Jordan Peterson is toxic piece of shit who takes individualism to an extreme. 12 rules is common sense BS that any dime store psychologist/philosopher could tell you. He uses these simple rules to promote his extremist biological deterministic views. He throws in psychological buzz words that anyone can learn in a Psych 101 class to make his arguments sound “reasoned and solid”… but he’s really just spouting the same bullshit other Men’s Rights advocates do. I’m not going to pick apart every one of his points. Psychology today has a good write up on why this book is propaganda thinly disguised as “self-help” if you actually care to understand why he raises people’s hackles.
It doesn’t help that the “Liberal” hacks in the media fall for his tactics. Using circular logic and other logical fallacies, he basically baits people into over-reacting. All the while he sits there all smug and “calm” and his sycophantic legions point to that as proof of the superiority of his ideas. It’s actually kind of masterful and he is very slick and polished. So people who don’t apply critical thought can easily be drawn in by his seemingly logical ideas. But any amount of scrutiny will cause the house of cards to come tumbling down.
That’s a very technical argument. They have essentially decided not to carry his work on political grounds which is censorship.
Tommy Robinson, cunt though he is, is banned from Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, demonitised on YouTube, and had his website closed. Of course, he is free to sell his books and promote himself elsewhere, i.e. nowhere. It is censorship.
He makes some good and interesting points. His conclusions are fucking woeful.
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
His book is not being suppressed. Anyone can sell it, freely. Any can refuse to sell it, freely. It’s just not censorship, technically or not.
I get the sense that you’re responding to me without understanding the context.
He said that if someone doesn’t accept that their child wants to “transit” then they are guilty of child abuse. He was asked for evidence of this, and he provided a document of advice and guidance produced by a particular teachers union.
I am not well versed with all of his works so I am not gonna pretend to know any better to argue. Just like to mention that I appreciate the detailed response
I originally flippantly responded that “it’s not”… This is not correct. That bakery broke the law of the state of Colorado an anti-discrimination law to prevent things like Jim Crow from coming back. They actively refused a service to people based on a protected status, sexuality. You can argue against the law all you want. but it’s on the books and they broke it.
Anyway, that’s beside the point. You’re making a false equivalency and I think you know that.
Maybe so.
I believe if you go about being okay with discouraging a literature based on simply because you disagree with what he says; then you open up a whole can of worms.
What if major outlets are owned by conservatives and they decide to discourage liberal literature, artwork and media?
Unless there is legitimate rules broken or hate crime induced by said book or movie or whatever; you shouldn’t discourage books.
Even market terms like said books doesn’t make enough money for me is much better stance.
You really need to learn about logical fallacies. Look up the slippery slope fallacy please. I’m not your debate coach and I’m not going to take the time to teach people how to argue logically.
Once again, learn about logical fallacies. And personally I’d have no problem with it, that’s their choice and I will defend that choice.
Who’s discouraging books? No one is arguing that his books shouldn’t sold. I’m arguing for the rights of the bookstore to refuse to sell a book. Any book. I don’t want the government dictating what a store can and can’t sell. That’s their right.
Are you sure about that definition?
Oxford dictionary: 1
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Bookshops easily carry work far worse than Peterson’s - a self help manual for men, so unless it purges it’s entire right wing content then it looks - and probably is - a highly dubious act. Not only that, but I would imagine that no one is going to not get radicalised by pulling it, but I can easily imagine some nutters taking this as another example of conspiracy. Now Peterson can go all over TV and talk about how he is banned for simply wanting to help white men. Pulling the book is both dumb and cynical in my view. Of course, you only questioned the censorship bit so that isn’t directed at you personally.
The thing is, some of these incel bastards need that basic self help.
It’s much more positive for everybody that they’re learning how important it is to tidy their rooms from him than learn how to put rohypnol in some girls drink or how to shoot up a school.
If he can get through to that kind of group, then great imo.
I have a strong feeling that you watch Jordan Peterson’s arguments, shout logical fallacies and go about your life.
It’s your ‘finger in ear’ equivalent.
No wonder why you have such a blanket dislike towards the guy.
That is the best message for current generation.
This generation is heavily educated to delegate the blame outwards.
Masses being educated to take responsibility & carve their life on their own is a great message
