about him except that he was a prof at UofT and I saw some quotes from him that actually seemed somewhat interesting and someone had spoken highly of him, so I sought out to see what he had to say.

My disdain for him comes from listening to a lot of what he has to say, himself, which is something I thought I had previously made clear in this thread.

My disdain for Peterson is earned by him and his words.
So as I said, you either hold the same positions as he does, or you haven't heard a lot of his more offensive content.

I only glanced at the thread, I missed this part and missed the level of thought that you have put into your stance on this matter

But no, I don't just pointlessly get offended by people because someone else told me to and cherry picked and twisted their work to portray them as offensive. I have more intellectual integrity than that.
 ...
So maybe you talk to a lot of people who don't engage in intellectual rigour when they take a position of offense to someone's works, but that's not me.

My mistake, and yes, many times people that I converse with misrepresent what he says, which is my baseline assumption. Turns out what they say about assumptions is true for me in this case!

[blue_green_sparks]

So many "influencers" just filling air time for 'likes' these days. JP's college lectures are like 98% pure his opinion. If I was a student I would demand a refund. Oh and Joe please do retire, ASAP. I personally know a minion of yours who now has shredded lungs because of you, Joe. Don't care much for either of those fellas.

[Chris Pascale]

I watched his testimony and never saw him say he doesn't and wouldn't use preferred pronouns . . . instead his objection was to a law that, in his view, compelled speech. Was he being an idiot, doing that? Legal scholars say he was, and that the law change wouldn't actually compel speech. But maybe he's right, and it is a slippery slope?

That somehow launched him into stardom and, because he already had put tons of relatively obscure stuff like splices of his psychology class lectures into the public sphere for people to lap up, a cult-like following. Now he's loaded.

You can dislike him because of some of the conclusions that he draws. That doesn't make every single conclusion he has drawn wrong.

Yeah, in one interview he uses preferred pronouns over what one might use as a default... His position is consistent with being entirely against compelled speech, rather than being against all pronouns contrary to XX or XY genetic disposition. Of course, I don't know every thing that he has said and can't and wouldn't defend all of it. Just know that he will use pronouns by request if not required as part of compelled speech.

I think it was at Harvard - the interviewer was trans, and it was very productive and cordial.

[Chris Pascale]

............JP's college lectures are like 98% pure his opinion...........

The ones I heard (perhaps the ones I was interested in) were covering other people's work - like "The Gulag Archipelago" and this or that psychiatrist. I thought they were interesting.

I didn't find his Biblical lectures very interesting, and disliked "12 Rules for Life." Not because the rules were bad, but he wrote so many words to say so little. One part of the book I remember liking was when he talked about the treatment of his daughter's auto-immune disorder, and how a mistake in administering her meds (I think she was given 10x the prescribed dose) ended up being the right amount, but if I recall correctly, it might not have even been a page of this very thick book.

[Chris Pascale]

Agreed. Also, if you're the type to FIRE, how long can you really sit on a beach?

I volunteer as tribute!

I'm not great at sitting on a beach, but if I could still walk, then I can kill A LOT of time walking along the water and listening to audiobooks.

Clock starts......NOW!

[Telecaster]

Not because the rules were bad, but he wrote so many words to say so little. One part of the book I remember liking was when he talked about the treatment of his daughter's auto-immune disorder, and how a mistake in administering her meds (I think she was given 10x the prescribed dose) ended up being the right amount, but if I recall correctly, it might not have even been a page of this very thick book.

I haven't read his books, but I feel like his talks have the same problem.  Witness the video in the first post.  Basically, he says that it is good to have purpose and focus in retirement.  That's non-controversial and should take about 12 seconds to state.  Eight minutes later he's still droning on...

[TempusFugit]

Not because the rules were bad, but he wrote so many words to say so little. One part of the book I remember liking was when he talked about the treatment of his daughter's auto-immune disorder, and how a mistake in administering her meds (I think she was given 10x the prescribed dose) ended up being the right amount, but if I recall correctly, it might not have even been a page of this very thick book.

I haven't read his books, but I feel like his talks have the same problem.  Witness the video in the first post.  Basically, he says that it is good to have purpose and focus in retirement.  That's non-controversial and should take about 12 seconds to state.  Eight minutes later he's still droning on...

Um, have you seen some of the threads on this forum?   How many thousands of posts should it take to cover the 4% rule? 

[StarBright]

I had never heard of Peterson until my MIL sent me a video called something like "motherhood vs career: women are being lied to" and it was condescending and slippery and ultimately offensive to me as a mother and woman who works . I watched a few more videos as she sent them and then read most of 12 Rules when she bought it for me for Christmas.

Peterson seems to be really good at making sure he isn't quotable when it comes to sexism or anti-LGBTQA stuff so he can say "I never said that." But then he implies it all day long.

For instance- in the very first video my MIL sent me he says that young women are taught that their careers will be the primary purpose of their life, and "that is a lie." The entire video is motherhood vs. career, so if it is a lie that Career is the purpose for women, then obviously, per the parameters of the video then the "truth" is that Motherhood is the purpose.

But Peterson defenders will also say that Peterson is on the record as saying he doesn't believe that women should only be housewives/mothers. (I've looked for him saying this and can't find it, I can't only find other people saying that Peterson is on record as saying it.)

I mean, the sub-title of his major best-seller is "an antidote to chaos" and chaos is associated with all things female/feminine.

At best, Peterson is someone who wants to uphold the status quo.

Forgive some of us if we don't want to read more of that to find the "good points". 

[ncornilsen]

I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice.  It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone. 

JP says lots of things that are obvious and not terribly original.  And that seems to be how he operates.  He says things that everyone agrees with and aren't controversial on any level, and everyone nods their heads and agrees.   Then he moves onto positions that can only be described as crackpot.  His views on atheism for example are just dumb.  There is no other way to describe it.  There's no high level of understanding here.  He just isn't that smart.  He's effective in that he always has an answer in his back pocket, but the his answers take a loooooooong time to explain and aren't very compelling when you boil them down.  At least on more advanced topics.

If I may make a metaphor, on one of his Joe Rogan appearances, he said that he has a diet of 100% beef, and that diet has eliminated his health issues.  But in essence, what he did was an elimination diet, but once he solved his health issues, he didn't start adding foods back in to see what the real culprit is.  In his mind everything "not beef" is the problem, when in reality something(s) other than beef is the problem.  But he doesn't start adding foods back in to see what the real problem is, he's content with his answer that everything not beef is the problem.

Even if your opinions are right, it doesn’t make him a horrible person worthy of the vitriol he seems to get from some quarters.  Its not like he’s out there stomping kittens or something.

If JP can insist that it his free speech and intellectual freedom right to use the wrong pronouns for people, no matter how rude, dehumanizing or insulting doing so may be, then I don't see why he or any of his defenders have any ground to stand on to object to people using whatever vitriol they see fit to describe him, that being their free speech and intellectual freedom right.

I don't think Peterson would have any issue with what you state at all... his entire argument against the pronouns thing was about a Canadian law that would have eliminated the free speech and intellectual freedom right by making it a crime to misuse pronouns. IE, compelling speech... which should clearly concern anyone who values free speech.

[Metalcat]

I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice.  It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone. 

JP says lots of things that are obvious and not terribly original.  And that seems to be how he operates.  He says things that everyone agrees with and aren't controversial on any level, and everyone nods their heads and agrees.   Then he moves onto positions that can only be described as crackpot.  His views on atheism for example are just dumb.  There is no other way to describe it.  There's no high level of understanding here.  He just isn't that smart.  He's effective in that he always has an answer in his back pocket, but the his answers take a loooooooong time to explain and aren't very compelling when you boil them down.  At least on more advanced topics.

If I may make a metaphor, on one of his Joe Rogan appearances, he said that he has a diet of 100% beef, and that diet has eliminated his health issues.  But in essence, what he did was an elimination diet, but once he solved his health issues, he didn't start adding foods back in to see what the real culprit is.  In his mind everything "not beef" is the problem, when in reality something(s) other than beef is the problem.  But he doesn't start adding foods back in to see what the real problem is, he's content with his answer that everything not beef is the problem.

Even if your opinions are right, it doesn’t make him a horrible person worthy of the vitriol he seems to get from some quarters.  Its not like he’s out there stomping kittens or something.

If JP can insist that it his free speech and intellectual freedom right to use the wrong pronouns for people, no matter how rude, dehumanizing or insulting doing so may be, then I don't see why he or any of his defenders have any ground to stand on to object to people using whatever vitriol they see fit to describe him, that being their free speech and intellectual freedom right.

I don't think Peterson would have any issue with what you state at all... his entire argument against the pronouns thing was about a Canadian law that would have eliminated the free speech and intellectual freedom right by making it a crime to misuse pronouns. IE, compelling speech... which should clearly concern anyone who values free speech.

Uh, except that the bill never actually involved any of the limitations on free speech that Peterson was arguing against. The bill is about not discriminating against people on the basis of them being trans.

His entire argument was that if we allow there to be laws protecting trans people from discrimination, then it's a slippery slope towards it becoming illegal to deny them their preferred pronouns, which is a HUGE legal stretch.

But when pushed he says he's not anti trans, and also that he's not against laws that protect trans people? So what is he actually against? Well that's not really clear. But he's totally against being forced to use pronouns that he doesn't want to use. But no one is trying to force him to...so I guess it's a non issue??

What is he actually fighting against in the first place? Wait, who really knows because it's Peterson and he talks in fucking circles.

It would be A LOT like if there was a society and Jews moved in and wanted to be able to practice circumcisions, and some academic started screaming "I don't want my dick cut off!"

Well, the argument that it's bad to cut off dicks is a very valid argument, but the Jews were never trying to cut off anyone's dick, much less this random non-Jewish professor, they just wanted to protect their right to circumcise their children. Because, let's say every time they have a briss, anti-Semites get viciously beat and often kill at least one Jew. So they lobby for a law to make it clear that they are entitled to practice their traditions, and exist without being discriminated against, because the violence has gotten out of control.

So the Jews and Jew-supporters start calling the professor anti-Semitic because he's opposing a law that would allow the Jews to practice their culture more safely, but the prof keeps ranting that he's not at all anti-Semitic, he just believes that circumcision is a slippery slope to HIM and OTHERS being forced to have their dicks cut off. That's not anti-Semitic, that's just reasonable and you are the fucking crazy person for not seeing that. THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR DICKS.

So then all of the people who don't really get Jewish culture or already hate Jews jump on the bandwagon of saying that it's perfectly reasonable not to want your dick cut off, and talk down to the people supporting the circumcision rights saying "how could you think he's an asshole, everything he's saying about cutting dicks off makes perfect to *me*, I don't want my dick cut off and I DO NOT trust the left not to take my balls as well"

Because yes, being an activist against cutting dicks off DOES make perfect sense. But what doesn't make sense is trying to bar Jews from performing circumcisions, and fomenting hatred towards them, because a blathering academic has decided to equate anti-discrimination policies with forced chopping off of gentile dicks, even though that's not even a thing.

All the while he's pugnaciously insisting that he's not and never has ever been anti-Semitic, because in his mind, he isn't.

If Peterson wants to protest a future law that forces him to use pronouns he doesn't want to use, then sure, I think any law like that that comes up should be debated by everyone. But until that day, he isn't opposing limits on free speech, and it's worth looking at exactly it was that he was ACTUALLY opposing to ferociously.

It's one thing to say that you're opposed to having your dick cut off, it's another thing to oppose the right of a group not to be discriminated against.

And that's where being a slippery fuck who talks in circles is so useful for him. He can say really offensive things and bury it under a pile of nonsense so that it no longer can be parsed into its offensive pieces, or be argued with effectively.

[Tinker]

Uh, except that the bill never actually involved any of the limitations on free speech that Peterson was arguing against. The bill is about not discriminating against people on the basis of them being trans.

His entire argument was that if we allow there to be laws protecting trans people from discrimination, then it's a slippery slope towards it becoming illegal to deny them their preferred pronouns, which is a HUGE legal stretch.

without going to the original source, just wikipedia:

According to legal experts, including law professors Brenda Cossman of the University of Toronto and Kyle Kirkup of the University of Ottawa, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.[16][17][18]

According to Cossman, accidental misuse of a pronoun would be unlikely to constitute discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but "repeatedly, consistently refus[ing] to use a person’s chosen pronoun" might.[19] Commercial litigator Jared Brown said that imprisonment would be possible if a complaint were made to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

[MudPuppy]

Since language is fluid, how does this cause any meaningful distress for anyone?

[Metalcat]

Uh, except that the bill never actually involved any of the limitations on free speech that Peterson was arguing against. The bill is about not discriminating against people on the basis of them being trans.

His entire argument was that if we allow there to be laws protecting trans people from discrimination, then it's a slippery slope towards it becoming illegal to deny them their preferred pronouns, which is a HUGE legal stretch.

without going to the original source, just wikipedia:

According to legal experts, including law professors Brenda Cossman of the University of Toronto and Kyle Kirkup of the University of Ottawa, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.[16][17][18]

According to Cossman, accidental misuse of a pronoun would be unlikely to constitute discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but "repeatedly, consistently refus[ing] to use a person’s chosen pronoun" might.[19] Commercial litigator Jared Brown said that imprisonment would be possible if a complaint were made to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

Oh good grief. The burden to prove a hate crime and discrimination is so high. It's not just a matter of using pronouns, it would have to be that the person was going out of their way to use the wrong pronouns with the purpose of being discriminatory and/or abusive to that person.

So yeah, if Peterson sat a trans man down in his class in front of everyone and started screaming "this is a woman! And SHE will be called a woman in this class because SHE was born a woman and God intended HER to be a woman, so I don't care what surgery SHE has or what pronouns SHE prefers, I will not be grading HER papers or allowing HER to attend MY class until SHE shapes up and starts taking MY class and HERSELF seriously"

Yeah, that would be discrimination and a crime because in Canada we don't have the same free speech that the US does. We already criminalize hate speech, so this isn't the level encroachment on freedom that Americans think it is. There are already TONS of things you can't say in Canada. We've just added trans people to the protected list, because they're actually more at risk of violence than most of the protected groups.

That said, he still wouldn't go to jail, he would likely be mandated to take some cultural sensitivity courses.

But we don't have people being casually convicted of hate crimes, so yet again, this is a non issue, and Peterson is at no risk of being imprisoned for using the wrong pronouns unless he is demonstrably, provably discriminatory and anti-trans.

[nereo]

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

In addition to what Malcat said:  I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.

[Kris]

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

In addition to what Malcat said:  I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

[StashingAway]

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

I need you to call me Jane on Mondays, Mary on Tuesdays, and Sir the rest of the week. Except during the solstice, then I need to be called God-Queen. If you don't cater to that, then it's you that's being offensive. Don't worry, though, I'll get major institutions, colleges and job postings to list these as options so that everyone knows exactly what level of protected social group I am in (and should help their hiring practices as well!)

The issue is that the burden is starting to become external for much of the people demanding it. I don't mind calling anyone he/she/them/it, but I do find it tedious when I'm expected to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of pronoun development. I just want to plant my tomatoes in the spring, try to learn more about my career, volunteer at habitat for humanity. Now I'm becoming worried about being doxxed for slipping in the wrong speech just because I don't even really care what pronoun people are called. It genuinely doesn't interest me.

On an individual level I do my honest best to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted.

[Tinker]

Oh good grief. The burden to prove a hate crime and discrimination is so high.

maybe in the 90s
it doesn't even matter if you're found guilt of anything, the moment you are accused publicly you have an anonymous mob digging for your facebook posts from 2005, sending threats to your family and spamming your employer

[Kris]

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

I need you to call me Jane on Mondays, Mary on Tuesdays, and Sir the rest of the week. Except during the solstice, then I need to be called God-Queen. If you don't cater to that, then it's you that's being offensive. Don't worry, though, I'll get major institutions, colleges and job postings to list these as options so that everyone knows exactly what level of protected social group I am in (and should help their hiring practices as well!)

The issue is that the burden is starting to become external for much of the people demanding it. I don't mind calling anyone he/she/them/it, but I do find it tedious when I'm expected to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of pronoun development. I just want to plant my tomatoes in the spring, try to learn more about my career, volunteer at habitat for humanity. Now I'm becoming worried about being doxxed for slipping in the wrong speech just because I don't even really care what pronoun people are called. It genuinely doesn't interest me.

On an individual level I do my honest best to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted.

LOL. That is quite a lot of straw men you packed into that post.

[StashingAway]

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

I need you to call me Jane on Mondays, Mary on Tuesdays, and Sir the rest of the week. Except during the solstice, then I need to be called God-Queen. If you don't cater to that, then it's you that's being offensive. Don't worry, though, I'll get major institutions, colleges and job postings to list these as options so that everyone knows exactly what level of protected social group I am in (and should help their hiring practices as well!)

The issue is that the burden is starting to become external for much of the people demanding it. I don't mind calling anyone he/she/them/it, but I do find it tedious when I'm expected to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of pronoun development. I just want to plant my tomatoes in the spring, try to learn more about my career, volunteer at habitat for humanity. Now I'm becoming worried about being doxxed for slipping in the wrong speech just because I don't even really care what pronoun people are called. It genuinely doesn't interest me.

On an individual level I do my honest best to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted.

LOL. That is quite a lot of straw men you packed into that post.

You may think so, wouldn't you!? years ago i would have said the same

I'm applying for jobs right now. Most of them ask for pronoun/race/nationality/vet status/ect. I have to fill out form after form of non-job related information that makes me a less qualified candidate. Forget my performance, education, temperament, etc. Those are second rate items.

It's exhausting. Why does my orientation matter when the job is physics based? Why are we here? I get the sentiment, but at some point it would be easier for me to make or join a protected class than to actually develop my skillset further. I don't want to be bitter- I want the best opportunity for everyone. But at some point all arrows are pointed in weird directions. I don't understand the end goal. It seems to be to divide us all up and rate our level of oppression on a scale.

I will say that the pronoun thing hasn't caused an issue in a face-to-face interaction for me yet (perhaps why you think this is a straw man). But this is having an interesting effect on major institutions, and not very much good dialogue. Particularly because people are dismissing any conversation like the one I'm having as racist/sexist/genderist/colonizer/ whatever.

[maizefolk]

I'm applying for jobs right now. Most of them ask for pronoun/race/nationality/vet status/ect. I have to fill out form after form of non-job related information that makes me a less qualified candidate. Forget my performance, education, temperament, etc. Those are second rate items.

It's exhausting. Why does my orientation matter when the job is physics based? Why are we here? I get the sentiment, but at some point it would be easier for me to make or join a protected class than to actually develop my skillset further. I don't want to be bitter- I want the best opportunity for everyone. But at some point all arrows are pointed in weird directions. I don't understand the end goal. It seems to be to divide us all up and rate our level of oppression on a scale.

I will say that the pronoun thing hasn't caused an issue in a face-to-face interaction for me yet (perhaps why you think this is a straw man). But this is having an interesting effect on major institutions, and not very much good dialogue. Particularly because people are dismissing any conversation like the one I'm having as racist/sexist/genderist/colonizer/ whatever.

Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?

[StashingAway]

Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?

Private sector. But I'm getting a master's right now, so I am seeing quite a bit of the lip service that colleges are giving these days. Much different than 2005 when I was in undergrad.

[maizefolk]

Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?

Private sector. But I'm getting a master's right now, so I am seeing quite a bit of the lip service that colleges are giving these days. Much different than 2005 when I was in undergrad.

Wow. From the way you described it I was guessing you were applying to faculty positions. I am guessing you're still in a field with lots of applicants for each opening? Having done both, the emotional impact of having a whole bunch of boxes you cannot check feels very different in a job where you figure you start out with a 50/50 shot of getting the job vs one where you feel like you start out with a one in one hundred shot and any little imperfection is probably going to knock you out of contention entirely.

Yeah colleges' approaches and the atmosphere on campus have changed a lot in the last 15 years (particularly in the last five or so). But probably not a fruitful line of discussion.

[StashingAway]

Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?

Private sector. But I'm getting a master's right now, so I am seeing quite a bit of the lip service that colleges are giving these days. Much different than 2005 when I was in undergrad.

Wow. From the way you described it I was guessing you were applying to faculty positions. I am guessing you're still in a field with lots of applicants for each opening? Having done both, the emotional impact of having a whole bunch of boxes you cannot check feels very different in a job where you figure you start out with a 50/50 shot of getting the job vs one where you feel like you start out with a one in one hundred shot and any little imperfection is probably going to knock you out of contention entirely.

Yeah colleges' approaches and the atmosphere on campus have changed a lot in the last 15 years (particularly in the last five or so). But probably not a fruitful line of discussion.

It's what caught me off guard the most... it's a technical field. I'd not expected it is turning that stuff that was going on "out there" in imagination land of social media into a very eye opening experience on a personal level.

[Metalcat]

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

I need you to call me Jane on Mondays, Mary on Tuesdays, and Sir the rest of the week. Except during the solstice, then I need to be called God-Queen. If you don't cater to that, then it's you that's being offensive. Don't worry, though, I'll get major institutions, colleges and job postings to list these as options so that everyone knows exactly what level of protected social group I am in (and should help their hiring practices as well!)

The issue is that the burden is starting to become external for much of the people demanding it. I don't mind calling anyone he/she/them/it, but I do find it tedious when I'm expected to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of pronoun development. I just want to plant my tomatoes in the spring, try to learn more about my career, volunteer at habitat for humanity. Now I'm becoming worried about being doxxed for slipping in the wrong speech just because I don't even really care what pronoun people are called. It genuinely doesn't interest me.

On an individual level I do my honest best to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted.

LOL. That is quite a lot of straw men you packed into that post.

You may think so, wouldn't you!? years ago i would have said the same

I'm applying for jobs right now. Most of them ask for pronoun/race/nationality/vet status/ect. I have to fill out form after form of non-job related information that makes me a less qualified candidate. Forget my performance, education, temperament, etc. Those are second rate items.

It's exhausting. Why does my orientation matter when the job is physics based? Why are we here? I get the sentiment, but at some point it would be easier for me to make or join a protected class than to actually develop my skillset further. I don't want to be bitter- I want the best opportunity for everyone. But at some point all arrows are pointed in weird directions. I don't understand the end goal. It seems to be to divide us all up and rate our level of oppression on a scale.

I will say that the pronoun thing hasn't caused an issue in a face-to-face interaction for me yet (perhaps why you think this is a straw man). But this is having an interesting effect on major institutions, and not very much good dialogue. Particularly because people are dismissing any conversation like the one I'm having as racist/sexist/genderist/colonizer/ whatever.

Ah, so this argument has evolved from hate crimes to you taking issue with possible affirmative action that your program may or may not be engaging in, since you haven't actually confirmed that these boxes to check are for affirmative action.

Cool, that helps me understand what your position is.

[MoseyingAlong]

Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?

Private sector. But I'm getting a master's right now, so I am seeing quite a bit of the lip service that colleges are giving these days. Much different than 2005 when I was in undergrad.

Wow. From the way you described it I was guessing you were applying to faculty positions. I am guessing you're still in a field with lots of applicants for each opening? Having done both, the emotional impact of having a whole bunch of boxes you cannot check feels very different in a job where you figure you start out with a 50/50 shot of getting the job vs one where you feel like you start out with a one in one hundred shot and any little imperfection is probably going to knock you out of contention entirely.

Yeah colleges' approaches and the atmosphere on campus have changed a lot in the last 15 years (particularly in the last five or so). But probably not a fruitful line of discussion.

@Stashing Away
As someone who would/will most likely "benefit" from checking several of those boxes, I share your exhaustion. And I wish we could make this a fruitful line of discussion, instead of just shutting it down.

[StashingAway]

Ah, so this argument has evolved from hate crimes to you taking issue with possible affirmative action that your program may or may not be engaging in, since you haven't actually confirmed that these boxes to check are for affirmative action.

Cool, that helps me understand what your position is.

What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose? Honest question.

I believe that you couldn't state my position if your life depended on it. It all gets thrown into that "other" box and dismissed.

[maizefolk]

What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?

The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.

[Kris]

What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?

The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.

Yep. Otherwise known as *the* reason.

[StashingAway]

What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?

The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.

If I could be assured that this is the primary driver, I would be a very happy camper.