R185 That article is fascinating in that the author accuses Peterson of obfuscating in the same manner that academics and postmodernists have been doing for decades. However, instead of drawing from various disciplines, as Peterson does, they will impose their own meaning as a way to deconstruct art and literature from the past in a way that suits their political agenda. Peterson uses historical and social context as a way to enhance his theories.
[quote] It’s very easy to hear the echoes of authoritarianism, even fascism, in this: strong men create order, which is what God intends, and the social structure is preserved by deference to authority, tradition, hierarchy, flags. (Heck, he even talks about the trains running on time!) But the moment one tries to critique this, to talk about the dangers of adhering to flags and traditions for their own sake, Peterson will angrily insist that you have misunderstood his theory: order is symbiotic with chaos, not superior to it! (“Order is not enough.”) The feminine is necessary as well, because chaos is associated with “possibility itself, the source of ideas, the mysterious realm of gestation and birth.”
Peterson has never advocated for a patriarchal system. His view is that both genders need each other and support one another. This view is shared by many social scientists and academics who study human behavior. Both genders are different and both have different ways of dealing with conflict. He doesn't speak in absolute terms because neither one is right or wrong.
[quote] This is the same thing that happens with his discussions of nice guys and cruelty. He’ll say that people who are too nice will get taken advantage of, and talk about the importance of being capable of cruelty, which certainly sounds like it’s encouraging people to be sadistic dicks, but then he’ll insist that actually he’s not talking about being cruel he’s talking about being able to be cruel (you idiot, how could you not see the difference?) and he’s not against nice people, he’s just saying that the weak shall perish.
The nice guys he is talking about are ones who don't face their fears and who avoid conflict.
[quote] When he seems to be saying something fallacious (e.g. hierarchies are okay because natural) he will qualify it with a caveat that means he is saying nothing at all (e.g. natural things are sometimes okay but not always).
This is his endorsement of a capitalist society. You can admit that one system has flaws without endorsing an alternative system that is ultimately more destructive.
[quote] I think it’s worth remembering here what anti-discrimination activists are actually asking for: they want transgender people not to be fired from their jobs for being transgender, not to suffer gratuitously in prisons, to be able to access appropriate healthcare, not to be victimized in hate crimes, and not to be ostracized, evicted, or disdained. Likewise, the social justice claims on race are about: trying to fix the black-white wealth gap, trying to reduce racial discrimination in job applications, trying to reduce race-based health disparities and educational achievement gaps, and reducing the unfair everyday biases that make life harder for people of color.
The author again shows his bias. The author tries to discredit him by saying he has nothing of value to say but doesn't address what Peterson says about racial or gender inequality.
